Futuremark: 3DMark06

[Moloch]

Here's my mild OC run.. A64 at 2156 (but HTT at 862 mhz) and 7800GT at 520/1200 (wowzers!!)
For some reason 3dmark thinks my 7800GT is at 445mhz
It also is using the CPU HTT I boot at not the one I set in clockgen.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=10482
38XX 3dmarks
Not a huge change between 445mhz/1070 and 520/1200.
Me thinks I need more GPU bandwidth and CPU clockspeed.

/brag I'm number one for A64s from 2000 mhz to 2155 and 7800gt's.
On a side note, futuremark needs to update the search and compare so non pro users when they search and compare and limited to the res they tested at.
Only guy above me ran at 1024 res...

 

[Sunday]

This is one dreadful “farewellâ€!

3Dmark has totally transformed! 03 was the peak, and with this one they have hit the ground! For crying out loud, they did not changed the scenes, only added one, that is pretty useless form the real game design, just like any other??? Is this the gamer’s benchmark anymore?

And everyone is giving thanx to Nick? What for? He’s just doing his PR job, and not to well I must say. He’s missing to answer some more important questions giving a lousy PR spin around! Why? Is this community of the smartest 3D enthusiast on Net? We don’t need no PR spinning! If he would like to answer “real†questions, then fine, if not he might as well try not to quote their PR announcement on this thread!

05 was fallback in artistic and conceptual sense, and this one hit the bottom (and you require $500 for a pro license?!!?) Only thing that can bring you to the senses is:
1. Boycott
2. Any competition
When you stop making that much many you’re making now, maybe you will ask your self “maybe we did not drink all of the wisdom of this worldâ€!
I don’t have any more expectations from you, mine next prime DX10 benchmark will be CryEngine 2! Maybe some one smart enough will find that this is the best time to launch some serious commercial benchmark, and give you, and your teammates some creative farewell!

Sunday

 

[Galduta]

AMD64 3200+ with GTX512(NOC)


AMD64 3200+ with GTX512(OC)


Something tells me that this picture seems very wrong.

US

Is a GTX256 SLI

 

[Pete]

I think we would all still like an answer regarding the 7800's score of 0 with AA enabled .

I'm still not quite clear on that, but given that we have 3DM06's scoring formula, can't we just create it ourselves?

I'm not sure why FM included the CPU mark in final 3DMark. So, a computer with 6600GT but couped a dual-core CPU can score higher than a 6800GS with single-core CPU.
Does it corresponds to actual gaming experience?

Well, if 3DM06 is actually meant to predict game performance in two years (somewhat odd, given the name, but I guess it's in keeping with previous 3DMs and in the sense that low-end models will run it acceptably in that time frame), including dual-core CPUs might make sense if games (and drivers) are going to go multi-threaded in a big way. They might, thanks to the new consoles, and at least one game points the way.

 

[SugarCoat]

This is one dreadful “farewell”!

3Dmark has totally transformed! 03 was the peak, and with this one they have hit the ground! For crying out loud, they did not changed the scenes, only added one, that is pretty useless form the real game design, just like any other??? Is this the gamer’s benchmark anymore?

And everyone is giving thanx to Nick? What for? He’s just doing his PR job, and not to well I must say. He’s missing to answer some more important questions giving a lousy PR spin around! Why? Is this community of the smartest 3D enthusiast on Net? We don’t need no PR spinning! If he would like to answer “real” questions, then fine, if not he might as well try not to quote their PR announcement on this thread!

05 was fallback in artistic and conceptual sense, and this one hit the bottom (and you require $500 for a pro license?!!?) Only thing that can bring you to the senses is:
1. Boycott
2. Any competition
When you stop making that much many you’re making now, maybe you will ask your self “maybe we did not drink all of the wisdom of this world”!
I don’t have any more expectations from you, mine next prime DX10 benchmark will be CryEngine 2! Maybe some one smart enough will find that this is the best time to launch some serious commercial benchmark, and give you, and your teammates some creative farewell!

