My 3dmark dropped 1600 points in 1 month with no hardware changes

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: Dreadogg

Originally posted by: Bojangles139
hehe, i still love the fact that after 80fps, the human eye can't tell any difference's. :Q

brandon

So what does that say about anything, not many care for peak FPS, but most want constant FPS above 80 in all games. Or to be able to run Vsync with thier 120 hertz refresh rate and have it stay constant, this does make big difference in FPS games.

Actually Bojangles139, the human eye can't see more than 25FPS however the human eye can tell that the more FPS there is, the human eye can tell the difference in fluidity of the objects movement. And like you said Dreadogg, most people want 80FPS at least, in fact the best would be to have 100FPS above with at least a 100 Vsync, mainly because afer 100Hz on the monitor/TV, it doesn't straing the human eye so your eyes feel relaxed , personally once most games hit 100FPS I'm gonna upgrade my monitor to a minimum 100Hz Vsync, lower your res and try it out for a while, you'll see what I mean by complete eye relaxation

And the answer to yer question Hammyton, having a benchmark of even 8500ish is good enough for your PC hardware to cope for a good 1½ to 2 years so don't worry so much, especially that nowadays most people upgrade every 6 months!

 

[rbV5]

Actually Bojangles139, the human eye can't see more than 25FPS

Yes, the human eye can see more than 25FPS

 

[tbates757]

Bojangles is pretty ignorant, I'm assuming he's heard that a few times on the internet and accepted it as fact

 

[arcenite]

I've heard that before (i thought it was 30fps) but I can definately tell the difference between 30 (or even 80) from 100+

Bill

 

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Actually Bojangles139, the human eye can't see more than 25FPS

Yes, the human eye can see more than 25FPS

If you read what I wrote, anything above 25FPS the human eye can see more "fluidity" but CANNOT see more than 25FPS.

p.s. I've currently doing this in Virtual Reality at Uni in which we're going over some parts of Biology to cover parts of the course as it's neccesary. So please don't say I'm wrong cos you're not arguing with me, it would be a proffessor in which I think he knows more than you! It's 25 FPS.

 

[arcenite]

If it's more fluid that means there's more FPS. Not arguing with you, mainly because I don't have the education (yet), but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Bill

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NOX
I'm not sure I understand the 10000 to 3000 example you make. 1600 point is nothing for this program; I?ve seen times were people have reported 3000 point deduction, yet all there games play the same. I don?t understand why people put so much emphasis on a benchmark that has really no substance in a real world situation. Case and point http://subscriber.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=951695&highlight_key=y&keyword1=3dmark.

I would suggest to Hammyton to uninstall 3dmark01, reinstall it and run a test, and see what kind scores he gets after the reinstall. Will that change anything, yeah maybe his 3dmark scores. Will it change his real games, absolutely not!

Do you think computers have get PMS?

If identical hardware configurations running using identical software configurations have different scores, then they're not identical. Something is different. Computers don't have personalities. They don't get tired. They do what they're told as fast as they can. If something changes between one process and an identical process run later, then something changed.

We're not arguing the merits of 3DMark as a benchmark. We're discussing the fact that something changed on his system. What's so hard to understand?

What so hard to understand is that people such as your self seem to think 3dmark is end all, be all. We are not talking about any additional system programs, we are simply talking about 3dmark score being lowered because who knows what. According to Hammyton he changed his drivers, he installed omega drivers and later uninstalled them to try and achieve his old 3dmarks scores, but to his surprise they remained low. Is this uncommon for 3dmark, no! It happens to many users on many occasions. Users change their drivers and their 3dmarks scores lower. So they go back to the previous drivers only to find out 3dmark is producing similar scores. I could see if his system performance had lowered in games like UT2003, Hitman2, Quake3, Counter-Strike etc., however we are talking about a 1600 point reduction in 3dmark for gods sake! Big friggin deal! You live by 3dmark you die by 3dmark. Understand 3dmark is not a good indicator of system performance, use real programs for stuff like that.

