• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3DMark05 Bunk ?

3DMark05 ?

  • Great benchmarking utility

    Votes: 16 10.5%

  • Eye candy, but not reliable.

    Votes: 69 45.1%

  • Bunk

    Votes: 26 17.0%

  • Who cares ?

    Votes: 42 27.5%
  • Total voters
    153
T

theNoid

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,441
You know over the past day or so I've ready through several 3DMark05 threads, comparing scores and such. I find scores for similar systems to be all across the board, and a lot of it just doesn't make any sense at all. This is a benchmarking program.

Then add in the mix the 'hotfix' beta driver magical 41% (or so) increase for ATi 9800+ users on 3DMark05 only. And you kinda have to ask yourself ... what the HELL ? Anyways, these are just some major things I have noticed since the release .. 1 day ago. Most of us know that optimization was a problem with 3DMark03, and common sense tells me its happening again with 05.

Without people spamming their 05 scores, I'm just curious what all you think about 05 so far ?
 
It's a pretty 3D demo, with a good demonstration of 3D graphics. Hopefully we’ll see graphics like that in games to come.

But an evaluator of game performance it is not.
 
I'm not impressed at all. Doom3 or Far Cry in 1600x1200 looks 10x better.
 
/me sticks to 2001 for that super duper high score.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy down inside the cockels of my heart. Maybe it's below the sub-cockel area. Maybe the colon, or the kidneys. We don't know.
 
btf said:
I'm not impressed at all. Doom3 or Far Cry in 1600x1200 looks 10x better.
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree, maybe it's just the ability to play it, but when I look at 05 it doesn't look too special.
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy down inside the cockels of my heart. Maybe it's below the sub-cockel area. Maybe the colon, or the kidneys. We don't know.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've heard that quote before somewhere, and I can't for the life of me remember where, I'm going to go crazy until I figure out what that's from.
 
3dmarks are synthetic, not real world tests. They do not tell us things we all don't already know about our graphics cards, or our overall systems. By comparing our results with others, it will help noobies identify possible problems with thier setups.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Ok, I've heard that quote before somewhere, and I can't for the life of me remember where, I'm going to go crazy until I figure out what that's from.
Click to expand...

dennis leary's song 'im an asshole' i believe
 
I like 3DMark05 so much I bought the Pro version. And my 4111 score with 6xaa/16xaf just friggin rules. Really shows the power of the card.

Thanks Futuremark. :D
 
Mister E said:
I like 3DMark05 so much I bought the Pro version. And my 4111 score with 6xaa/16xaf just friggin rules. Really shows the power of the card.

Thanks Futuremark. :D
Click to expand...

I really hope you're kidding.... paying for a worthless benchmark just seems like a waste. The demos didn't even really look that good..... As someone said before, Doom 3 or Far Cry cranked up look better and run smoother, IMO. I think the only reason the first one is a real performance hit is the number of characters and projectiles on the screen, plus the addition of the annoying super-shiny lighting. Correct me if I'm wrong though, that's just a guess.
 
You people are full of crap. There is no need to jump on the "3adrmk sux lolz" bandwagon just because Kyle thinks Futuremark isn't worth a crap. Please form your OWN opinions. You think you have them, but you don't, mostly because:

So many people are saying D3 and FC look better. O M F G. NO, just NO. Let's put pics of D3 and 05 side by side, and let's see if some wanker will still masturbate while thinking D3's low poly and low texture resolutions compare to what we're seeing from Futuremark. When people resort to saying garbage like "Doom 3 looks bettar lollolooll" then you know all they're doing is parroting someone who has a bone to pick.
 
Sizer said:
You people are full of crap. There is no need to jump on the "3adrmk sux lolz" bandwagon just because Kyle thinks Futuremark isn't worth a crap.
Click to expand...
Such perspective from someone who recently registered.

Lots of people questioned the value of the benchmark before even 3DMark03 came out. It's a nice sanity check to make sure that the card is up to full speed, but since it doesn't share code with any games, it's still a synthetic benchmark.
 
