Will next 3dmark's game test 4 require sm 3.0?
- Thread starter Mendel
- Start date
Isn't the whole point of 3Dmark (and the online results) to see how different systems compare? To me, that would mean you have each card do the same work. Letting one card use SM3 and partial precision while others use SM2 and 3Dc would seem to make at least the online results pointless since they essentially aren't running the same benchmark, and aren't comparable in the way they are now.
Yup, they call it "keeping your trap shut!" over there though....and Dave is remarkably good at it. (Did you even get me PM Dave?Razor04 said:
)I would be surprised if the next 3D Mark didn't require SM3.0 for Test 4. I expect it would be something like this:
Test 1) SM1.1+
Test 2) SM2.0+
Test 3) SM2.0+
Test 4) SM3.0
Of course it's always possible that Test 4 might need only VS3.0 which could be done in software.
Test 1) SM1.1+
Test 2) SM2.0+
Test 3) SM2.0+
Test 4) SM3.0
Of course it's always possible that Test 4 might need only VS3.0 which could be done in software.
Colourless said:
Well, 3DM2001 had their "Advanced Shader test" or some such thing didn't they? This didn't count towards the final score though if I remember correctly.
I think a fair way of doing it would be to have a PS3.0 test which also has a fall-back to multi-pass PS2.0. The bulk of the 3DMark score should still come from the 'pure' PS2.0 tests but it would be interesting to see how much advantage PS3.0 could possibly give on such as test.
Just another wanna be know-it-all trying to spread more fud.
Hi Worm! About time you showed up to put an end to this silliness.
Hi Worm! About time you showed up to put an end to this silliness. Are you sure? Would you like to share this case of tequila with me? We won't talk about 3DMark, honest!worm[Futuremark said:
The Dig pulls a lime, a knife, and a shaker of salt out of his bag-o-tricks wearing his most innocent smile.
I still think it's the floating-point blending and texture filtering that's the most important new feature here. The support for vertex textures (the primary feature of VS 3.0), in my opinion, isn't really that exciting for games in the near future. It's more interesting for using the GPU for things other than graphics.Evildeus said:
I made my personal vote at this point. I voted yes, why?
First some facts:
2001: (directx8)
game test4: ps 1.1 required. (even though only nv20 supported it)
03: (directx9)
all game tests: ps 1.1 required
game test 4: ps 2 required
next: (directx9.0c)
all game tests: ps 2.0 required
game test 4: No official comment (if there even is such a thing)
Well it would be only logical to assume we would see 3.0 requirement for one test, given the trend of requiring the newest feature support in 3dmark series.
Remember, at the time when 03 was released, requiring ps2 (and in fact any ps whatsoever) was a huge shock to many people! Back then, Geforce 4 was still considered to be a very high end card. Well that was about to be changed. Maybe next 3dmark will finally render 9700 as useless as 03 made geforce 3s seem... boasting-to-friends-wise (seconds per frame)
First some facts:
2001: (directx8)
game test4: ps 1.1 required. (even though only nv20 supported it)
03: (directx9)
all game tests: ps 1.1 required
game test 4: ps 2 required
next: (directx9.0c)
all game tests: ps 2.0 required
game test 4: No official comment (if there even is such a thing)
Well it would be only logical to assume we would see 3.0 requirement for one test, given the trend of requiring the newest feature support in 3dmark series.
Remember, at the time when 03 was released, requiring ps2 (and in fact any ps whatsoever) was a huge shock to many people! Back then, Geforce 4 was still considered to be a very high end card. Well that was about to be changed. Maybe next 3dmark will finally render 9700 as useless as 03 made geforce 3s seem... boasting-to-friends-wise (seconds per frame)
Well, they may do something that requires floating point blending or texture filtering, or they may do something that requires vertex textures (less likely, I think....this would probably be limited to a pure synthetic benchmark), but I doubt they'll do something that requires PS 3.0.
worm[Futuremark said:]Sure! But it depends on what brand it is?cthellis42 said:
come on guys! Boozembly is still 2 months away.
(I'll leave to worm to explain what is a Boozembly.
I have a such bad alcohol tolerance (and it's even known in pretty many places, thanks to few beers in emptines and a waaaaayyy too long ICQ list ) that I might get drunk even talking about it...)
