• 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 uses PS3...haha

E

^eMpTy^

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
3,233
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=18081

The Inq has an article up about nV and ATi high end card shortages...which we already know about...then at the bottom there's a blurb about 3DMark05 and PS3...I can see the headlines now:

nVNews.net: PS3.0 Proven Viable by 3DMark05

TeamRadeon.net: 3DMark05 Proven Even More Worthless by PS3 support

lol
 
Brent_Justice said:
not gonna touch this one ;)
Click to expand...

I think they should stop making these stupid benchmarks and make games...or make a technology game developers can add to thier games to provide easy support for scripted benchmarking...

As it stands now they make cute demos...the numbers are pretty useless...I mean how worthless will PS3 results be? ATi doesn't have it...how can you even compare...

Perfect example of how synthetic benchmarks are useless...IMHO
 
teamradeon < driverheaven, but that's not saying much.
 
As much as people bash 3dmark and similar programs, they do show a general incidation of system performance. Using this thread as an example, you'll see that the guy isn't getting good performance. If you've got a high end system and you're getting shitty performance, you should know that something isn't right.

However, I do believe that living and dying by some number is ridiculous.
 
Brent_Justice said:
i'm a demo scene fan, so i like 3dmark as a 3d demo

its fun to watch

but thats all
Click to expand...

yeah I'm curious to see if they can get PS3 to do something worth watching...other than that...I could care less...
 
Brent_Justice said:
i'm a demo scene fan, so i like 3dmark as a 3d demo

its fun to watch

but thats all
Click to expand...


Yeah they make a nice demo to look at graphics. I use it as one tool in a box, mostly to leave a box running to check for graphics stability (20+ continuous runs in 3dmark01) Prime 95 can test the CPU and memory for some errors, but it doesn't test anything with graphics.
 
As it stands now they make cute demos...the numbers are pretty useless...I mean how worthless will PS3 results be? ATi doesn't have it...how can you even compare...
Click to expand...

OTOH, how many DX9 games were out when the GeForceFX series hit? Right, none. 3dMark03 proved pretty well that the DX9 performance on nVidia cards would suck LONG before we had any game tests that could prove it.

Likewise, we now have PS3.0 cards on the market. If you are shopping around *right now* (and, presumably, into fall and spring of next year when ATI hits with their PS3.0 card)...how many 'real world game performance' charts can you look at to see how a game built around PS3.0 from the ground up will perform?

Exactly - none.

3dMark has always been useful to people making upgrades that have to last a year or more, because it reliably gives us a window into the performance of games that will be out around a year from it's release.

This version will be no different. If you upgrade every 6 months or less, you don't need to be buying a SM3.0 card right now, so you can just compare the performance in todays games to buy a card for todays game. And, a couple upgrades later - a year from now, say, when you need SM3.0, you can take a look at the SM3.0 games out at the time to buy the best SM3.0 card.

Few people have the luxury of that kind of upgrade cycle, they must buy a graphics card that anticipates games that aren't out yet, and 3dMark is the ONLY tool that enables them to do that.
 
CIWS said:
Yeah they make a nice demo to look at graphics. I use it as one tool in a box, mostly to leave a box running to check for graphics stability (20+ continuous runs in 3dmark01) Prime 95 can test the CPU and memory for some errors, but it doesn't test anything with graphics.
Click to expand...

Everytime I think about futuremark I think about how awesome it would be if they made benchmarking software that worked with other games...

How sweet would it be to have a nice pretty interface that let you script out benchmarks for Doom3, FarCry, Half-Life 2 or anything else you wanted...you could set it up to run over night doing every resolution and AA/AF combination there is all with a couple of clicks...then to rerun a benchmark or to benchmark a new card you just slap it in the box and hit go....
 
It serves it's purpose for me. If a box will get through 20+ continuous runs, it's probably stable enough to game on.:) Although I had somebody arguing with me here in a different forum that if the O/C'd PC could complete one run of 3D Mark and produce a score, it meant it was stable ;)
 
3Dmark03 has been a good indication of overall system performance and 3DMark05 should continue that tradition while bringing forth new and improved visually stunning graphics.

If your comparing the performance of two video cards using 3DMark then yea its farely worthless but usually if your getting high scores then your system is performing well and if your getting really low scores then you know your system isn't performing like its capable of.

I'm glad to see PS 3.0 added into 3DMark05 because it will probably be a couple of years before we see the next 3DMark and it will hopefully have support for PS 4.0.

PS 3.0 definitely has its validity because it can do things much easier and more quickly then PS 2.0 can.

PS 3.0 will become more of a reality in the next few months because there are alot of big games coming up that will have support for it. There looks to be around a dozen or more just this year.