Sunday

yea i wont be buying this version, but for some reason i dont think it will take them nearly as long to release 3Dmark07 with DX10 and all new benchmarks. They have to develop products just like the graphics card companies in line with Direct X releases. Theres only so much in my opinion they can do with DX9.0C that 3Dmark05 didnt cover. HDR honostly seems to be the biggest highlight.

Part of me wonders if they dont already have their DX10 3Dmark done or mostly and have been sitting on it through Vista push backs. Not to knock their work but this seemed to take them an exceptionally long time to release for what was changed.

 

[CMAN]

I'm not sure why FM included the CPU mark in final 3DMark. So, a computer with 6600GT but couped a dual-core CPU can score higher than a 6800GS with single-core CPU.
Does it corresponds to actual gaming experience?

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. If you look at how the results screen is set up, then I would assume they are getting away from a single score and going towards multiple scores. They seem much more interested in testing shader version power than anything else, and the lack of CPU score/importance has been fixed (maybe overshot though). As what I'd call a minor (05 to 06), I'm impressed by how well the older scenes look with just a little more elbow grease (especially the forest scene).

 

[Rur0ni]

Well if im not mistaken, there are some games that do get a boost from dual core cpus and recent drivers. That should be the trend too. We're going to dual, then quad, then multi(+). Processor speed isnt really going up all that well. So i'm glad to see dual core systems to get that boost in score.

 

[poly-gone]

Have you tried all our official mirrors yet? I know most of them are getting hammered, but some seem to work pretty ok (Guru3D and MajorGeeks).

My download got cut-off at 80.0 MB on Guru3D the first time, 62.5 MB the next time, 126.3 MB on Major Geeks!!! Now I'm trying your Futuremark torrent, so let's hope that goes well

 

[KimB]

My download got cut-off at 80.0 MB on Guru3D the first time, 62.5 MB the next time, 126.3 MB on Major Geeks!!! Now I'm trying your Futuremark torrent, so let's hope that goes well

For normal downloads, I usually use GetRight for this sort of stuff. You can use the program to download from many servers at once, and it's got really reliable download restarting. But at the moment I'm trying the Torrent (though this was probably a bad decision....seems to be running slowly, but it's almost halfway done, so I'm not going to stop now).

 

[SugarCoat]

My download got cut-off at 80.0 MB on Guru3D the first time, 62.5 MB the next time, 126.3 MB on Major Geeks!!! Now I'm trying your Futuremark torrent, so let's hope that goes well

right click and save target as on this, it will take 1 minute to start but should be fast:
http://www.webnallen.se/download/3DMark06_v102_installer.exe

and give a swede a hug

 

[Reverend]

If you're one thing Rev.....it's predictable.

....and in your case, it's not a good thing.

Well, do you know what I was talking about exactly for you to pass such a comment about me? Here's a hint : look at Dave's comments in this thread, look at the reasons that ultimately made me leave the BDP (FM also kicked me out at the exact same time, if you'll remember) back then.

3DM05 is the percursor of what we see in 3DM06. The one-fork road 3DM05 was on has now turned into one with many forks, leading to not just two different destinations but a few. I love looking at all 3DM tests but that's not the point, is it?

 

[Reverend]

In any case, we don't want to add effects just because they exist. I doubt that any game developer would add 1001 effects to games just because they exist.

This is just a suggestion but since your app is supposed to be a forward-looking benchmark (and not a game), perhaps it's not such a bad idea to incorporate as many effects/features as possible in order to inform the public just what the heck those effects/features look like or perform like...?

I know FM likes to make a benchmark like a game developer makes a game but this is, to be blunt, impossible.

 

[poly-gone]

For normal downloads, I usually use GetRight for this sort of stuff. You can use the program to download from many servers at once, and it's got really reliable download restarting. But at the moment I'm trying the Torrent (though this was probably a bad decision....seems to be running slowly, but it's almost halfway done, so I'm not going to stop now).

