3DMark05 scores courtesy the Inq

Then how do we expect it to foretell how future games run if it will not render like a game will?

I am agreeing that they should have added the 3Dc, but I am also saying let Futuremark explain themselves before we crucify them.

 

There's no such thing as a 100% DX9 card. Afterall, all of them have non-DX9 features. Unreal 3 isn't a 100% DX9 game, it uses a DX7/DX8 feature called normal mapping. In fact, I think Unreal 3 relies on normal maps.

 

We will find out exactly how future games using dx 9 will run.

What makes dst so damn special that it got put in over 3Dc ? The answer is nothing .

WHich makes it bias . If your only going to add in one venders specific features then its not a benchmark of anyhting but that card .

This benchmark is meant to show upcoming dx 9 performance. Dst is not dx 9 performance. Its very simple. I don't know why i have to keep explaining it .

all past dx features are incorprated into new dx specifications . All new dx 9 hardware must be backwards compatabile


It doesn't matter what new features cards have that are not part of the dx 9 spec. This is claimed to be from its creators a dx9 benchmark. It is not that if they are using vender specific non dx 9 features .

What is so hard to understand ?

 

Just what i expected from you trinibwoy , you ignore the arguements because your wrong and then attack me and call me childish.


I'm through with this thread.

 

We done with this tit-for-tat? I'll lock this thread if this continues and say you two are to blame.

[edit] jvd, remember we appointed you as a moderator.

 

no , i still get to call you a bunch of names for no reason . Then we can be even.


With dst in 3dmark 2005 it can not be a dx 9 benchmark. Its very simple . With 3dc it couldn't be either. With only 1 in there they are favoring a specific vendor.

That is what i'm saying. ITs very simple and very true .

 

I want a gaming benchmark not a DirectX 9 benchmark. If that means 3Dc and DST make it a non DirectX 9 benchmark then so be it. If this is "The Gamers' Benchmark" then let it be so, otherwise make it more like Shadermark or a similar bench.

Edit: Spelling mistake

 

trini and jvd, ur both wrong.

jvd it still is a direct x 9 benchmark, just slanted towards nvidia.

trini, 3dc should be included if dst is, its not fair otherwise.

 

OpenGL Guy was kind enough to send me screenshots from his X800XT, And after seeing them. I'm inclined to agree. The shots showed above dont appear to have anti aliasing enabled.

It looks similar to the above screenshot on my 6800, W/o AA enabled.

In Any Event here the pics OpenGL Guy sent me. He sent them to me in .bmp format but I went ahead and made them .png.


Both with 4x AA

http://members.cox.net/omega1979/0000.png

http://members.cox.net/omega1979/0001.png

Clearly AA is doing fine on the ATI card.

 

More importantly how am i wrong. since its not just a dx 9 benchmark anymore its a dx 9 + nvidia specific feature benchmark which doesn't make it a 100% dx 9 like they claim .

Anyway i'm done , going to play games .

 

you guys are equally wrong, and your equally bias towards your preferred ihv.

 

looking at this, same thing I noted at nvnews....

Well here this is what I'm thinking and where I saw that that x800xt pci-e got 4900 with 4.9 cats

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...mance-report/8/


And the AGP version with the new drivers are higher by 500!

It could be a fair optimization by all means, but why is the pci-e version and AGP version different in scores by that much and why is the AGP higher using the new drivers?

The second graph is (PEG) is the pci-e cards

 

I believe that the AGP card used is an X800 XT PE but the PCIe card is an X800 XT. The XT PE is faster than the XT.

 

NO there is a x800xt agp too and a x800 xt pe agp and a x800xt pci-e