3DMark05
I thought I'd comment on this in one post instead of posting replies in a few threads started by others.
After viewing two pre-release versions and its gold version prior to being launched publicly, I emailed 3DMark05's producer, Patric Ojala, about how pleased I was with it. From the presentation, to implementation, to graphics, to music, even right down to the end-credits were all very well produced. Like its predecessor, it is not "synthetic enough" for Beyond3D but this is not our application and we fully respect the priorities Futuremark places on 3DMark05. We're not sure how useful the three game tests will be in B3D's video card reviews; we'll need to spend more time investigating what 3D features are stressed on in each game test. The extras (the tools) is an improvement on 3DMark03 however and that is appreciated by B3D. To recap what I posted a long time ago during the formulation stages of 3DMark05, where Futuremark asked for input from its BDP members :
There is, however, an issue that Dave and I have viewed as serious and that is enabling Depth Stencil Textures (DST, probably a new buzzword) as a DEFAULT setting in 3DMark05. While we won't argue that using this when depth shadow maps are used is A Good Thing, we do have concerns about this being enabled by default. Although Futuremark's intentions behind every 3DMark is to more-or-less predict the routes that will be taken by game developers, we need to recognize the big difference between making games and making a benchmark application. Which category does 3DMarkXX belong to? More important than how the public views this is how Futuremark themselves view this. At the moment, I'm not sure if Futuremark knows what 3DMark is. Here's something I wrote Futuremark yesterday :
Futuremark replied that the part about the BDP is some ways from the truth and that they will comment about this when they have time after the hectic-ness of 3DMark05's launch. They did say I have some good points. I'll see what they have to say in a more detailed reply to my email above.
Anyway, at first I thought DST (setting a depth stencil surface as a texture) was pretty straightforward; there are 12 depth stencil formats afforded by DX9 :
3DMark05 uses D3DFMT_D24X8, FYI. With those available formats, I thought it was simple enough a task to see if : a enumerated render target surface (that we know is compatible with a display adapter format) can be used combined with enumerated depth stencil formats, when we create the D3DDEVICE; check to see whether a surface format can be used as a texture, whether a surface format can be used as a texture and a render target, or whether a surface format can be used as a depth-stencil buffer; verify depth buffer format support and depth-stencil buffer format support; set texture format and away we go. But I didn't know how NVIDIA cards actually implements this until two days ago, courtesy of a developer that Dave started talking to to discuss DST. Dave will tell us what that developer has to say in his 3DMark05 article (which I was supposed to do since Dave just came back from his honeymoon but I backed out two days before the launch of 3DMark05 due to time constraints on a personal level, which is a good thing since I know Dave will write a better article than me anyway). The point is that if this feature is basically a IHV-specific extension (I believe there's a NVIDIA-specific extension in OpenGL), then it should NOT be enabled by default. Dave and I have no argument with it actually being used; we just have issues with basically the "core values" (Dave's words) of Futuremark and what they constitute, simply by virtue of Futuremark deeming that games would enable this too by default -- 3DMark CANNOT use IHV-specific extensions/features/whatnots. It Is Not A Game.
There is of course several parallels to be drawn with this : ATI's 3Dc has been discussed already. The point is we want "apples-to-apples" (yes, the dreaded phrase) as the default settings for a benchmark app. Then again, there is no such thing if we enable the "Force Full Precision" option in 3DMark05 -- FP32 is what this option means, but on ATI hardware, you don't get 32-bit anyway.
Due to this "DST as Default" issue, Dave has questions about Futuremark's BDP (Beta Development Program). I don't think B3D has anything to lose, so we shall discuss this internally.
Early on during the development of 3DMark05, Patric Ojala said that (after my suggestions) he was actively campaigning to change the slogan from "The Gamers benchmark" to something that better reflects what 3DMarkXX really is. At the last minutes, when reviewing the pre-release versions, I noticed the slogan was still the same. I suggested to the Exec. VP of Sales & Marketing of FM, Tero, that this be changed (subtly but honestly) to "The Gamers' 3D Benchmark". Too late.
That said, I repeat : 3DMark05 is impressive looking. There is a problem with Perspective Shadow Mapping (PSM), especially in Game Test 3 but I brought this up already. If you look at the canyon walls in Game Test 3, you'll see flickering shadows.
Reviews
I am in the midst of reviewing a 6800GT by a new board vendor located in the UK. I am also expecting a X800 XT from Visiontek. These two reviews of mine will deviate significantly from the usual B3D review format, which usually goes along the lines of theoretical performance, games performance, AA performance, etc. Hopefully, my new format will be attractive. It's been a long time since my last review so hopefully my rustiness won't show through. The problem is that the 6800GT review started with the 61.77 official NVIDIA drivers and I am expecting (guessing, actually) new official NVIDIA drivers before the review is done -- there is a considerable difference between the 61.77s and the 66.51s which are drivers offerred (and approved, but only for 3DMark05) by Futuremark for reviewing 3DMark05. I'll see how it is in a few days' time.
