3DMark Vantage Soon

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by Nick[FM], Jan 31, 2008.

  1. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,061
    Likes Received:
    4,276
    Location:
    Finland
    Indeed, didn't think long enough, was in middle of fighting Reliquary of Souls in WoW :lol:
    But still, I don't see anything wrong in promoting DX10 cards as they're required for it
     
  2. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,493
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Location:
    London
    How's this different from the "Plays best on ATI" stuff you see in Valve games or TWIMTBP.

    It's all the same corruption in my view.

    If hardware, software and game producers are all this corrupt, why shouldn't consumers return the favour?

    Jawed
     
  3. Nick[FM]

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Helsinki
    A benchmark should be objective, and it is. That has been discussed 1001 times. Our toplists are as well as objective as they can be, since they are based on hardware used by our users. We don't create the lists from thin air.

    The lists we have on our sites (most popular hardware amongst our users, best bang for the buck etc.) are there to guiding/aid people to make reasonable upgrade decisions and to know which hardware is the most popular.

    In the case of the top list posted on 3dmark.com, we promote most popular DX10 hardware for users who are still using DX9 hardware in order for them to be ready for the next generation of benchmarking and gaming. If you think helping out and educating people to get better performance in games/benchmarks/everyday computer usage is wrong (or subjective), then you might want to re-evaluate the whole hardware review business as a whole, which B3D is a part of. At leats last time I checked. Why do you guys (or any site for that matter) even make reviews, if the reason isn't to aid and guide users to make clever purchasing decisions?

    Cheers,

    Nick
     
    #43 Nick[FM], Feb 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2008
  4. Nick[FM]

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Helsinki
  5. Hanners

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    57
    Location:
    England
    Perhaps it's just me, but that doesn't seem any different to any other website such as this one or my own advertising graphics boards. As long as it doesn't affect your editorial (or in this case, benchmark development) decision making, I don't see that it's a problem.
     
  6. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,627
    Location:
    New York
    I think that's his point. It raises the possibility that there is a conflict of interest and potential buyers aren't assured that there isn't one. Personally, I think the various charts are very useful and given the popularity of 3dmark you're pretty sure that you're getting a good picture of what hardware people out there are using.

    However, I really disagree with that performance/$ chart. That is as bad as having a performance/$ chart based only on a single game. You wouldn't rationally purchase a card using that metric and it is very misleading for FM to be presenting it that way especially since 3dmark06 is considerably out of line with how hardware stacks up in actual games (e.g compare default 3dmark06 scores between 9600gt and 3870 then compare their scores in games with AA applied)

    Beyond that, I don't see anything wrong with advertising or sales on the site. Most of the numbers are based on collected statistics and the people submitting those stats presumably based their purchases on a lot more than 3dmark scores. So if an 8800GTS is the most popular card in its price range according to the number of 3dmark submissions I don't see anything wrong with FM providing that info.
     
  7. kyleb

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    52
    I see a potential conflict of interest in building a benchmark which effectively promotes hardware sales while getting paid for directing people to buy such hardware. Such an arrangement could create an incentive to design the benchmark to inflate the perceived value of newer hardware.
     
  8. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,304
    Likes Received:
    4,728
    i think what the people are trying to say is if one company is willing to spend lots of money with futuremark then it would possibly endanger said spending of money if that your benchmark showed that companies products to be inferior to the competition therfore it would be in futuremarks best interest to write the benchmark in a way that made sure that didnt happen

    would you spend money with a company that was saying hey your competitors products are better?
     
  9. Kowan

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Like the boost in 3DMark for running a quad vs. a dual? Fews games take advantage of quads, but the CPU score implies otherwise.
     
  10. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,061
    Likes Received:
    4,276
    Location:
    Finland
    3DMarks never try to represent todays games, but what's coming in future.
     
  11. tabs

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    258
    Location:
    UK
    Is it any good at it though?
     
  12. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Well, first you might like to understand that "objectivity" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, which basically means that "objectivity" actually doesn't exist anywhere as a valid ethical trait. Rather, "objectivity" is a goal that we constantly strive for but actually never, ever reach--much like the speed of light, for instance...;) Basically, what is "objective" to you might seem entirely subjective to me, and vice-versa--which means that nobody is perfectly objective even at their objective best. Indeed, most of us are innately so subjective that even if we were exposed to perfectly objective material we would be unable to understand it as such, and would find "problems" with it whenever it did not conform to our subjective opinions.

    As far as "making a profit" goes, consider the fact that if it was not possible to make a profit then we would have no computers, no operating systems, no 3d cards and no 3d games and the Internet would not exist and you and I would not be having this discussion because, obviously, this forum itself would not exist. The great myth of our time, for instance, is that nobody involved in "open source software" makes a profit from their labors--thus we constantly see tons and tons of propaganda published to the effect that there is some material difference between oss and other commercial software development in terms of a profit motive.