You can just look as the specs for PS 3.0 vs PS 2.0b and see there are night and day differences. ATI will undoubtedly have support for PS 3.0 in their R500 cores because of that fact and the fact its going to be a long time before PS 4.0 and DX10 is out.
 
burningrave101 said:
3Dmark03 has been a good indication of overall system performance and 3DMark05 should continue that tradition while bringing forth new and improved visually stunning graphics.

If your comparing the performance of two video cards using 3DMark then yea its farely worthless but usually if your getting high scores then your system is performing well and if your getting really low scores then you know your system isn't performing like its capable of.

I'm glad to see PS 3.0 added into 3DMark05 because it will probably be a couple of years before we see the next 3DMark and it will hopefully have support for PS 4.0.

PS 3.0 definitely has its validity because it can do things much easier and more quickly then PS 2.0 can.

PS 3.0 will become more of a reality in the next few months because there are alot of big games coming up that will have support for it. There looks to be around a dozen or more just this year.

You can just look as the specs for PS 3.0 vs PS 2.0b and see there are night and day differences. ATI will undoubtedly have support for PS 3.0 in their R500 cores because of that fact and the fact its going to be a long time before PS 4.0 and DX10 is out.
Click to expand...

Another article, also at the Inq was saying that r500 will have PS3.0...I'm thinking now is a bad time to drop $500 on a non-PS3.0 vid card if you plan to keep it more than 8 months...
 
there is one other aspect i like about it, the music

i've burned the music for all 3dmark versions, even final reality on a cd and listen to it in my car :D

hey, the music is good!
 
^eMpTy^ said:
nVNews.net: PS3.0 Proven Viable by 3DMark05

TeamRadeon.net: 3DMark05 Proven Even More Worthless by PS3 support
Click to expand...
LOL, classic. :D

Everytime I think about futuremark I think about how awesome it would be if they made benchmarking software that worked with other games...
Click to expand...
That would be so much more useful and cool, and the music is pretty damn nice too. :)
 
Brent_Justice said:
there is one other aspect i like about it, the music

i've burned the music for all 3dmark versions, even final reality on a cd and listen to it in my car :D

hey, the music is good!
Click to expand...

There is music in 3dmark?? :confused:
 
Remember the last time this happened (PS test in 3DMark2001)? No one besides nvidia is every going to use those worthless pixel shaders. :p

nvidia must have "payed" futuremark again.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
I think they should stop making these stupid benchmarks and make games...or make a technology game developers can add to thier games to provide easy support for scripted benchmarking...

As it stands now they make cute demos...the numbers are pretty useless...I mean how worthless will PS3 results be? ATi doesn't have it...how can you even compare...

Perfect example of how synthetic benchmarks are useless...IMHO
Click to expand...

Well what if NVidia decided to not support DX9 in their 6800 series and only DX8, and 3dmark05 used DX9... you can't just say

"I mean how worthless will DX9 results be? NVidia doesn't even have it... how can you even compare..."

The point is, if games use it, and ATI doesn't have it, it's their losss.
 
CrimandEvil said:
These guys?
http://teque.planet-d.net/
Click to expand...

no, i don't think so

when futuremark was mad onion they use to have the music available and the artists who did them

i don't know if its on their current site though

i'll look around later and see what i can dig up

btw here's what i've got

final reality - Teque

3dmark99 - Teque

3DMark2000 - Teque and Sami Virtanen

3DMark2001 - B.W.D / Jonne Voltonen

XLR8R - Teque
 
The problem with 3dMark is how easily Nvidia AND ATI can & do optimize their drivers for it. So you cant necessarily trust.

Then Furturemark never approves any drivers.
 
pxc said:
Remember the last time this happened (PS test in 3DMark2001)? No one besides nvidia is every going to use those worthless pixel shaders. :p

nvidia must have "payed" futuremark again.
Click to expand...

"paid"
 
"3Dmark05, bringing you a benchmarking suite next year for games that you will not see until a year after that" Disclaimer: may have nothing to do with actual game performance.

Now is that a good thing or a bad thing.
 
