Higher 3DMark05 scores = Better Equipped for Future Games?
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
Needs more analysis of the tests themselves first.
jvd said:
"3DMarks" always depend on the Game Tests results. Did you read my reason-for-this-poll post? For the thick-minded, 3DMark03 and 3DMark05 (or, really, all other previous 3DMarkXXs) are meant to show how games will likely be made based on current API (paraphrased by me). It is, in FM's words, "The Gamers Benchmark". IOW, FM is speaking for GAME developers in an ABSOLUTE perspective -- True or False?
And, after such "analysis", that will tell you the majority of what game developers think?The Baron said:
I would say yes, but i wouldn't use it as an exact science. Rather like a guideline.
The problem is then, what new does it tell us ? Nothing that we didn't know already since it seems to match what we've seen in other games.
Would be good to see different res/aa/af used though. Seems rather uninteresting with just 1024*768 , no aa/af.
The problem is then, what new does it tell us ? Nothing that we didn't know already since it seems to match what we've seen in other games.
Would be good to see different res/aa/af used though. Seems rather uninteresting with just 1024*768 , no aa/af.
I guess if you have the hardware to run 3DMark well then games will obviously run real nice.
No game coming out anytime soon will have the visuals of 3DMark because hardware certainly isn't currently equiped to run those visuals with good performance.
Heck, Doom 3 ran better with max texture quality, 1280x1024 + 6xAA + 16x Quality AF than 3DMark05 without those IQ settings enabled and with a resolution of 1024x768.
No game coming out anytime soon will have the visuals of 3DMark because hardware certainly isn't currently equiped to run those visuals with good performance.
Heck, Doom 3 ran better with max texture quality, 1280x1024 + 6xAA + 16x Quality AF than 3DMark05 without those IQ settings enabled and with a resolution of 1024x768.
jvd said:
That's actually a concern of mine also. Doesn't seem to match what we've heard from the developers. Haven't Carmack and Sweeney both mentioned that vertex performance won't be a problem in their upcoming engines ?
I'd still like to see what happens in higher res , AA, AF though.
I don't know enough about the bottlenecks and features used in the individual game tests to be able to say if it is likely that 3DMark05 will be a useful indicator of future game performance.
From past experience, even if FutureMark aren't right on the money with regard to the features used, the general trend as to who 'wins' in each generation of 3DMark does seem to correlate pretty well with which boards will offer better performance in future titles.
It's hard to generalise though, realistically there's no way of saying "all future games will be like this" especially when, like this generation, you have competing boards that are generally speaking on a very level performance platform. You could argue that this current generation of cards is the toughest test for 3DMark yet, in the past few generations it's always been easy to 'pick a winner'.
It's hard to generalise though, realistically there's no way of saying "all future games will be like this" especially when, like this generation, you have competing boards that are generally speaking on a very level performance platform. You could argue that this current generation of cards is the toughest test for 3DMark yet, in the past few generations it's always been easy to 'pick a winner'.
I chose not sure...... because of the obvious slant in the bechmark by enabling DST as a default. I am beginning to move over to the position that others have about FM. Accepting money from the very people you are comparing in the benchmark has it's problems........... and once again it seems to boil down to ethics.....
What if in the near future all games are going to use DST (we already have FarCry)?
That would both mean that Futuremark was right on the money once again, and that Beyond3D made a complete arse out of itself, not to mention a lot of people posting on forums.
Let's have another poll in 2 years time or so.
That would both mean that Futuremark was right on the money once again, and that Beyond3D made a complete arse out of itself, not to mention a lot of people posting on forums.
Let's have another poll in 2 years time or so.
jvd said:
I don't think vertex shader usage is that heavy, the x700 loses badly to the x800 Pro even thought the x700xt has more vertes shading power, it also about even with the 6600GT even thought it has almost twice the vertex power.
Also the x800 Pro has good deal more vertex shading power than the 6800GT and they are still about even. To me it looks like there is better corelation been the scores and pixel shader power than between the scores and vertex shading power.
Scali said:
You don't understand the problem at all it seems.
Ingenu to Dave Baumann (PM) said:
I don't post the answer since it's private and meant to remain as such, I can just make my message public.
I think all threads about that issue should be locked until Beyond3D issues an Article pointing out the problems 3DMark05 have.
I voted not sure since there are several things (including DST, lack of 3dc, heavy vertex workload) that Futuremark employed that may never be widely realized in games during the life of this benchmark. If the Doom and Source engines rule the playing fields for the next two years then 3dmark05 is utterly useless.
Similar threads
- Locked