    This is a complete myth--the only difference is that generally, publicly owned commercial software companies are much more upfront about the profits they make and from whence those profits come than are oss software developers, who are often very tight-lipped about how much money they make and about precisely where that money comes from. The difference between private commercial development and oss development is far more superficial than it is substantial in terms of a profit necessity. Both models require profit to succeed--they simply report their profits in very different ways, with the oss community being far more opaque in doing so, in my humble, subjective opinion.

    The fact I'm trying belatedly to get at is that to my knowledge there is no economy on earth, regardless of the particular political philosophy it may espouse at any time, in which its citizens do not have to work in order to eat. So naturally, when people work they expect immediate profits to themselves in the form of wages. People who write either private commercial software or oss will simply not do so unless they perceive it will be profitable for them to do so. IE, you no pay me, I no write software...;) It's pure cause and effect.

    So...once this fact is properly framed and understood, then we can easily see how the fact that whether or not any particular piece of software generates a profit for its creators has nothing whatever to do with "objectivity," since we've established that everybody who writes software of any description expects a "payday" of some kind in return, and unless he gets that payday he will not continue to write that particular type of software. Even authors who write for the public domain expect a payday of some kind in return for their labor, and if they don't get it they stop writing it.

    IE, complaining that the owners of 3dMark expect to make a profit is about as worthwhile a complaint as complaining that Google expects to make a profit on its search engines and its advertising paradigms. Whether Google makes a profit or not has no bearing on how "good" their software is, just as whether or not 3dMark is profitable for its owners has no bearing on whether or not 3dMark is "good" software. Ironically, the better the software is the more profit its creators may expect from it, as generally people will not buy bad software--at least in quantities sufficient to keep a company rolling in profits for years on end...;)

    Bottom line is that whether or not software is "good" or "objective" has to do with how that software is subjectively perceived by the people who buy it. The more they like it, the more copies they buy, and the more profit the company makes. Hence the actual relationship between "profit" and "quality" in terms of software would seem to be the inverse of what you think it is.
     
  13. Mark

    Mark aka Ratchet
    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    we need cliffsnotes for your posts, Walt :p
     
  14. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,304
    Likes Received:
    4,728
    yes walt, but using your example would not a dev write his software to make his customers happy while at the same time not caring if it did not please those who were not his customers
     
  15. kyleb

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    52
    Sure, and if the beholders making the benchmark allow their objectivity to be skewed by profits coming from selling new hardware, then it falls from alignment with the view of objectivity desired by those who purchase or otherwise would purchase that benchmarking software.
     
    #55 kyleb, Feb 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2008
  16. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Right--and then people won't buy it because they'll mistrust the software, which means the particular benchmark company in question probably won't survive long enough to do another benchmark...;) IE, for a software company, being biased and prejudicial to that extent isn't likely to help as much as it will hurt, which means there isn't a lot of motive for software companies to produce slanted and prejudicial software. If such companies want to make the most profit possible, that means they have to sell the most product possible, and they can't do that without being as even-handed as possible.

    Look, we should all realistically face the fact that the current state of 3d game review is abysmal and atrocious, and I don't really see how it could get much worse than it is today. When was the last time you read a 3d-game review that talked about the plot, the characters, and the quality and depth of the *game* itself as opposed to displaying a plethora of frame-rate bar charts that literally tell us nothing about the game supposedly being reviewed? Another way of saying it is *who* writes a 3d-game review these days that pimps (or criticizes) the game instead of pimping or criticizing the 3d hardware people use to play the game? Can you think of anyone? I'm having a difficult time answering that question in the affirmative.

    Benchmarks like 3dMark cover one specific and narrow aspect of 3d gaming--which means they can be useful when considered in that context. The problem is that so many people now consider games from only that one narrow aspect (frame-rates on various pieces of hardware) that the games themselves literally seem of little or no consequence. My own opinion is that if a given game runs at 500 fps on somebody's hardware, but it really sucks as a game, then who cares about the frame rates on anybody's hardware?
     
  17. armchair_architect

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    8
    Uhh, those bar-chart filled pages are *hardware* reviews, not *game* reviews. Bar charts are a pretty reasonable (I'm not going to claim ideal) way of displaying performance data, which along with image quality is one of the most important reasons people buy such hardware.

    Head on over to Ars Technica's gaming area if you want to read quality *game* reviews that emphasize gameplay, story, and so on at least as much as graphics.
     
  18. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,304
    Likes Received:
    4,728
    since 3dmark is supposed to indicate how hardware will do in future games does anyone know if the predictions the current 3dmark made about gfx cards when it was realsed turned out to be true when the next gen games came out (stalker/crysis/coh/bioshock/ut3 ect) ?
     
  19. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    19,562
    Likes Received:
    22,563
    To get your answer, look at 3dMark scores and Stalker/Crysis/COH/Bioshock/UT3 benchmark scores for the 2900 XT and compare how close the two sets track when compared to an Nvidia card.
     
  20. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,304
    Likes Received:
    4,728
    i was hopeing someone knew so i wouldnt have to ;)
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...