3DMark Vantage Soon

They don't track. Now you know as well. In 3DM06 the 2900 was in the same league/better than the 8800GTX/Ultra. IRL that never ever materialized.

 

thanks so 3dmak 2006 got it wrong
i wonder if 2005 + 2003 did also ?

 

The GFFX was on par with the 9700/9800s in 2005. Do you feel that is right?

 

Just to throw in some numbers

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2900_XT__R600_Has_Arrived/?page=14

Total score:
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 10450
8800 GTX 11161 (6,8% faster)
8800 Ultra 11839 (13,29% faster)

SM 2.0 score:
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 4535
8800 GTX 5165 (13,89% faster)
8800 Ultra 5531 (21.96% faster)

SM 3.0 score
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 4904
8800 GTX 5048 (2,93% faster)
8800 Ultra 5537 (12.91% faster)

http://www.behardware.com/articles/521-5/3dmark05.html

3Dmark05
9600 XT 1503
9800 XT 2951
5900 XT 977
5950U 1264

 

Sorry, brainfart, I was thinking about 2003...2005 was released after the GFFX, no?

 

I remember FX loses in 2003 aswell, if you compare scores after removal of driver optimizations at the time.

 

Yup, AFTER REMOVAL of driver optimizations. That's part of my point...with 3DMark you have an always known quantity, a non-moving target for optimization...that is until the next version comes out. So 3DM is very good at showing how 3DM performs, and might show how FutureMark's game will perform, it's hardly an adequate universal measuring stick, as it's sometimes made out to be.

 

Weren't shader optimizations "dead" since the launch of G70 or something? 3DMark might still prove a decent benchmark, or at least some seriously good eye candy

Time will tell

 

well it appears that previous 3dmarks failed in their ability "to predict how pc's would run future games"
it'll look pretty though

 

I read ARS regularly, actually...

Yea, I know that they're hardware reviews...but you tell me...is a 3d-card that tests at 150fps really "50% better" than one that tests at 100fps? Glad that you mentioned IQ because that's probably the most often overlooked aspect of all current 3d-card reviews--and of course it directly impacts the frame-rate tests--which in turn means basically that the frame-rate results published are essentially useless for comparison many times, doesn't it? Or, how about the fact that many people read 3d-card reviews that test at resolutions their monitors don't support and from those reviews draw conclusions about the resolutions they use that are actually incongruent with the performance of that product when running at the resolutions they *can* use...?

What I'm saying is that I get really tired of hearing that "time constraint" forces a reviewer to avoid IQ comparisons and to avoid testing at all the resolutions the product he's reviewing supports. My thought is that if he doesn't have enough time to do just those things then he really doesn't have enough time to write the review. Just my opinion, of course, but there it is...

 

Do you actually believe that there is one huge IQ delta between the two competing IHVs that everyone simply chooses to ignore when benchmarking?Times have moved on, you know...it's not the dark ages of 3D when each IHV had it's own way of producing an image.

Both nV and ATi are quite aligned in this respect in about 99% of cases, and it's a safe bet that most ppl wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two(yes, I know of that test made with 9 ppl and no, I don't think it helps your point...unless you feel that 9 ppl are actually an adequate statistical population for this analysis).

As to testing all resolutions that the reviewed product supports...is that a joke?Have you ever even tried writing a review?Are you aware of what goes into it?What's the relevance of testing 800x600?That's supported by pretty much everyone. How about 1280x800...betcha didn't think about that one, eh?Seriously, why test all supported resolutions?All supported AA levels?Ok. All supported AF levels?Ok. Various in-game settings?Ok, that makes sense sometimes. 3-4 relevant resolutions at most(thinking the native res of 19" 20" 22" and 24" displays, maybe)?Yeah, that works too, for titles where resolution has a significant effect. But why in the 9 Hells test all supported resolutions?

 

So I guess "Soon" in the thread title was a euphemism for "Sometime this year" ?

 

Perhaps ATi is telling them to hold out for RV770. Hey it's a possibility.

 

The driver optimizations Nvidia did for 3dmark 03 where completely invalid. In one driver release they took advantage of the fact that the camera was on a rail and cut out all geometry and textures and whatnot that weren't visible on screen... they completely invalidated any result. As well as dropping all the shaders to FP16, although it's debatable as to whether or not that optimization was valid. I was so disgusted with that, AMD historically has always been playing catch up and they never resorted to cheating.

 

Well blow me down...speak of the devil

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=259301

 

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=184802

So april 22nd? Time to install Vista again then...

 

Lots of physics and GPGPU tests.. nice

I'm glad to see its Vista/DX10 only aswell, things definatly need to move forward in the PC space. What with people stuck on 32bit XP and <24" monitors I can evisage a time in the not too distant future when PC's will be behind consoles in system RAM, screen resolution, shader model and stuck running 32 bit software while consoles will be on 64bit (are they already in fact?).

 

All but one console in the last gen were 64 bit. All the current consoles are 64 bit.

Doesn't really matter, however, given the ridiculously small ram in both the X360 and PS3.

I'm giving the Wii a pass on that because of Nintendo's goals for it.

>.>

 

Interesting. I hadn't realised the Gamecube used a 64bit CPU.

I'm not suprised the current gen consoles have 64bit capable processors but does that also mean the software is 64bit? i.e. the PS3's version of UT3 for example is more like the 64bit version on the PC rather than the 32bit?

What advantages does that bring outside of memory capacity?

 

Vista is an abortion. All bloat no float. Seriously Vista brings nothing to the table except bloat and headaches, STILL has poor driver support, and there is nothing in DX10 or DX99 that requires anything in vista.

Will probably go down in history as being slightly better than MS BOB!