This post has probably been too long and repetitive.
I thought I'd comment on this in one post instead of posting replies in a few threads started by others.
After viewing two pre-release versions and its gold version prior to being launched publicly, I emailed 3DMark05's producer, Patric Ojala, about how pleased I was with it. From the presentation, to implementation, to graphics, to music, even right down to the end-credits were all very well produced. Like its predecessor, it is not "synthetic enough" for Beyond3D but this is not our application and we fully respect the priorities Futuremark places on 3DMark05. We're not sure how useful the three game tests will be in B3D's video card reviews; we'll need to spend more time investigating what 3D features are stressed on in each game test. The extras (the tools) is an improvement on 3DMark03 however and that is appreciated by B3D. To recap what I posted a long time ago during the formulation stages of 3DMark05, where Futuremark asked for input from its BDP members :
Those were my suggestions to Futuremark for 3DMark05 when Futremark asked for suggestions in the infancy stages of 3DMark05. How much of my suggestions were actually implemented is an on-going investigation of mine currently.Reverend said:
There is, however, an issue that Dave and I have viewed as serious and that is enabling Depth Stencil Textures (DST, probably a new buzzword) as a DEFAULT setting in 3DMark05. While we won't argue that using this when depth shadow maps are used is A Good Thing, we do have concerns about this being enabled by default. Although Futuremark's intentions behind every 3DMark is to more-or-less predict the routes that will be taken by game developers, we need to recognize the big difference between making games and making a benchmark application. Which category does 3DMarkXX belong to? More important than how the public views this is how Futuremark themselves view this. At the moment, I'm not sure if Futuremark knows what 3DMark is. Here's something I wrote Futuremark yesterday :
Reverend said:
Futuremark replied that the part about the BDP is some ways from the truth and that they will comment about this when they have time after the hectic-ness of 3DMark05's launch. They did say I have some good points. I'll see what they have to say in a more detailed reply to my email above.
Anyway, at first I thought DST (setting a depth stencil surface as a texture) was pretty straightforward; there are 12 depth stencil formats afforded by DX9 :
Code:
D3DFMT_D16_LOCKABLE
D3DFMT_D32
D3DFMT_D15S1
D3DFMT_D24S8
D3DFMT_D24X8
D3DFMT_D24X4S4
D3DFMT_D32F_LOCKABLE
D3DFMT_D24FS8
D3DFMT_D16
D3DFMT_VERTEXDATA
D3DFMT_INDEX16
D3DFMT_INDEX32There is of course several parallels to be drawn with this : ATI's 3Dc has been discussed already. The point is we want "apples-to-apples" (yes, the dreaded phrase) as the default settings for a benchmark app. Then again, there is no such thing if we enable the "Force Full Precision" option in 3DMark05 -- FP32 is what this option means, but on ATI hardware, you don't get 32-bit anyway.
Due to this "DST as Default" issue, Dave has questions about Futuremark's BDP (Beta Development Program). I don't think B3D has anything to lose, so we shall discuss this internally.
Early on during the development of 3DMark05, Patric Ojala said that (after my suggestions) he was actively campaigning to change the slogan from "The Gamers benchmark" to something that better reflects what 3DMarkXX really is. At the last minutes, when reviewing the pre-release versions, I noticed the slogan was still the same. I suggested to the Exec. VP of Sales & Marketing of FM, Tero, that this be changed (subtly but honestly) to "The Gamers' 3D Benchmark". Too late.
That said, I repeat : 3DMark05 is impressive looking. There is a problem with Perspective Shadow Mapping (PSM), especially in Game Test 3 but I brought this up already. If you look at the canyon walls in Game Test 3, you'll see flickering shadows.
Reviews
I am in the midst of reviewing a 6800GT by a new board vendor located in the UK. I am also expecting a X800 XT from Visiontek. These two reviews of mine will deviate significantly from the usual B3D review format, which usually goes along the lines of theoretical performance, games performance, AA performance, etc. Hopefully, my new format will be attractive. It's been a long time since my last review so hopefully my rustiness won't show through. The problem is that the 6800GT review started with the 61.77 official NVIDIA drivers and I am expecting (guessing, actually) new official NVIDIA drivers before the review is done -- there is a considerable difference between the 61.77s and the 66.51s which are drivers offerred (and approved, but only for 3DMark05) by Futuremark for reviewing 3DMark05. I'll see how it is in a few days' time.
This post has probably been too long and repetitive.
