FutureMarks Horrifying Report
- Thread starter micron
- Start date
Aj, thank for all the info. Please dont forget to get info on whether the stats are based on all card submittions, or one for each user.
thanks,
thanks,
ET said:
Hmm...I've downloaded it 3 times (spread over 2 machines and 2 versions), and have put up more than 10 scores.
I'd expect the typical case to be somewhere more towards my end, unless re-downloading is more popular than posting scores for everyone? Maybe my perception of limitations in broadband uses is more out of date than even the data, though. Things also depend on what they mean by "machine".
Also, was the wording "GF 2" cards, or "GF 2 class" cards? Even granting nividia marketshare in line with what was mentioned, the GF 4 MX has been selling for a while. Sort of a slippery slope to be discussing paraphrasing of an article based on data where the source is unclear.
In any case, the issue seems to be that the data in question is a bit dated, possibly cumulative over an unspecified time period that may include the time before cards above "GF 2 class" were available, and may not be 3dmark specific. Perhaps AJ's more recent data or more information regarding what data was used will help if it arrives later.
I think more people probably download and run it, than actually submit scores. Not to mention, it's the user count. If you submit 10 scores, you're still only 1 user (unless you opened 10 ORB accounts). If you benchmark on multiple machines/configs, that's still only 1 user (not sure how this is counted towards the end results, but it makes sense in terms of the 770K users, but 2.5M downloads.
Can I be your friend.Mulciber said:
. Just joking, i use my spare machines to fold. later,
Does anyone actually find it surprising that the average videocard would be GF2 (Probably GF2MX) level? Goes to show how a lot of people on this board are more 3d theorizers than 3d gamers.
Some people I know from Warcraft III are still using TNT2 and VooDoo3 level hardware! There are plenty of people with GF1/GF2MX/Radeon7000 class videocards, and lots of people with sub-GHz CPUs. And that's not even that bad - Warcraft III is much more graphically intense than Starcraft and Counter-Strike, and hundreds of thousands of gamers still play SC and CS each day. And don't even mention "The Sims"!
Given the sheer number of people playing games like The Sims and Starcraft, I would not be surprised to hear that a GeForce2MX is more than the average 3d videocard. Heck, a 90 MHz Pentium with no 3d accelerator at all can play Starcraft comfortably. And for all you can say about 2 year old scores cluttering the ORB, anyone who would actually download and submit 3dmark scores probably has a well-above-average system.
However, the fact that 80% of the population cannot hope to run their game does not deter people like Tim Sweeney and John Carmack from making good graphics. After all, First Person Shooters only appeal to a certain demographic group (one very different from the "The Sims" crowd) and that group is far more likely to have cutting-edge hardware than the RTS or RPG gamer. The fact that ~80% of the gaming public has extremely outdated computers has not been a show-stopping roadblock for 3d engines in the past, and is not a big roadblock now.
I find it extremely heartening that both nVidia and ATi are now extending DX8 support (DX9 in the case of NV34) to the low end. Today's low end cards are going to remain in a lot of computers for the next 3 years - they, like the TNT2 for games released in 2002, will be the minimum system requirement for games in 2006.
Some people I know from Warcraft III are still using TNT2 and VooDoo3 level hardware! There are plenty of people with GF1/GF2MX/Radeon7000 class videocards, and lots of people with sub-GHz CPUs. And that's not even that bad - Warcraft III is much more graphically intense than Starcraft and Counter-Strike, and hundreds of thousands of gamers still play SC and CS each day. And don't even mention "The Sims"!
Given the sheer number of people playing games like The Sims and Starcraft, I would not be surprised to hear that a GeForce2MX is more than the average 3d videocard. Heck, a 90 MHz Pentium with no 3d accelerator at all can play Starcraft comfortably. And for all you can say about 2 year old scores cluttering the ORB, anyone who would actually download and submit 3dmark scores probably has a well-above-average system.
However, the fact that 80% of the population cannot hope to run their game does not deter people like Tim Sweeney and John Carmack from making good graphics. After all, First Person Shooters only appeal to a certain demographic group (one very different from the "The Sims" crowd) and that group is far more likely to have cutting-edge hardware than the RTS or RPG gamer. The fact that ~80% of the gaming public has extremely outdated computers has not been a show-stopping roadblock for 3d engines in the past, and is not a big roadblock now.
I find it extremely heartening that both nVidia and ATi are now extending DX8 support (DX9 in the case of NV34) to the low end. Today's low end cards are going to remain in a lot of computers for the next 3 years - they, like the TNT2 for games released in 2002, will be the minimum system requirement for games in 2006.
Not surprising to me at all.Boddozerg said:
The biggest "type of gamers" aren't Unreal/QuakeX folks... they're The Sims folks, hardly the type of game that the crowd here are interested in. Having video cards with the latest DX support don't really matter to these folks... it's just a "plus" to them (hell, they'd probably go "Huh?" when you ask them what DX level of support does their video card support)... they want them cheap enough to play The Sims without problems.
Chris123234
Regular
edit: read wrong
This proves the demographic of folks willing to sell out their email addresses to some outfit that has used their "Performance Analyser" to suggest hilarious hardware upgrades (.. to the highest bidder.. ) consists of mainly folks with very, very low end videocards.