Sizer said:
You people are full of crap. There is no need to jump on the "3adrmk sux lolz" bandwagon just because Kyle thinks Futuremark isn't worth a crap. Please form your OWN opinions. You think you have them, but you don't, mostly because:

So many people are saying D3 and FC look better. O M F G. NO, just NO. Let's put pics of D3 and 05 side by side, and let's see if some wanker will still masturbate while thinking D3's low poly and low texture resolutions compare to what we're seeing from Futuremark. When people resort to saying garbage like "Doom 3 looks bettar lollolooll" then you know all they're doing is parroting someone who has a bone to pick.
Click to expand...

Well there are a lot of different opinions on the forum, a lot that do not agree with kyle. By you're logic isn't it also plausable that people don't post here to back up the hardocp staff, but rather post here because they agree.

Honestly doom 3 looked a lot crisper than 3dmark and it ran a lot smoother, and check out the overclocking forum too for the hard orb, I should be #10 for `05 soon(score posted waiting for update.)
 
Its *theoretically* an OK benchmark for next generation video capability in games. It was assumed by many that 3DMark05 would show ATi in a better light if just for it using standard DirectX9, which most game developers are or will be using. To the point where a Radeon 9600 beats out a GF5950 is startling, but not all that far off the mark for native DX9 games (the 5950 will hammer the 9600 in DX8 core games with a handful of DX9 add-on shaders, which at the moment most are now.)

It will give you a good general idea of how the video will stack up, of course it has nothing to do with actual gameplay where you have sounds, random occurances, and says absolutely nothing about how AI and internet games will do (netcode in particular being very important nowadays for multiplayer) which is and should be more than the visuals themselves. Gaming is an overall experience afterall.
 
The Marks are garbage, only good for testing your cards OC [test 1 is really sensitive].

As for showing us the future of gaming...great...wonderful....ogamsic...except none of us with have 6800s and X800s by then.
 
I don't care so much for the score, I just enjoy the pretty scenes FM throws together. The last 3DMark I used for real benchmarking purposes was '01, since it pretty much took your whole system into consideration. The recent scores are mainly based on your video card.

Anyhow, I disagree about Doom 3 or Far Cry looking as good as this latest benchmark. IMO they sure as hell do not.

- D.
 
pxc said:
Such perspective from someone who lurked for a year and recently registered.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

Lots of people questioned the value of the benchmark before even 3DMark03 came out. It's a nice sanity check to make sure that the card is up to full speed, but since it doesn't share code with any games, it's still a synthetic benchmark.
Click to expand...

Regardless of it not being UE3 or D3, it's still an accurate look at what we'll be seeing a few years from now. That's the way 03 was despite the mindless bandwagon complaints.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Can I borrow your time machine so that I can see as well?
Click to expand...

"A look at what we'll be playing" would have been the better way of saying it.

If you handwave away the benchmark as garbage then you might as well do the same with UE3.
 
Sizer said:
Regardless of it not being UE3 or D3, it's still an accurate look at what we'll be seeing a few years from now.
Click to expand...

You do know that entire sentence is self-contradictory. D3 and UE3 are the future, by the time anything more futuristic comes out the vast majority of us will have moved off this generation's cards.
 
D3 definitely need more polygons thats for sure.

I think the OpenGL system in general needs one infinitely bright light source, like what the sun would be - instead of multiple "10-watt lightbulb" flickering candle with perfectly black shadow type of lightsources. DX9 seems to have it, and you can emulate it fairly well in DX7 and 8.

Other than the too-well defined shadows in 3Dmark05, I find the overall effect of the airship demo to be more impressive than Doom3 in general.
 
The Batman said:
You do know that entire sentence is self-contradictory. D3 and UE3 are the future, by the time anything more futuristic comes out the vast majority of us will have moved off this generation's cards.
Click to expand...