Regarding system inaccuracies, system performance will degrade over time because of access bloat etc., and because of such you will get systems with erratic performance. One day it works the next day is doesn?t! Ask anyone in the tech industry, and they will tell you that from time to time systems will encounter certain system, software, and hardware disturbances (what you refer to as PMS). This is not uncommon in the computer industry. The fact that 3dmark as a quote ?benchmark? displays this type of behavior adds even more uncertainty, and should not be limited or judged by that alone, which is in fact what you are doing.

EDIT:

We're not arguing the merits of 3DMark as a benchmark.

Then why are you basing the fact that something is wrong with his system because of it?

 

[rbV5]

If you read what I wrote, anything above 25FPS the human eye can see more "fluidity" but CANNOT see more than 25FPS.

I read what you wrote, but if professor Worptwhistle told you that the human eye cannot see more than 25FPS...he's wrong as well.

 

[Hammyton]

Thanks for everyones input Before I try a full-fledged format, would merely reinstalling windowsxp again over my current copy help at all?

 

[Chad]

NOX, calm down man. Nobody here is trying to say 3dMark is anything other than what it is, a tool. I think your enthusiasm towards just disregarding everything that the tool can tell you is silly. I come away from reading your post thinking you have some deep personal hatred for it. Which IMO clouds your objective judgement on what this tool can tell you.

P.S. I have never heard of anyone getting 3000 3dmarks difference like you are saying, for no reason. No way, you are making that up. SOMETHING has changed to cause it... and that's all he's saying. The relevancy of if 3000 more 3dmarks making a difference somewhere else is not in question. It may or may not be indicative of a problem elsewhere. It really isn't the point.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NOX
I'm not sure I understand the 10000 to 3000 example you make. 1600 point is nothing for this program; I?ve seen times were people have reported 3000 point deduction, yet all there games play the same. I don?t understand why people put so much emphasis on a benchmark that has really no substance in a real world situation. Case and point http://subscriber.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=951695&highlight_key=y&keyword1=3dmark.

I would suggest to Hammyton to uninstall 3dmark01, reinstall it and run a test, and see what kind scores he gets after the reinstall. Will that change anything, yeah maybe his 3dmark scores. Will it change his real games, absolutely not!

Do you think computers have get PMS?

If identical hardware configurations running using identical software configurations have different scores, then they're not identical. Something is different. Computers don't have personalities. They don't get tired. They do what they're told as fast as they can. If something changes between one process and an identical process run later, then something changed.

We're not arguing the merits of 3DMark as a benchmark. We're discussing the fact that something changed on his system. What's so hard to understand?

What so hard to understand is that people such as your self seem to think 3dmark is end all, be all. We are not talking about any additional system programs, we are simply talking about 3dmark score being lowered because who knows what. According to Hammyton he changed his drivers, he installed omega drivers and later uninstalled them to try and achieve his old 3dmarks scores, but to his surprise they remained low. Is this uncommon for 3dmark, no! It happens to many users on many occasions. Users change their drivers and their 3dmarks scores lower. So they go back to the previous drivers only to find out 3dmark is producing similar scores. I could see if his system performance had lowered in games like UT2003, Hitman2, Quake3, Counter-Strike etc., however we are talking about a 1600 point reduction in 3dmark for gods sake! Big friggin deal! You live by 3dmark you die by 3dmark. Understand 3dmark is not a good indicator of system performance, use real programs for stuff like that.

Regarding system inaccuracies, system performance will degrade over time because of access bloat etc., and because of such you will get systems with erratic performance. One day it works the next day is doesn?t! Ask anyone in the tech industry, and they will tell you that from time to time systems will encounter certain system, software, and hardware disturbances (what you refer to as PMS). This is not uncommon in the computer industry. The fact that 3dmark as a quote ?benchmark? displays this type of behavior adds even more uncertainty, and should not be limited or judged by that alone, which is in fact what you are doing.

You just stated what the intelligent people here are trying to explain to you. Something changed. Bloat, driver change, etc. But something changed. And it was 3dMark that caused him to notice the change. Now he needs to fix his system to get back the speed he used to have. That's all.'

Chill out buddy.

 

[BoberFett]

After reading your last post again, I've determined you're an idiot NOX. Go play with your Barbies.

 

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: rbV5

If you read what I wrote, anything above 25FPS the human eye can see more "fluidity" but CANNOT see more than 25FPS.

I read what you wrote, but if professor Worptwhistle told you that the human eye cannot see more than 25FPS...he's wrong as well.