I can account for every single 9700 Pro I've seen move through my area as being ones that would never participate in such a process. Hell, I have two 9700 Pros, a GF4 Ti4600, a GF3 and an 8500 myself all of which will never submit a single score.
Lastly from Chalnoth-
If you are ecstatic about the FX5200, then you must be orgasmic over the 9500 series which has been doing just that for several months now... with substantially higher performance and has been readily available.
I can account for every single 9700 Pro I've seen move through my area as being ones that would never participate in such a process. Hell, I have two 9700 Pros, a GF4 Ti4600, a GF3 and an 8500 myself all of which will never submit a single score.
Lastly from Chalnoth-
If you are ecstatic about the FX5200, then you must be orgasmic over the 9500 series which has been doing just that for several months now... with substantially higher performance and has been readily available.
I'm trying to discern some kind of value for statistics like these, regardless of their apparent age. I've been 3D gaming since the V1 and have never proffered a score to the 3D Mark data base. I'll wager there are hundreds of thousands of people just like me. This almost seems like one of those polls CNN runs where people are asked to supply an answer to a poll question--such results aren't considered a valid cross section by anyone. Talking about how "clueless" people can be, I'd imagine there's a big section of the populace utterly unfamiliar with 3D Mark in any form.
I can see a marketing department somewhere being interested in numbers like this--but as to them representing anything specific--I doubt it.
I can see a marketing department somewhere being interested in numbers like this--but as to them representing anything specific--I doubt it.
Well if Chalnoth is excited that DX9 will be offered for a low price then obviously he must be "orgasmic" (lol) about the prospects of the Radeon 9600 low end part priced approx the same as the 5200 only far better .. "orgasmic" indeed. hehe.
I think you guys are getting the ultra version of the 5200 which will have a MSRP of $150 which is relatively the same price as a Radeon 9500. IMO the choice between the Radoen 9500pro or the 5200 "ultra" is a definit no brainer. The 9500 bitch slaps the 5200 but then again so will the Radeon 9600.
I think you guys are getting the ultra version of the 5200 which will have a MSRP of $150 which is relatively the same price as a Radeon 9500. IMO the choice between the Radoen 9500pro or the 5200 "ultra" is a definit no brainer. The 9500 bitch slaps the 5200 but then again so will the Radeon 9600.
I wouldn't quite go as so far to say that there are hundreds of thousands of 3D gamers who have never submitted a score to the database. Don't forget that scores are recorded whether they are published or not - there are a large number of cases where people grab a copy of a PC/gaming magazine, install, run and then just click the ORB button. Many people don't go beyond that but the results are still logged. Of course there will be hundreds of thousands of people who use PCs everyday and will have never heard of MadOnion/Futuremark/3DMark - I never bother to try and explain who I do writing for with people at work 8). However, every student who plays 3D games that I know, also know of 3DMark even though have only used it once or twice.
There again, what do we class as a 3D gamers? One who solely plays FPS such as Q3A or MOHAA? My brother in law plays countless 3D games - RTS, RPG, flight sims - but doesn't use 3DMark. I think he's used it once in the past (and even submitted a score) but it doesn't mean anything to him; as long as the games run fine, he couldn't care less how many boobooflarps it scores...mind you, when they don't run fine, all I get is endless hassle on the phone
Thowllly said:
I thought the 5200 was a replacement for the GF4 Ti4200. That is what I was jusging the pricing model on. I may be wrong but retailers should have prices in the next couple of weeks and I will hopefully find out then for sure what is going on and what we are actually comparing to.
If a GFFX 5200 is going to retail for $79 in some parts I wouldn't mind grabbing one for my new 2nd system
BoddoZerg said:Does anyone actually find it surprising that the average videocard would be GF2 (Probably GF2MX) level? Goes to show how a lot of people on this board are more 3d theorizers than 3d gamers.
Some people I know from Warcraft III are still using TNT2 and VooDoo3 level hardware! There are plenty of people with GF1/GF2MX/Radeon7000 class videocards, and lots of people with sub-GHz CPUs. And that's not even that bad - Warcraft III is much more graphically intense than Starcraft and Counter-Strike, and hundreds of thousands of gamers still play SC and CS each day. And don't even mention "The Sims"!
A lot of gamers do play games a lot more cutting edge than these, however. So, I don't think it's fair to say if you have a faster 3D card or don't play these games, you're not a gamer.
Maximum PC says that the numbers given from FutureMark's database derived from 3DMark 2001SE, and the FutureMark web based performance analyzer. These are not 3DMark2K3 numbers. But just to be more precise on the numbers that they are giving:....GeForce2MX/MX400=19%......TNT2 M64=11%.....Generic VGA=6%....GeForceTi4200=6%.....GeForce3Ti200=6%....Geforce2MX100/200=5%......GeForce2GTS/Pro/Ti=4%....RivaTNT2/Pro=3%....Radeon8500=3%....GeForce4Ti4600=3%.......That was the FutureMark Top 10 List for video cards....Ready for the processor top 10?....Pentium3=25%.......Pentium4=19%......Athlon=17%.....AthlonXP/MP/4=16%.....Celeron=8%......Duron=6%...Pentium2=4%....K6=3%....Unknown=1%.....Pentium=1%......Operating System numbers are.....WindowsXP=49%.....Windows98=23%.....Windows2000=14%.....WindowsME=13%
Similar threads
- Locked
