FutureMark 3DMark06 Benchmark Overview [Now with Download Link]

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I guess Ati is getting low scores because it was tested without AA... and we all know nvidia > ati without AA so.. lets wait for some AA results and check it after

yes, lets keep changing the default test until ATi wins and then it's a valid test.

How many people play games without AA these days? If you want to mimick real-world performance, you need to put it through what you would do in the real-world.

Please. The only reason you posted this is because you believe ATI cards will score higher with AA enabled. You have no interest in default settings if ATI scores lower.
I have a 7800GTX that I would test against an X1800XT owner. As long as CPU power is not a factor, as I have a P4 3.0E. So, I'm trying to download '06 but I cant seem to find a server that is not swamped. Anyone find a "lightly travelled" download link, lemme know please.

 

[beggerking]

what is wrong with FiringSquad.com!

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

 

[Icepick]

From the benchmarks in that article, my overclocked Athlon64 (@2.6GHz) and 6800GT should get an overall score of around ~2500.

 

[beggerking]

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, unless of course you have overclocked cards, which isn't mentioned in your sig so I'm assuming otherwise.

ok?... comparing 7800GT to x1800XT?...

 

[Keysplayr]

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

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

Well, I guess that answers a lot of questions about using AA in '06. 7800GTX (regular) is on par or ahead of the X1800XT, WITH 2x & 4x AA. Very nice that firing squad would do this. And right on time. Love it.

 

[Munky]

I dont count 3dmark results for anything more than bragging rights. It's been the same way in 3dmark03 and 05, why should this one be any different? True, usually a card that wind in 3dmark also wins in games, but lately that has not been the case - if it were then the x1600xt should be right up there with the 6800gt in actual games, but it's far from it. Once again, the stress in 3dmark comes from a lot of geometry and liberal use of long, heavy shaders that are not like anything found in today's games.

In addition, canned tests like 3dmark are more likely to have special optimizations and cheats in the drivers. Only custom recorded demos or custom runs through a game dont suffer from the same rampant optimizations, and as such are a more accurate test of the card's real life performance.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
Yeah, turn on 4x AA and I'll bet the X1800 XT wins.

sure

but then NV cant run the HDR. ATI can do HDR and AA, NV can do HDR or AA.

so if they put AA on.....does that mean HDR wont run? or the bench will skip those tests with HDR?

ahh well there you go....just found it

when AA is enabled the NV cards put in a 0 score for the SM3/HDR tests...and because of that it is utterly pointless in comparing overall 3D06 scores for NV vs ATI when AA is in use.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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

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

Well, I guess that answers a lot of questions about using AA in '06. 7800GTX (regular) is on par or ahead of the X1800XT, WITH 2x & 4x AA. Very nice that firing squad would do this. And right on time. Love it.

Don't you find it odd that FS doesn't have Model3.0 /HDR scores for 7800?

 

[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.

 

[stevty2889]

4312 with my X2 @2.618ghz, and 7800GT @486/1147. Got 0.6FPS second in the cpu test lol.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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

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

Well, I guess that answers a lot of questions about using AA in '06. 7800GTX (regular) is on par or ahead of the X1800XT, WITH 2x & 4x AA. Very nice that firing squad would do this. And right on time. Love it.

Don't you find it odd that FS doesn't have Model3.0 /HDR scores for 7800?

no...because AA and HDR cant be done at the same time on NV hardware.....this a trump card only ATI holds

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I guess Ati is getting low scores because it was tested without AA... and we all know nvidia > ati without AA so.. lets wait for some AA results and check it after

yes, lets keep changing the default test until ATi wins and then it's a valid test.

When synthetic tests do not have the same results as real games, its a problem with the benchmark. Also, who buys a high end card, such as a X1800 or GTX and doesnt use AA/AF? Honestly. Most reviews of high end cards, dont show low resolutions, or tests without AA/AF for a reason.

I dont have a problem with synthetic benches in themselves, but as I said, when results dont match real world gaming, I dont see how anyone can count them as valid. Just as Sisoft Sandra shows a huge (about 1000 point or about 20%) increase from 2T to 1T, games show nothing, but perhaps a 1-2fps gain. While I do like the graphics in 3dmarks, I just dont see how anyone can take the results over real games.

If the ATI card did better, you would not be making a peep. You're unhappy with the results, so automatically there must be something wrong with the testing methods, without a doubt. ATI may have a better AA implementation above 4x, but everyone runs 3dmarkXX with default setting for a good baseline to compare to. Don't worry, with a few optimizations on ATI's part, I'm sure they'll be ahead.

Um, ATi isnt ahead with 2x or 4xAA, with 8xAF. The 256MB GTX is faster in every test, except 2 I think, and thats at 1600x1200 and less than a FPS difference. Which goes against the vast majority of video cards reviews, when they use games. Making it an pretty unvalid "test". It doesnt reflect real world performance.

