3DMurk03 new cheats ?

[beyondhelp]

OpenGL guy said "But the sound or CPU tests have no bearing on how many 3D Marks you get, except that a slow CPU may hurt your scores because you can't render stuff as fast."


Exactly my point, The CPU and Sound test are extraneous and don't figure into the final score, so why have them in there?


OpenGL guy said "If you pay for it, you don't. Or, you can go get some beer (or a "bevvy" as Dio would say) while the tests are running."

I have, as yet, never Paid to use a benchmark, and don't figure on starting anytime soon. 3DMark2001 had the ability to turn tests on and off in the free version, so why didn't Futuremark give us the same functionality with 3DMark03? Never mind , I know why, they want you to BUY it.

(...and I'd have to have soda or Coffee as I don't drink alcohol at all.) Although some of these discussions makes me want to start sometimes...

Don't get me wrong. I think 3DMark03 is a valuable tool to test DX9 Video cards right now, mainly because there aren't any actual DX9 Games yet. I just think if they want to be THE Graphics Benchmark, then they should focus on Graphics functionality, not CPU and sound tests. As I said, I have other benchmarks to measure their performance. I feel the Function tests such as the Vertex test, Pixel Shader 2.0, Ragtroll etc. are far more important to Graphics performance and how Your card will perform and those scores should count in the final score too. (of course that would make Nvidia look really bad then huh? Their Shader and Vertex scores suck compared to ATI's)

 

[Quitch]

You missed the point of my comments. Quitch said "3DMark 2003 is a graphics card test, not a system test, and not many people seem to be grasping that."

I disagreed with that assertion and used 3DMark2001 for my argument. It most certainly has not in the past been a pure Graphics Benchmark, and his pontification that 3DMark03 is any different is what I'm taking issue with. Testing for Graphics Functionality doesn't need a CPU test or Sound test.

WTF are YOU talking about? Where did you get the idea I was inconsistant? I essentially said I had reservations about calling 3DMark a Graphics Benchmark as opposed to a system Bench, and If It is a GRAPHICS Benchmark, then it doesn't need a CPU test or Sound Tests. I have specific Benchmarks for those items.

You can stuff your extra Functionality, and I still have to sit through the meaningless to Graphics CPU and Sound Performance tests whether I ignore them or not...

I don't disagree, I think taking a score simply from the games and not the actual technical tests was a big mistake. I think 3DMark really needed to take the leap into becoming a full graphics test, and not some pretty benchmarks.

However, I also feel that these do not have any clear impact on the final outcome. This isn't 2001 anymore where cooling your CPU to arctic temperatures would lead to a huge score boost. The bottlenecks have changed.

 

[OpenGL guy]

OpenGL guy said "But the sound or CPU tests have no bearing on how many 3D Marks you get, except that a slow CPU may hurt your scores because you can't render stuff as fast."

Exactly my point, The CPU and Sound test are extraneous and don't figure into the final score, so why have them in there?

Because your CPU can affect benchmark results, so it's nice to see how your CPU compares to another. Say you got 10000 3D Marks but someone else got 11000 with what you thought was a slower video card. You could then look at the CPU marks and see if that was the difference. Sound processing can impact gaming performance so I guess that's why it's included. Remember, this benchmark is geared towards gamers.

I have, as yet, never Paid to use a benchmark, and don't figure on starting anytime soon. 3DMark2001 had the ability to turn tests on and off in the free version, so why didn't Futuremark give us the same functionality with 3DMark03? Never mind , I know why, they want you to BUY it.

What's wrong with that? You think everyone should give you free stuff? If Futuremark decides they need a revenue source, as most companies do, then that's their decision. If they want to make users pay for more functionality, then that's also their decision.

 

[Quitch]

ecause your CPU can affect benchmark results, so it's nice to see how your CPU compares to another.

In 3DMark2001, sure. However, this simply isn't the case in 2003. Some of the tests were written in such a way as to stress the card... no one would write their scenes the same way as 3DMark did. This makes it worthless as a measure of anything but graphics, and rightly so. Allowing these factors to sneak in even slightly is to risk making itself irrelevant in its current incarnation.

 

[OpenGL guy]

ecause your CPU can affect benchmark results, so it's nice to see how your CPU compares to another.

In 3DMark2001, sure. However, this simply isn't the case in 2003.

3D Mark 2001 didn't start off CPU limited.

Some of the tests were written in such a way as to stress the card... no one would write their scenes the same way as 3DMark did. This makes it worthless as a measure of anything but graphics, and rightly so.

As video cards get faster, CPU performance could become a factor again. Also, all tests in 3D Mark 2003 are not created equally.

Allowing these factors to sneak in even slightly is to risk making itself irrelevant in its current incarnation.

I don't see how having extra features can hurt anything.

 

[banksie]

In 3DMark2001, sure. However, this simply isn't the case in 2003. Some of the tests were written in such a way as to stress the card...

Not quite true. 3dmark2003 does stress the graphics card heavily but the CPU, motherboard and other bits do still have an effect on scores. I know this because I can run 3dmark on my XP1800+ and compare the results with someone running the same graphics card on an XP3000+ or a P4 3.1 GHz processor and see around four to five hundred marks difference.

No doubt this is simply a measure of the processing overhead the drivers cost along with any potential benefits a faster FSB and AGP port offers. (Although I had though 8x vs 4x wasn't appreciably different.) 3dmark 2003 is much better at keeping the CPU out of the equation but it certainly hasn't fully isolated it either.

Philip