Futuremark: 3DMark06
- Thread starter trinibwoy
- Start date
After reading through these posts it does seem to be a reasonable conclusion that for some reason, behind the scenes, Futuremark partnered with Nvidia on this project. It does not look like "coincidence" at all. Specific choices where made over several months that had specific impacts on different vendors.
Choices were made that frankly favor Nvidia at this time. How can having the best SM3 processing hardware not be allowed to have an impact in a supposed "future" looking benchmark?
Once the X1900XT gets released things are going to change in a hurry though. Looks like this one might put a beat down on the competition.
Choices were made that frankly favor Nvidia at this time. How can having the best SM3 processing hardware not be allowed to have an impact in a supposed "future" looking benchmark?
Once the X1900XT gets released things are going to change in a hurry though. Looks like this one might put a beat down on the competition.
Then you can now be sure.Cowboy X said:
Monday gonna be interesting...
Yes.Cowboy X said:Are those snippets of soon to be revealed common knowledge or , just hope
Hanners said:
This being the case I suppose that (in theory at least) we can roughly extrapolate the performance hit on the X1800 by seeing what the hit is on NVidia cards when hardware shadow mapping is disabled. I'm pretty sure that I saw some NVidia benchmarks with/without hardware shadowing on EB's website. Unfortunately, their site is borked at the moment so I can't check it this!
Mariner said:
Elite Bastards is working fine for me, although it is playing its bi-weekly game of "whore's drawers" because I dared to post some content.
Anyhow, from looking at the charts I can tell you that a 7800GT (on an Athlon64 3500+ system with 1GB of RAM) is losing just under 300 points in the Shader Model 2.0 tests. This equates to about 2 frames per second lost each in graphics tests one and two.
DAMN JOU!!! DAMN JOU TO HELL!!!!!!Hanners said:Elite Bastards is working fine for me, although it is playing its bi-weekly game of "whore's drawers" because I dared to post some content.
I keep telling you, if you keep it up like this the place will be getting all touristy.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
X800Pro @ Bios'd XT/PE Speeds 520/560
1Gig DDR 400
7NNXP Gigabyte Mobo
AMD 3200+ @ 2200 (def.)
First Pic CAT5.13
Second Pic Cat6.1
1Gig DDR 400
7NNXP Gigabyte Mobo
AMD 3200+ @ 2200 (def.)
First Pic CAT5.13
Second Pic Cat6.1
Exactly.Nick[FM] said:And what's the difference if we would have physics & AI in the graphics tests, eliminating pure GPU benchmarking?We now have 4 graphics tests and 2 CPU tests (which do use lots of physics, AI etc.), and we are able to output a 3DMark score based on your systems' gaming performance, and sub scores for pure graphics & CPU benchmarking. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in your post since that's what we did. Only difference is that we separated those two aspects (CPU & GPU) in order for people to do more in-depth benchmarking.
Cheers,
Nick
You took the graphics card completely out of the equation, where as a regular game test (1280x1024) that just hit the CPU much harder than the other tests would be more realistic.
Well actually since some of the tests are already heavily cpu limited why didn't you make them hit the GPU more?
It seems the harder you guys try to create a good benchmarking tool the harder you guys fall.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jawed said:
Doesn't even look like that, that means the x1600 would perform noticable worse then other cards in its catagory while in the sm 3.0 path. Since from what Nick has said these features aren't aviable in the sm 3.0 tests? Sure doesn't seem like its getting hurt much. Actually its doing very very well.
radeonic2 said:
Well they didn't fail, its a synthetic test, its good for analyse of weak and strong points of gpu tech, for true benchmark tests games are the only way to go. Lets see there was only one benchmark out there and it was the game FEAR, would it be a great benchmarking tool? Well yeah for that one game, but Doom 3 will be different, Far Cry would be different, etc, etc.
The more i look at this the more just wrong it seems.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2675&p=3
There is just no way, that the X1800XT should be slower than a GTX in a benchmark that is supposedly heavy on SM2 and SM3.
To me this is as blatantly fixed as you can get. Its on the same level as the Troy palumalu INT in the Steelers/Colts game that was suddenly a "incomplete pass".
Whats the point in going out of your way to make a Card that is completely geared towards Shader rendering if companies because of money or whatever just find ways to work around it so you still lose?
The X1800Xt should be within a few % of the GTX 512. Anything that shows any different is not worth the hard drive space its saved on.
I am now officially on the futuremark needs to go the way of the dodo bandwaggon. Tehy need to dissapear of the scene and now before they do any more damage.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2675&p=3
There is just no way, that the X1800XT should be slower than a GTX in a benchmark that is supposedly heavy on SM2 and SM3.
To me this is as blatantly fixed as you can get. Its on the same level as the Troy palumalu INT in the Steelers/Colts game that was suddenly a "incomplete pass".
Whats the point in going out of your way to make a Card that is completely geared towards Shader rendering if companies because of money or whatever just find ways to work around it so you still lose?
The X1800Xt should be within a few % of the GTX 512. Anything that shows any different is not worth the hard drive space its saved on.
I am now officially on the futuremark needs to go the way of the dodo bandwaggon. Tehy need to dissapear of the scene and now before they do any more damage.