Ignorance...go read a text book on the "human eye", it's all in there.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: Hammyton
Thanks for everyones input Before I try a full-fledged format, would merely reinstalling windowsxp again over my current copy help at all?

The only way to find out would be to try it. But my questions to you is, do you feel it will be worth it? If you feel it will be worth it to reformat then go ahead, however reformatting or reinstalling XP will not guarantee you will get back your 1600 points.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: Chad
NOX, calm down man. Nobody here is trying to say 3dMark is anything other than what it is, a tool. I think your enthusiasm towards just disregarding everything that the tool can tell you is silly. I come away from reading your post thinking you have some deep personal hatred for it. Which IMO clouds your objective judgement on what this tool can tell you.

P.S. I have never heard of anyone getting 3000 3dmarks difference like you are saying, for no reason. No way, you are making that up. SOMETHING has changed to cause it... and that's all he's saying. The relevancy of if 3000 more 3dmarks making a difference somewhere else is not in question. It may or may not be indicative of a problem elsewhere. It really isn't the point.

I?m as calm as calm can be, and have no problem with 3dmark. I accept it for what it is, nothing more, nothign less.

I will list a few links for you to look at, if you have the time feel free to browse the forums, you will notice many more instances.

This guy got any immediate drop in score after a driver change (similar to Hammyton), reinstalled to the older drivers and got the same score, no change. Something, which I have stated 3dmark will do. End result, none.

Link 1

This guy had a 4500 point drop after reformatting his system, same drivers, same video card etc. End result, none.

Link 2 ? 4500 point drop

What?s funny about the 2nd link is someone asked why did you reformat. Are 3dmark devotees now going to suggest not to reformat or your 3dmark scores may go down, while on the other hand there are users who will contemplate a reformat just to try and get their 3dmark scores back up. Now that is silly!

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NOX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NOX
I'm not sure I understand the 10000 to 3000 example you make. 1600 point is nothing for this program; I?ve seen times were people have reported 3000 point deduction, yet all there games play the same. I don?t understand why people put so much emphasis on a benchmark that has really no substance in a real world situation. Case and point http://subscriber.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=951695&highlight_key=y&keyword1=3dmark.

I would suggest to Hammyton to uninstall 3dmark01, reinstall it and run a test, and see what kind scores he gets after the reinstall. Will that change anything, yeah maybe his 3dmark scores. Will it change his real games, absolutely not!

Do you think computers have get PMS?

If identical hardware configurations running using identical software configurations have different scores, then they're not identical. Something is different. Computers don't have personalities. They don't get tired. They do what they're told as fast as they can. If something changes between one process and an identical process run later, then something changed.

We're not arguing the merits of 3DMark as a benchmark. We're discussing the fact that something changed on his system. What's so hard to understand?

What so hard to understand is that people such as your self seem to think 3dmark is end all, be all. We are not talking about any additional system programs, we are simply talking about 3dmark score being lowered because who knows what. According to Hammyton he changed his drivers, he installed omega drivers and later uninstalled them to try and achieve his old 3dmarks scores, but to his surprise they remained low. Is this uncommon for 3dmark, no! It happens to many users on many occasions. Users change their drivers and their 3dmarks scores lower. So they go back to the previous drivers only to find out 3dmark is producing similar scores. I could see if his system performance had lowered in games like UT2003, Hitman2, Quake3, Counter-Strike etc., however we are talking about a 1600 point reduction in 3dmark for gods sake! Big friggin deal! You live by 3dmark you die by 3dmark. Understand 3dmark is not a good indicator of system performance, use real programs for stuff like that.

Regarding system inaccuracies, system performance will degrade over time because of access bloat etc., and because of such you will get systems with erratic performance. One day it works the next day is doesn?t! Ask anyone in the tech industry, and they will tell you that from time to time systems will encounter certain system, software, and hardware disturbances (what you refer to as PMS). This is not uncommon in the computer industry. The fact that 3dmark as a quote ?benchmark? displays this type of behavior adds even more uncertainty, and should not be limited or judged by that alone, which is in fact what you are doing.

