Interesting (3DMark2003) article at Aces Hardware
- Thread starter sonix666
- Start date
martrox said:Evildeus said:
Well, you probably shouldn't.....After all, nVidia says it useless!
I have to agree with dues, I will always have a new card in 3 years, I go for 1.5-2 cards a year. And yes I buy cheaper old ones but I get a new cheaper old one every 8 months
. I have never cared about futuremark 2k or 03, I simply care how what I play now plays now. That is why game benchmarks matter to me, and why I was more stressed by the whole ut2k3 thing that ever about the FM thing. Although I can see where people are coming from and why it was bad, it did not affect me personally. I have almost always skipped the synthetic benchmark scores in the past and actually only started looking at them after the FM fiasco.And the point you can't seem to get is that the title says nothing about measuring game performance - it merely states that it is a benchmark for gamers. If we follow along your line of argument that 3DMark03 tests nothing but the graphics card performance, then it is valid to call it a gamers' benchmark since games that use a lot of shaders, huge polygon and texture counts, dynamics shadows etc etc etc will be far dependent on the graphics card more than the CPU.Slides said:
Neeyik said:
It's not an argument that 3DMark03 is primarily a GPU performance benchmark. It's the fact. It's also a fact that 95% of current games rely considerably on CPU, memory and hard drive performance along with video card performance. Those who play games know this already.
It's like if I were to call Sisoft Sandra benchmarks "The Gamers Benchmark" because they measure CPU and memory performance. That would also be misleading and inaccurate as it does not tell the whole picture about gaming performance.
Whats being discussed here though; is that a pII 350 can actually score quite respectable numbers when equipped with a 9700 pro video card. Based on ace's tests you might think that buying a 3ghz p4 with a good cheap board like a 9600 wouldn't serve you as well as throwing the latest greatest video card in your 5 year old system.
Except 3dmark2003 is designed to test video card features; not how well its going to run the best entertainment titles. Granted thats a large very important chunk of future titles.
Hence if it can't run 3dmark2003 well, you might could stand to reason that it wouldn't run the sort of games 3dmark2003 would represent. Since that would be adding CPU overhead to the mix.
I tend to agree though; that mostly folks like ourselves would be the ones to read aceshardware; and he should have posted information from the whitepaper. No matter how hidden.
Neeyik said:Ah yes, that must be why there's hundreds of new threads on the forums every single day, questioning that title...Slides said:
No, I don't think you realize that most people who download and use 3DMark03 don't even post on the FM or B3D forums. They use it to compare 3D gaming performance and buy top of the line video cards hoping they will get a huge performance boost in games. Many times this does not happen.
Have a look at this little graph:Slides said:
Athlon XP1800+, 1024MB PC2100, 5600 Ultra (44.03 drivers). So Q3A does you're on about - even on the highest graphics settings. Note that UT2k3 and Splinter Cell don't; note how a simple flyby in UT2k3 can become GPU-bound very quickly when set to the highest graphics settings. Now, how many games use shaders? 95% Nowhere near. Oh and do you know if you try to use 3DMark03 for the first time on non-shader capable cards, it actually suggests that you go and use 3DMark2001 instead.
If they did the tests in a way that used techniques in 3D games, such as sound sourcing, netcode, bit of physics, etc then they could still call it a "gamers' benchmark". Why? Because the information gleaned from the tests is useful to gamers, that's why.Slides said:
Slides,
its been said many times before its a foward looking benchmark. Its not supose to tell you how todays games run. That gamers benchmark is just marketing. I develop one of the top mods for Ut2k3. Do you think I enjoy starting UT2k3 and seeing the NV logo telling me its suppose to be played on an NV card ever time I need to test a change even though I know that my R9700 pro is what runs better than almost all NV cards? Same thing its just a slogon. Deal with it.
I am sorry to say Aces article was techincally correct but wrong at the same time Its funny. In one of the last part they say that the reveiwer needs to understand the benchmark. Its apparent that Ace Hardware does not even understand it themselves
its been said many times before its a foward looking benchmark. Its not supose to tell you how todays games run. That gamers benchmark is just marketing. I develop one of the top mods for Ut2k3. Do you think I enjoy starting UT2k3 and seeing the NV logo telling me its suppose to be played on an NV card ever time I need to test a change even though I know that my R9700 pro is what runs better than almost all NV cards? Same thing its just a slogon. Deal with it.
