FutureMark 3DMark06 Benchmark Overview [Now with Download Link]

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: beggerking
what is wrong with FiringSquad.com!

been biased against Nvidia with odd/never seen before benchmarks here

What do you mean biased? If you're talking about Nv cards scoring a big fat 0 in HDR+AA tests, that's because those cards cant do HDR+AA.

thats what i'm talking about.. Comparing Apples vs Oranges.

If one can and the other can't, why compare? why not compare transparency AA, which ATI doesn't have, and give X1800xt a big fat 0? very misleading.

Are you serious? 3DMark is supposed to be an indicator of how well your video card will handle next-gen graphic features. If a particular card simply does not supprt such a feature (or combination of features) it should be noted.

What if someone created a card that was so highly optimized towards a single game, that it wouln't even run any others? Should reviews "hide" this fact and only compare "apples-to-apples," not letting readers know this little tidbit of pertinent information? Of course not.

You've only been here for ~2 days, don't become a sniveling, whining fanboy that quickly.. you need to let it grow.. naturally. :evil:

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Steelski
I am officially depressed, I got 876 with a 9800Pro and a 3200XP......I wish i did not even bother, i get beat by a 6200 because i dont have SM3.0 support.

use 05 test. 9800pro should kill 6200...

 

[Steelski]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: Steelski
I am officially depressed, I got 876 with a 9800Pro and a 3200XP......I wish i did not even bother, i get beat by a 6200 because i dont have SM3.0 support.

use 05 test. 9800pro should kill 6200...

I know. Its just a bit cack.

 

[shimsham]

i got a 2500->3200xp and a modded 6200(8pipes)@400/660 and i only got 724. but it ran smooth as butter and definitely playable. er....


edit: actually that was stock 300/550=724. at 400/660 i get 887.

 

[Ronin]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2826

Run on a stock system, no performance modifications at all (I went ahead and ran all the tests, for grins).

Considering the default res is 1280x1024 now, might be a better comparison at 1024x768.

The score's a bit low for my taste, but the first run is always the one you learn from.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Two things I'd like to point out that several posters don't seem to realize:

(1) Stop complaining that this is the same old benchmarks with new features. HDR & SM3.0 are pretty large changes in the graphics industry; a new benchmark was needed from their perspective. Most people here don't care since they prefer to use games, but from the standpoint of having a standard, easily repeatable benchmark that does use SM3.0 & HDR, this was a quick & easy solution.

(2) NVIDIA may be leading now, but expect both companies to boost nicely in 3DM06 as their drivers are better optimized for it.

That is all.

 

[MBrown]

:thumbsup:

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: beggerking

If one can and the other can't, why compare? why not compare transparency AA, which ATI doesn't have, and give X1800xt a big fat 0? very misleading.

Ati does have AAA, which does the same thing as TRAA. But few sites ever bench with those features enabled.

its different... if its not the same, its an apple vs orange comparison..
that is why most sites don't ever bench those features enabled.
except FS.

Why does it have to be the same as TRAA? TRAA and AAA are both methods of applying AA to transparency textures, and they both work. Ati and NV dont use the exact same techniques for anything, so even stuff like SM3 branching, shader optimizations, AA sampling patters, AF algorithms, color compression, hidden surface removal - all those are different beween Ati and NV. In fact, I cant really think of anything that's identical between Nv cards and their equivalent Ati cards, so expecting features to work exactly the same way is unrealistic, but comparing the image quality and performance of features that have the same goal is completely reasonable. IMO, most sites just dont test these high end features because they're lazy - just like most sites dont test image quality either.

 

[BlacKJesuS]

Originally posted by: Ronin
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2826

Run on a stock system, no performance modifications at all (I went ahead and ran all the tests, for grins).

Considering the default res is 1280x1024 now, might be a better comparison at 1024x768.

The score's a bit low for my taste, but the first run is always the one you learn from.

wow only outdid my x850XT by 700pts

 

[otispunkmeyer]

great 580mb download and its corrupt....thanks fileshack!

 

[buzzsaw13]

2242 with an C3D X800GTO@590/560

No SM3.0 kills the score

 

[Elfear]

'06 benchies for the X1900XT are here. Scroll down to post #84. Nice jump over the X1800XT. Looks especially promising with a dual core processor. Pretty comparable to what the 512MB 7800GTX is scoring.

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
still doesn't change the fact that ATI R520 has better IQ.

probably.....but that would be a spactacular way to go

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Interesting. Ive found two things interesting.