I would be making "a peep" if the 512MB GTX scored less than a X1800XT too. Because that too would not match real world performance with games. Dont assume you know everything, or what I would/wouldnt do, because you dont.

As for your request for a download link, this is what I used; http://www.bjorn3d.com/download/index.php?dlid=2 Took a while to get it to actually download, but when it did, I was at 750k all the way.

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
Yeah, turn on 4x AA and I'll bet the X1800 XT wins.

sure

but then NV cant run the HDR. ATI can do HDR and AA, NV can do HDR or AA.

so if they put AA on.....does that mean HDR wont run? or the bench will skip those tests with HDR?

NV can do HDR+AA, just look at HL2 for proof of this. It just cant do the type of HDR+AA that Farcry uses, when ATi can.

 

[Munky]

HL2 does not use FP blended HDR. A 9800p can also do HDR in HL2, but the most common way of doing HDR is through FP blending, and only the r5xx cards can do that with AA.

 

[mmike70]

I get 8484 in 3dmark05 and 4682 in 3dmark06.

Not too bad. It's even higher than what Anandtech got on the FX-55/7800GTX 512Mb system. Dual core to the rescue I suppose.

 

[Avalon]

About ready to run 3dmark. My 6200 scored about 2800marks in '05, but now the default resolution is one notch higher, and the graphics are more detailed. This is going to hurt.


Yep, slideshow-o-rama. I don't think I broke 2-3fps in any of the tests more than once!

SM2.0 score - 494
HDR/SM3.0 - 438
CPU Score - 1021

Total: 1269 3dmarks

 

[raystorm]

2164 3DMarks for me. It was all a total chopfest. (AMD Opteron 165 @ stock speed..yea yea..oc it already, Geforce 6800GS pci-e, 1gb ram)

 

[rise]

what are y'all running it at, high quality or quality?

 

[Ronin]

I'll provide some quick X1800 XT numbers shortly (when I have time, I'll do 7800 GTX SLi and 7800 GTX 512MB SLi numbers, but that won't be for a couple of days).

 

[raystorm]

Originally posted by: rise4310
what are y'all running it at, high quality or quality?

I assume everyone is running with default options. I can't seem to change anything anyways. I would like to bench at a widescreen res (since I use a dell 2005fpw) though.

 

[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.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: raystorm

Originally posted by: rise4310
what are y'all running it at, high quality or quality?

I assume everyone is running with default options. I can't seem to change anything anyways. I would like to bench at a widescreen res (since I use a dell 2005fpw) though.

ooops, i meant in the nv control panel. or the ccc (i forget if it has that option)

 

[Munky]

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I guess Ati is getting low scores because it was tested without AA... and we all know nvidia > ati without AA so.. lets wait for some AA results and check it after

yes, lets keep changing the default test until ATi wins and then it's a valid test.

When synthetic tests do not have the same results as real games, its a problem with the benchmark. Also, who buys a high end card, such as a X1800 or GTX and doesnt use AA/AF? Honestly. Most reviews of high end cards, dont show low resolutions, or tests without AA/AF for a reason.

I dont have a problem with synthetic benches in themselves, but as I said, when results dont match real world gaming, I dont see how anyone can count them as valid. Just as Sisoft Sandra shows a huge (about 1000 point or about 20%) increase from 2T to 1T, games show nothing, but perhaps a 1-2fps gain. While I do like the graphics in 3dmarks, I just dont see how anyone can take the results over real games.

If the ATI card did better, you would not be making a peep. You're unhappy with the results, so automatically there must be something wrong with the testing methods, without a doubt. ATI may have a better AA implementation above 4x, but everyone runs 3dmarkXX with default setting for a good baseline to compare to. Don't worry, with a few optimizations on ATI's part, I'm sure they'll be ahead.

Um, ATi isnt ahead with 2x or 4xAA, with 8xAF. The 256MB GTX is faster in every test, except 2 I think, and thats at 1600x1200 and less than a FPS difference. Which goes against the vast majority of video cards reviews, when they use games. Making it an pretty unvalid "test". It doesnt reflect real world performance.

I would be making "a peep" if the 512MB GTX scored less than a X1800XT too. Because that too would not match real world performance with games. Dont assume you know everything, or what I would/wouldnt do, because you dont.

As for your request for a download link, this is what I used; http://www.bjorn3d.com/download/index.php?dlid=2 Took a while to get it to actually download, but when it did, I was at 750k all the way.

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
Yeah, turn on 4x AA and I'll bet the X1800 XT wins.

sure

but then NV cant run the HDR. ATI can do HDR and AA, NV can do HDR or AA.

so if they put AA on.....does that mean HDR wont run? or the bench will skip those tests with HDR?

NV can do HDR+AA, just look at HL2 for proof of this. It just cant do the type of HDR+AA that Farcry uses, when ATi can.

Never said I "know everything" so don't put words in my mouth either.
And thank you for the link. I will try to download it.

 

[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.