You just stated what the intelligent people here are trying to explain to you. Something changed. Bloat, driver change, etc. But something changed. And it was 3dMark that caused him to notice the change. Now he needs to fix his system to get back the speed he used to have. That's all.'

Chill out buddy.

Dude. Did you even read what I stated other then the system inaccuracies part? Don?t be so quick to click the reply or quote button, and don?t take what I said and try and twist it. Again let me repeat The fact that 3dmark as a quote ?benchmark? displays this type of? (erratic) behavior adds even more uncertainty, and should not be limited or judged by that alone, which is in fact what you are doing. That is my point! Seeing that you seem to choose to overlook that simple fact indicates to me that 3dmark is an end all, be all type of program for you and many others. Lets all let 3dmark determine how we manage our systems, sounds so logical! Imaging if everyone used this same logic every time the Government told us what to do.

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
After reading your last post again, I've determined you're an idiot NOX. Go play with your Barbies.

Wow, is this what we have come to expect from AT Elite Members? Way to show your age man!

PS: If you really want me to go away all you need to do is prove that what I am saying has no validelity, and I will be more then happy to move on! No need for childish remarks.

 

[rbV5]

Ignorance...go read a text book on the "human eye", it's all in there

Way to back up your claim...go read a book

.....Actually, I've read a little about FPS, its been the subject of many flamefests both here and many other forums. People claim 24 FPS, no 25 FPS, no 30 FPS...no its 60 FPS...everybody knows its 72 FPS, er I mean 80 FPS.

Sure, using motion blur, you can give the illusion of fluid motion down to 18FPS or perhaps less...so? The military has shown pilots can identify specific aircraft when shown a picture displayed for only 1/220th of a second...so? The fact is, the limit to human perception of FPS has not been proven..but must be in excess of 220FPS, thats been proven.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Ignorance...go read a text book on the "human eye", it's all in there

Way to back up your claim...go read a book

.....Actually, I've read a little about FPS, its been the subject of many flamefests both here and many other forums. People claim 24 FPS, no 25 FPS, no 30 FPS...no its 60 FPS...everybody knows its 72 FPS, er I mean 80 FPS.

Sure, using motion blur, you can give the illusion of fluid motion down to 18FPS or perhaps less...so? The military has shown pilots can identify specific aircraft when shown a picture displayed for only 1/220th of a second...so? The fact is, the limit to human perception of FPS has not been proven..but must be in excess of 220FPS, thats been proven.

Without reading the specific test cases you refer to I'd have to say you're wrong. Switching from a blank screen to a aircraft for 1/220th of a sec and back to a blank screen is still only 3 FPS. Now if you try to tell me that the pilot(s) identified 220 different planes in 1 sec that's completely different, but my guess is they didn't.

Also as an example I'd like to guide you to fluorescent lights and provide the following quote:

The fluorescent lights we're all familiar with actually blink on and off 120 times a second, since they light up as current passes through them and the alternating current standard to the U.S. fluctuates back and forth at 60Hz. Still, we see a steady stream of light because we can't process visual changes at that rate.

Now you may perceive that the light is flickering somewhat if you have good eyes but you never actually see the light while it's 'off'.

Thorin

 

[Varsh]

Some more backup there, ta Thorin
Also if you have a very old TV, most likely they're about 15-20Hz, I'm talking about the very old TV sets here, hitting the new 25Hz tube (well it's kinda ancient now lol) people could no longer see the flicker in the TV screen, the only time you can see a flicker is if you turn your head a good 90 degrees to the side of the screen, then you can see the flicker because you're not concentrating in that area, only at 100Hz is it flicker free but the perception of flicker free starts at 25Hz (aka 25 FPS).

 

[BoberFett]

NOX

You know nothing about how computers work. If a reformat resulted in a 4500 point drop, that means something changed. If he set up his system EXACTLY as it was before, he would have gotten roughly the same score.

Forget 3dMark, I don't care what you think about any program written on the planet. Unless the program is using a random number generator as it loops through a series of functions, no matter how badly the program is written, no matter how many times you run it, on the same hardware and driver configuration it will take roughly the same amount of time to complete. If it changes significantly then you changed something critical in your system or have a bunch of background processes running.

 

[rbV5]

Without reading the specific test cases you refer to I'd have to say you're wrong. Switching from a blank screen to a aircraft for 1/220th of a sec and back to a blank screen is still only 3 FPS.

