"legit" 3dmark05 or whatever it'll be called pic

[Reverend]

]

Looks nice enough to me.

For all you that have a clue what they are talking about, will it end up being more CPU dependent than FM03 was or about the same?

Actually 3DMark05 is more CPU dependent than 3DMark03 is. How much I can't say.

Not much more, Worm.

 

[Scali]

]

Makes me wonder exactly why 3DMark05 will be more CPU-dependent... If it's just for trivial reasons, eg because the scenes are larger/more animated objects etc, that makes sense...

Simply because how the engine works; it does a lot more at runtime than the previous engine in 3DMark03.

Yes, and I am looking forward to figuring out what exactly it is doing more, that's what I meant

 

[Lezmaka]

]Simply because how the engine works; it does a lot more at runtime than the previous engine in 3DMark03.

Is that because of the dynamic shader thing-a-ma-bobber, or other technical stuff?

 

[digitalwanderer]

Is that because of the dynamic shader thing-a-ma-bobber, or other technical stuff?

Nope, it's do to them whatcha-ma-call-em computational thingies.

 

[trinibwoy]

]Yes there will of course be the free version available! The thing is that this time around we really have tried to focus on the Pro version, and to offer the Pro users more features, options etc. than before. I'd say that the free version is only a crumb from a cookie in comparison to Pro.

Will the pro version offer anything of functional value to the gamer who just wants to see how his rig compares to others? IMO the current pro version does not.

 

[Nick[FM]]

]Yes there will of course be the free version available! The thing is that this time around we really have tried to focus on the Pro version, and to offer the Pro users more features, options etc. than before. I'd say that the free version is only a crumb from a cookie in comparison to Pro.

Will the pro version offer anything of functional value to the gamer who just wants to see how his rig compares to others? IMO the current pro version does not.

It really depends on what you are looking for. The Pro version includes more options and in-depth analysis tools than 3DMark03 has (like improved filter quality too to which we added ability to test FSAA too). More to follow..

 

[g__day]

Pardon my ignorance, but why must one construct and compile multiple shaders on the fly rather than just pass parameters to shaders. Is it because shaders get bloated if too parameterised, or only SM 3.0 can handle conditional code paths, or too many parameters means too many look-up overheads, or is it code as well as data you need to parameterise and a GPU shader compiler can't abstract code as an input stream?

 

[Richard]

Very nice screeny. I'm salivating now that Rev said this isnot 05's best. I am, however, a bit disappointed at the shadow resolution issues. There's plenty of examples in the posted pic but I'm hoping the final thing will be able to tone them down.

 

[Reverend]

I'm salivating now that Rev said this isnot 05's best.

Please note that it's just an opinion of mine, which is to say my focus could be different from a lot of folks.

I am, however, a bit disappointed at the shadow resolution issues. There's plenty of examples in the posted pic but I'm hoping the final thing will be able to tone them down.

I have my opinion on this but sad to say that I cannot post it. In fact, I have not even given my opinion on this to FM, given how late it is.

 

[T2k]

Now I know why performance is abysmal. If those PSMs were stencil shadows, would performance be better on today's vpus? I have a feeling this is the main reason why performance slows to a crawl even on today's high end.

I found it amusing or irritating, depending on the mood, when somebody throws around complicated-sounding words on forums with an air of authority.

Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about, other than "John Carmack uses stencil shadows so they must be teh c00l"?