I am sorry to say Aces article was techincally correct but wrong at the same time Its funny. In one of the last part they say that the reveiwer needs to understand the benchmark. Its apparent that Ace Hardware does not even understand it themselves
I'm more aware than most people in this thread as to the numbers of 3DMark03 and forum visitors. I'm also more than aware than anyone here that nobody has complained about the title - not in the forums or via a direct email. Sure people have posted threads about articles on 3DMark03 but nobody has actually sat down and argued this particular issue out themselves.Slides said:Neeyik said:Ah yes, that must be why there's hundreds of new threads on the forums every single day, questioning that title...Slides said:
No, I don't think you realize that most people who download and use 3DMark03 don't even post on the FM or B3D forums. They use it to compare 3D gaming performance and buy top of the line video cards hoping they will get a huge performance boost in games. Many times this does not happen.
Edit: late night typos...
Neeyik said:
I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to represent? Like I said, 3DMark03 is not representative of performance in current games. I still use a GF2 but can still play most current games reasonably well, since my CPU is much newer. I don't really need to upgrade my video card, at least not until HL2 or Doom3 comes out. 3DMark03 would have me believe that my video card is absolutely worthless. Many casual 3DMark03 users can easily get misled by this, since they do not realize that 3DMark03 is a synthetic GPU benchmark.
Only if the results were in line with what current games are offering on a similar platform. The issue with 3DMark03 is that while it remains a synthetic benchamrk, too many people assume it's not. That's not entirely FM's fault, but they have not helped this impression by calling it " the gamer's benchmark" and calling it an "extremely accurate overview of your system’s current gaming performance".
jb said:
Exactly! Thats' what I'm saying.
Right once again, both the NV logo in games, and FM marketing statements serve to mislead people. And many causal gamers are easily mislead by such tactics. Not everyone is a B3D reader.
I am sorry to say Aces article was techincally correct but wrong at the same time Its funny. In one of the last part they say that the reveiwer needs to understand the benchmark. Its apparent that Ace Hardware does not even understand it themselves
Why was it wrong? I still don't' understand what was wrong about the Ace's article. Only thing I can think of is that they didn't quote FM's whitepaper.
I do like 3DMark2003 because it does provide us with some nice graphics that might be used in future games. And it does provide us with a tool to measure almost purely GPU performance.
However, the point is that 3DMark2003 is promoted as a benchmark for your current gaming performance, and that is simply not true. My problem is thus not with the benchmark itself, but how the benchmark is portrayed.
I also disagree with some people here that say the 3DMark2003 will be indicative of games in the near future (1-2 years?). While the graphics part might be as advanced as some near future games, the other parts are not as advanced, maybe even not as advanced as todays games. That means by the time games use as heavy graphics as 3DMark2003 that the CPU is not stressed enough by 3DMark2003 as the crop of games by then will. In other words, 3DMark2003 will never be indicative for gaming performance.
But still, it serves its rightfull purpose as almost pure GPU test.
However, the point is that 3DMark2003 is promoted as a benchmark for your current gaming performance, and that is simply not true. My problem is thus not with the benchmark itself, but how the benchmark is portrayed.
I also disagree with some people here that say the 3DMark2003 will be indicative of games in the near future (1-2 years?). While the graphics part might be as advanced as some near future games, the other parts are not as advanced, maybe even not as advanced as todays games. That means by the time games use as heavy graphics as 3DMark2003 that the CPU is not stressed enough by 3DMark2003 as the crop of games by then will. In other words, 3DMark2003 will never be indicative for gaming performance.
But still, it serves its rightfull purpose as almost pure GPU test.
Correct - so why then does it get used so frequently as a benchmark? Why can Apple use a non-benchmarking program to claim higher performance than a PC for their products? Misuse of an application, in order to review or test a product, is probably the biggest and most consistent flaw in computing journalism.
I haven't read it for a while now but PCW always "reviewed" a graphics card by using 3DMark and Quake 3 Arena over two resolutions - no AA, no AF, no different detail settings, and more importantly, no applications used to cross-reference the test results. I used to work in the PC/consumer industry and I lost count of the number of people requesting to buy XXXX product, clutching the aforementioned PCW in their hands. It has been a while since I've read a copy, so they may well have changed their procedures, but when people start spouting all kinds of requests at you (and they're all utter nonsense), who's to blame here? Futuremark, Id Software, me, them or PCW?
I haven't read it for a while now but PCW always "reviewed" a graphics card by using 3DMark and Quake 3 Arena over two resolutions - no AA, no AF, no different detail settings, and more importantly, no applications used to cross-reference the test results. I used to work in the PC/consumer industry and I lost count of the number of people requesting to buy XXXX product, clutching the aforementioned PCW in their hands. It has been a while since I've read a copy, so they may well have changed their procedures, but when people start spouting all kinds of requests at you (and they're all utter nonsense), who's to blame here? Futuremark, Id Software, me, them or PCW?
Similar threads