It isn't self-contradictory, and furthermore you're not really making a point.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Ok, I've heard that quote before somewhere, and I can't for the life of me remember where, I'm going to go crazy until I figure out what that's from.
Click to expand...


Dennis Leary.
 
3D Mark 05 is a great benchmark for showing the difference in speed of the same type of card. If you want to know how fast an X800 Pro is compared to an XT PE, you'll see a nice jump in performance with the XT. It's just not very acurate concerning different types of cards from different manufacturers. It's not crap and it's not useless, it's just not that useful unless you're overclocking or modding your videocard.
 
Sizer said:
You people are full of crap. There is no need to jump on the "3adrmk sux lolz" bandwagon just because Kyle thinks Futuremark isn't worth a crap. Please form your OWN opinions. You think you have them, but you don't, mostly because:

So many people are saying D3 and FC look better. O M F G. NO, just NO. Let's put pics of D3 and 05 side by side, and let's see if some wanker will still masturbate while thinking D3's low poly and low texture resolutions compare to what we're seeing from Futuremark. When people resort to saying garbage like "Doom 3 looks bettar lollolooll" then you know all they're doing is parroting someone who has a bone to pick.
Click to expand...


Have you ever run far cry in 1600x1200 on the highest quality setting with 2x/4x?
 
Sizer said:
"A look at what we'll be playing" would have been the better way of saying it.

If you handwave away the benchmark as garbage then you might as well do the same with UE3.
Click to expand...

How is 3dmark05 showing us what we will be playing in the future?
 
The way i see it, correct me if im wrong...

Counting from the time when 3dmark03 was first released to the time when FarCry came out...

Isnt FarCry the type of game that should have been a prediction from 3dmark03. Because the more i see both of them, the more i realize how amazingly different they are...

In fact, i cant really recall any game that came after 3dmark03 which hold any significant resemblance to what i saw in 3dmark03...

In a few words, they just sucked at predicting how the games would have looked in the future...


And if the already failed in the past, and the way its playing right now, it seems as they will again... What convinces me that they wont...? How do i trust this people?

This benchmark helps make decisions that involve hundreds of dollars, would you trust them again?
 
Real game performance is the only thing you should rely on. If you've got a killer rig and your getting the kind of FPS your setup should typically deliver, and 3D Mark shows you to have a low score, you shouldn't be worried. I saw some BS on the ORB last night. Some dual 1.7GHz Athlon MP's with a 9800 got 6000+ on 3D Mark.

So scores on a synthetic test don't mean alot.
 
Brent_Justice said:
How is 3dmark05 showing us what we will be playing in the future?
Click to expand...

Obviously because its from a company named Futuremark. Duh :p
 
Yeah.
3Dmakr05 show greatest graphics to us.
Some years ago, we can't seen these screen as real-time rendering on our desktop.
It will be only possible better than workstations or render-machines.

But .. times flew.
We can see it on our desktop as real-time (but not smoothly)

not smoothly.
it is important.
and not-supporting-under-directX9-hardwares. ....

It still not reality for normal users.

I've been breakdown with GeForceFX5600 ...
(but I can see well with Radeon9600XT)

Doomed GeForceFX5600 .. Is it just a waste?
 
rageworx said:
Yeah.
3Dmakr05 show greatest graphics to us.
Some years ago, we can't seen these screen as real-time rendering on our desktop.
It will be only possible better than workstations or render-machines.

But .. times flew.
We can see it on our desktop as real-time (but not smoothly)

not smoothly.
it is important.
and not-supporting-under-directX9-hardwares. ....

It still not reality for normal users.

I've been breakdown with GeForceFX5600 ...
(but I can see well with Radeon9600XT)

Doomed GeForceFX5600 .. Is it just a waste?
Click to expand...

You just lost me back there dude.... Didnt quite get what u meant...
 
sad thing is that 3dmark05 seem to be the most unreliable version.. (vs 3dmark01/03) n it should be other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top