You're technically correct of course, but the point is that the limitation of the human eye, or human brain is most certainly more than 25FPS. The fact that the eye can see and the brain can process enough information in a timeslice of 1/220th of a second to identify a specific plane simply illustrates that point. The examples you give simply show the limitations of devices, not the limitations of humans. In Varsh's example, he even shows that fact, and if the thorin's fluorescent lights were blinking on and off 150 times a second out of sync, they would be a little distracting I think. The brain itself interepts the data we see, and try's to make things make sense. Messages you don't even "see" still make impressions within your brain, does that mean you didn't see it?..nope. The maximum FPS that can be has never been established, techniques to fool the brain into perceiving fluid motion or eliminating flicker have been around for quite some time. Just because a cartoon looks fluid at 15 FPS doesn't mean its at the limit of human perception, it just capitualizes on the human brain's interpolation in a very optimised way,and the brain doesn't have to work very hard to have it make sense. Its also why animations, film and broadcasts use different refresh rates and framerates to achieve the same thing. The answer is usually economics, they used whatever the minimum necissary to save money on processing or film costs to produce the desired effect. Your examples only show the minimums needed to fool the brain, not the maximum it is possible to distinquish.

 

[thorin]

The fact that the eye can see and the brain can process enough information in a timeslice of 1/220th of a second to identify a specific plane simply illustrates that point.

The eye and the brain simply processed the change in what the pilot was viewing (black > picture > black or whatever), it doesn't prove that the pilots eye 'saw' 220 different images (frames) in a second (plane or blank). (Or at least it doesn't without reading the specifics of the case as we've agreed).

Here's another explanation that might clarify what I'm saying (funny enough it's also about a plane).

You're in an airplane flying looking down at all the tiny cars and buildings. You are in a fast moving object, but distance and speed place you above the objects below. Now, lets pretend that a plane going 100 times as fast quickly flys below you, it was a blur wasn't it?

Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed position in space time. If the plane that just flew by was only going say, 1 times faster than you, you probably would have been able to see it. Since your incredible auto focus eye had been concentrated on the ground before it flew below, your visual cortex made the decision that it was there, but well, moving really fast, and not as important. A really fast camera with a really fast shutter speed would have been able to capture the plane in full detail. Not to limit our eyes ability, since we did see the plane, but we didn't issolate the "frame", we streamed it relative to the last object we were looking at, the ground, moving slowing below.

So our eyes 'perceived' the change as the plane going 100x faster passed below you but may or may not have actually 'seen', 'recorded', 'identified' the object (the brain assumed it was a plane based on shadow, movement, speed, etc...). While the plane simply going 1x faster then us the brain did actually see and identify.

I completely agree that we can actually see more then 24 or 30 distinct images in a second however I question the notion that it approaches or surpases 220 distinct images in a second. I'm not saying I know more then this or that professor or this or that publication, but from what little I've read/researched and we've discussed here something greater then 30 and less then 100 seems likely.

Thorin

 

[rbV5]

it doesn't prove that the pilots eye 'saw' 220 different images (frames) in a second

True, my example doesn't support the statement I made that 220 FPS has been proven at all. It only actually illustrates that humans are capable of gathering real and useful information from incredibly small slices of time. The limit to how many FPS that can be perceived by the eye has never been determined. Have you noticed how many "proofs" come up with a different absolute number? I don't know what the number is, but I'm certain its much above 25FPS for most people....sometimes, but not at all times, and is likely variable because of the way everyone processes information in a different and adaptable way depending on where they are, and what they are doing.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: rbV5

it doesn't prove that the pilots eye 'saw' 220 different images (frames) in a second

True, my example doesn't support the statement I made that 220 FPS has been proven at all. It only actually illustrates that humans are capable of gathering real and useful information from incredibly small slices of time. The limit to how many FPS that can be perceived by the eye has never been determined. Have you noticed how many "proofs" come up with a different absolute number? I don't know what the number is, but I'm certain its much above 25FPS for most people....sometimes, but not at all times, and is likely variable because of the way everyone processes information in a different and adaptable way depending on where they are, and what they are doing.

Can't argue with any of that

Thorin