Firstly, its seems that the 7800GTX actually performs faster than the X1800XT in S.M3.0 tests/HDR (even in S.M 2.0).

Secondly, This new bench puts every card to its kness, and im sad to realise that a 6800GS scores around 1000!!! which would result in 6600GTs and lower cards scoring around 500!!

well if you bother to read the article you'll see 6800GS scored 2657

 

[biostud]

4897 with speeds in sig
SM2.0: 2012
SM3.0: 1957
CPU: 1849

4988 with 2650Mhz 7800GTX @ 524-1306 (So close to 5K )
SM2.0: 2039
SM3.0: 1983
CPU: 1911

Did anyone notice the PhysX mark, I wonder if it will be supported in the CPU tests.

Maybe they put in the game so you can't use the comments about playing 3Dmark :evil:

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Elfear
'06 benchies for the X1900XT are here. Scroll down to post #84. Nice jump over the X1800XT. Looks especially promising with a dual core processor. Pretty comparable to what the 512MB 7800GTX is scoring.

nice find man, those will be immature drivers as well

isnt he breaking NDA?

 

[MBrown]

I think 2 people have broke NDAs so far.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: beggerking

its different... if its not the same, its an apple vs orange comparison..
that is why most sites don't ever bench those features enabled.
except FS.

TRAA and AAA essentially have the same result for the enduser, so how do they not compare to each other?

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: BlacKJesuS
wow only outdid my x850XT by 700pts

Yeah, as I said, no tweaking done whatsoever. I'd just thrown this card in a day or so ago, and I didn't reboot the box or whatnot before running the benchmark.

When I have more time, I'll put it on a proper box (the one in my sig), and get some real benchmarks. I'll do some 4800+ X2 runs as well when I get a chance.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: beggerking

If one can and the other can't, why compare? why not compare transparency AA, which ATI doesn't have, and give X1800xt a big fat 0? very misleading.

Ati does have AAA, which does the same thing as TRAA. But few sites ever bench with those features enabled.

its different... if its not the same, its an apple vs orange comparison..
that is why most sites don't ever bench those features enabled.
except FS.

Why does it have to be the same as TRAA? TRAA and AAA are both methods of applying AA to transparency textures, and they both work. Ati and NV dont use the exact same techniques for anything, so even stuff like SM3 branching, shader optimizations, AA sampling patters, AF algorithms, color compression, hidden surface removal - all those are different beween Ati and NV. In fact, I cant really think of anything that's identical between Nv cards and their equivalent Ati cards, so expecting features to work exactly the same way is unrealistic, but comparing the image quality and performance of features that have the same goal is completely reasonable. IMO, most sites just dont test these high end features because they're lazy - just like most sites dont test image quality either.

exactly. 7800 also supports HDR and AA, but their results doesn't show that

 

[nitromullet]

exactly. 7800 also supports HDR and AA, but their results doesn't show that

Actually, no 7800 doesn't, which is why it fails to register in 3DMark06 with AA enabled. You are most likely referring to the fact that HDR+AA are possible on NV cards in HL2 Lost Coast, which is not the same as HDR+AA in 3DMark06 and every other game that has HDR. They don't show those results for the GeForce because they won't run it. Period.

 

[chinkgai]

i'll pwn ya'll when i get home =D

jk no cf here

 

[Steelski]

Originally posted by: Steelski

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: Matt2
Nice to know that I'll be scoring higher than X1800XT CF

actually the X1800XT crossfire scores a 5815 and 7800GT SLI scores 5732.

I'm pretty sure I can squeeze out 100 points or so I doubt they even OCd those cards so I'll be breaking 6k for sure. And yes, I know the X1800XT CF can be overclocked too. Dont sink my ship!

So what's the deal with ATI's scores? They seem to be a bit... low...

You have to remember that the big big BIG thing for ATI is AA and AF in these kinds of tests. I would like to see a GTX beating them in a AA+AF enviroment

Also the Nvidia drivers are newer than the 5.13's from ATI , come to think of it. there should be a new driver out very soon.

I just saw the Firingsquad one with the AA on, I am eating my words a little. But i am still sure a driver revision will help matters a lot.

 

[gac009]

1951 with the rig in the sig.

SM 2.0 990
CPU 1095

I know its not a top of the line pooter, and it never was, but I thought some people would be interested in seeing how a bottom middle range rig would do.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: gac009
1951 with the rig in the sig.

SM 2.0 990
CPU 1095

I know its not a top of the line pooter, and it never was, but I thought some people would be interested in seeing how a bottom middle range rig would do.

Do you have hyperthreading turned off?