I have 99 on cd somewhere. I thought it was pretty cool back int he day with it's fps and racing game simulation. I think if futuremark want's a future:))) in benchmarking they should team up with a few game developers. Say Valve and id, they could then have real benchmarks based on real engines and it could be modular. Like to go from 3dmark 05 to 06 would mean dropping all dx8 games from the suite completely and adding more dx9 games.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=18081

The Inq has an article up about nV and ATi high end card shortages...which we already know about...then at the bottom there's a blurb about 3DMark05 and PS3...I can see the headlines now:

nVNews.net: PS3.0 Proven Viable by 3DMark05

TeamRadeon.net: 3DMark05 Proven Even More Worthless by PS3 support

lol
Click to expand...
You gotta wonder what the video card companys are paying Futuremark for this inclusion of 3.0 shaders?
 
bahh the inq is useless, 05 will include 2, 2b and 3.0, all the parts will run on a 2.0 card.

so it can go both ways, if the x800 renders faster with 2b the ati camp will celebrate, if it does better with 3.0 the nv camp will be happy.

and all you x800 users have sm3 already, if you take everything that the inq write as gospel :D
 
3dmark is the say all be all of all 3d performance evaluation with computers. I truely believe solely on its scores to judge all systems by this program. Oh wait I dont work for the enquer's... ok it sucks hey but nice demos to watch :)
 
Spank said:
bahh the inq is useless, 05 will include 2, 2b and 3.0, all the parts will run on a 2.0 card.

so it can go both ways, if the x800 renders faster with 2b the ati camp will celebrate, if it does better with 3.0 the nv camp will be happy.

and all you x800 users have sm3 already, if you take everything that the inq write as gospel :D
Click to expand...

Spank, he already knows it includes ps2b shader support. That's why he made the comment of "ps2b aside". There are probably tests in 3DMark05 that make use of rather large shaders that probably run in multiple passes when using ps2, but run considerably faster using ps2b/3.
 
chrisf6969 said:
The problem with 3dMark is how easily Nvidia AND ATI can & do optimize their drivers for it. So you cant necessarily trust.

Then Furturemark never approves any drivers.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I used to use 3DMark as a driver comparison tool - it was great to be able to throw down a few benches in 3DM and UT2k3 and be able to see the impact a driver update had on my system. Now, it's all whether or not they added some cheats to this driver set.

It's a shame more modern games aren't coming with built-in benchmarking tools. At a bare minimum, any game that's a flagship title for a licensed engine (Doom3, UT2k4, HL2, and Far Cry come to mind) should include one so we can evaluate driver changes that'll potentially impact multiple games.
 
A little bird tells me that 3DMark '05 is due out then, and it uses SM3.0, not SM2.0.
Click to expand...

he says it wont use sm2.... and after that he says to put 2.0b aside.

so if we put the ati cards 2.0b aside, ofcourse nv will kill the x800 since there aint any path left for it to run :p
 
Spank said:
he says it wont use sm2.... and after that he says to put 2.0b aside.

so if we put the ati cards 2.0b aside, ofcourse nv will kill the x800 since there aint any path left for it to run :p
Click to expand...
Current 3DMark uses 2.0b I believe, thats what he's talking about.
 
Spank said:
he says it wont use sm2.... and after that he says to put 2.0b aside.

so if we put the ati cards 2.0b aside, ofcourse nv will kill the x800 since there aint any path left for it to run :p
Click to expand...

edit: but maybe that author still believes in there confirmed rumour that r420 is a sm3 core :)

edit 2, bahh wrong button
 
^eMpTy^ said:
As it stands now they make cute demos...the numbers are pretty useless...I mean how worthless will PS3 results be? ATi doesn't have it...how can you even compare...

Perfect example of how synthetic benchmarks are useless...IMHO
Click to expand...

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=877&s=1

XGI will be releasing a Shader Model 3.0 card by the end of the year. So you will be able to see how Nvidia's SM3.0 compare's to XGI's. Also, once ATI's SM3.0 cards come out you will again be able to use this proggie.

Also, if you recall in 3dmark03, you lost a large amount of points in the overall score if your card was not capable of SM2.0. I wonder if the same will be applied to 3dmark05 and SM3.0?
 
At the time of release the 6800 will be like a geforce 4 ...so you will need to buy a new card...so STFU
 
SoLiD_MasteR said:
At the time of release the 6800 will be like a geforce 4 ...so you will need to buy a new card...so STFU
Click to expand...

Have you noticed the amount of people still running GF4s? If you went over to the Valve homepage, and looked at their survey figures, you'd notice that 63% of the people that will be buying HL2 are running GF4s. Secondly, rumours abound that the NV50 won't be released until late 2005/early 2006. Considering there's going to be 5 or so games using SM3 in this year alone, I don't want to go without SM3 for all of 2005. Granted, SM2.0b gives you almost the same performence increase...but last I checked I didn't see that Vampire, Middle-Earth, Painkiller Expansion, etc were going to have SM2.0b in the first place.

This is a marketing game, if Nvidia can get developers to NOT use SM2.0b, it WILL, just like ATI is trying to get developers to NOT use SM3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top