Yeah, I was using FDM (another excellent download manager) but it said "Unknown Server Error" all three times...

right click and save target as on this, it will take 1 minute to start but should be fast:
http://www.webnallen.se/download/3DM..._installer.exe

and give a swede a hug

Thank you .

 

[KimB]

I know FM likes to make a benchmark like a game developer makes a game but this is, to be blunt, impossible.

Yeah. Personally, while Futuremark's method of developing benchmarks is really great-looking, I don't think it's the best in terms of really comparing to how these cards should perform in games.

This is my personal idea as to what would be the best type of synthetic benchmark.

Firstly, there are two separate purposes for developing a synthetic benchmark. The first would be to compress game benchmarks into one easy to run suite that is still representative of game performance. The second would be to produce a benchmark that seeks to separate out the performance of particular features of a graphics card, and maybe even attempt to analyze how these apply to games.

I'm just going to look at the first purpose. The only way to effectively do it is to talk to software developers. I know that Futuremark has been in heavy collaboration with hardware developers, but there doesn't seem to be much of any collaboration with game developers. If you really want to make a benchmark that is representative of games, either current or future, then talking to game developers seems an obvious choice.

Now, with this idea in mind, the second part would involve attempting to develop a robust suite for analyzing the makeup of games. One could look at things like mean values for overdraw, alpha testing/blending, shadowing algorithms, and, most importantly, shaders. This would be a very difficult thing to do, and there would be a fair amount of arbitrariness in the weighting across different games and across different situations within games. But it seems that it would at least be possible to attempt it.

Then, once you have a good amount of data, both of current games and of games in development, of typical usage statistics, you could attempt to produce a benchmark that would replicate these different scenarios. It wouldn't be pretty-looking, but if you do it right, it could be an excellent way to determine how different graphics cards should compare to one another in real games. And you could even adjust the weighting of various aspects of the benchmark in order to get a score as it relates to old games, new games, and future games.

 

[Reverend]

The only way to effectively do it is to talk to software developers. I know that Futuremark has been in heavy collaboration with hardware developers, but there doesn't seem to be much of any collaboration with game developers. If you really want to make a benchmark that is representative of games, either current or future, then talking to game developers seems an obvious choice.

I think FM has tried but generally speaking I think game developers would rather not be associated with FM/3DM. This is based on my experience (a prominent ex-FM staff asked me to ask Tim to help, or join their BDP sometime during 3DM05... I can't really remember the specifics... I am also sure FM approached John). Whether you want to look at it financially or from an altruistic POV, the reason(s) should be fairly obvious. FM may beg to differ, of course.

 

[Brent]

Or you could just use games to find out how games perform...

 

[Moloch]

Or you could just use games to find out how games perform...

what will [H] be doing with regards to 3dmark06?
it favors nvidia so perhaps you should incorporate it into your test suite

 

[Brent]

oh please, i'm not even going to respond to that

i know, using games to find out gaming performance, wild concept eh

 

[Hubert]

To be fair, fetch4 is supported.

However, I'm starting to agree...seems like quite a few inconsistent decisions have been made.

My question is: did they have thorough knowledge of the R520 architecture when they took these decisions ? This alone would explain a lot, IMO.

 

[Richteralan]

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. If you look at how the results screen is set up, then I would assume they are getting away from a single score and going towards multiple scores. They seem much more interested in testing shader version power than anything else, and the lack of CPU score/importance has been fixed (maybe overshot though). As what I'd call a minor (05 to 06), I'm impressed by how well the older scenes look with just a little more elbow grease (especially the forest scene).

I do agree with your points.
I do think including CPU tests are essential.
But what I know 3DMark is for testing 3D? CPU dual-core wise will help physics and AI that's not quite related to 3D?
And if it counts, why include the CPU score in final 3DMark score? It can be a independent score just like 3DMark05 and before. Do we will get benifits from dual-core graphic wise? Even few years later(assume FM won't release another 3DMark?)