3DMark06 - Two days time

Brent_Justice said:
It is useful as a diagnostic tool and for doing self comparisons perhaps, but for comparisons to other GPU's (not of the same type) and to comparisons to other peoples computers, it means nothing.
QFT.

No one should ever buy hardware because such and such brand/model gets x amount of 3dmarks more than the other.
 
Scores went down with 06 over 05


3DMark05 score was 6885

3DMark06 score was 4144

Not like it matters.

Dell GX620, P4 D 2.8, 2 gig Corsair, BFG 7800 GT OC
 
sigh.... just when you have your rig running everything nicely they go out and show you "WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE" but you just see it in a slideshow......

As if you really need dual 7800's to play CSS
 
Guys, no spamming/off-topic posts please.

Talking about the new technology in 3DMark is fine, its impact on current hardware, and how future cards may be able to handle it are fine as well, but please no off-topic remarks.
 
looks better than 2005

the progress from 2001 to 2003 to 2005....

the trend was going towards fewer tests, and more & more weight on GPU and NO weight at all on the CPU. A 1Ghz CPU practically scored the same as a 3Ghz CPU with same videocard!

It looks like they realized they were going in the wrong direction and righted some of the problems with 2005.

IE: they added more tests, and the CPU power also contributes to your score.

2006 should have been called 3dmark2005 v2.0 :D
 
so apparently one of the SM 3.0 feature tests supports vertex texture fetch, but not ATI's R2VB feature... kind of unfair IMO, either support both, or none
 
yea its out and I'm dloading it now, and yes while it is true that it means nothing in todays games it will still be a fun tool to mess around with, a more accurate test in todays games in 3Dmark03 look at the troll level and thats about the performance you will get in HL2 at least in my experience.
 
Brent_Justice said:
so apparently one of the SM 3.0 feature tests supports vertex texture fetch, but not ATI's R2VB feature... kind of unfair IMO, either support both, or none


Im sure theres an "nvidia the way its meant to be played" logo on the retail box of this. :p

I get a huuuge 2484 with a 4ghz prescott and 6800gt. Oddly enough it runs my games really well so meh. :)
 
Brent_Justice said:
so apparently one of the SM 3.0 feature tests supports vertex texture fetch, but not ATI's R2VB feature... kind of unfair IMO, either support both, or none


Seems like ATI also got the short end on the shadow formats as well...
 
Brent_Justice said:
so apparently one of the SM 3.0 feature tests supports vertex texture fetch, but not ATI's R2VB feature... kind of unfair IMO, either support both, or none


Well this should actaully hurt nV's score should drop like a bomb ;) . Which the test results are quite interesting, I was expecting it to be much closer, Seems like they made quite a bit changes going from 3dmark05 to 06, which put alot more stress on the pixel shader department. Would be nice to see how the r580 is going to claw trough this benchmark when it come out :D
 
razor1 said:
Would be nice to see how the r580 is going to claw trough this benchmark when it come out :D

not really, whether it loses or wins doesn't matter, i concentrate on what games are out there now, what content is available now and what experience you will get now in games with new cards, i can't predict the future of games and performance/image quality, and neither can 3dmark06
 
Brent_Justice said:
not really, whether it loses or wins doesn't matter, i concentrate on what games are out there now, what content is available now and what experience you will get now in games with new cards, i can't predict the future of games and performance/image quality, and neither can 3dmark06


True but it will give a good over all asseement for over all pixel shader power, at least for synthetics.
 
The version I downloaded from Gamespot is only 1.0.1 but now I see there is a 1.0.2 already. Does anyone know where I can find the patch? The link on Futuremark's site goes to a patch for '05.....

I can't run the programm either. It sits there at the "scanning your computer" screen forever (five minutes is the lonest I waited) but doesn't do anything. Anyone else had this problem?

My favorite synthetic bench is Code Creatures. It was just a nature scene demo but still looks great today. Nice music and relaxing to watch. Someday we will have grass like that in games....
 
Sovereign said:
Oh goody, from what I heard it humbles twin 7800GTXs, dropping framerates to 11FPS. Futuremark Corporation: Your computer SUCKS, no matter how much you paid for it! LOL.
yeah, that is quite sad, isn't it? A couple of years ago I remember a time when their slogan "build the best system money can buy" would have been ridiculed, since people then were concerned about getting the most out of their money, not spending the most. Maybe it is just me getting old, but I somehow feel that computer parts used to be cheaper a couple of years ago.
 
I like how they used the almost square garbage resolution of 1280x1024 as the default.
 
I would imagine that the pervasiveness of 17 and 19 inch LCDs that run at a native resolution of 1280x1024 motivated that decision, along with a need to run at a higher resolution to make it less CPU limited and more bound to GPU(s) performance.
 
razor1 said:
Well this should actaully hurt nV's score should drop like a bomb ;) . Which the test results are quite interesting, I was expecting it to be much closer, Seems like they made quite a bit changes going from 3dmark05 to 06, which put alot more stress on the pixel shader department. Would be nice to see how the r580 is going to claw trough this benchmark when it come out :D
No, I don't think VTF is used in any tests which are included in the score.
 
damn, my torrent is at 72%.. feel like im on dialup again.


Computer parts were more or less few and far between acouple years ago. I think there are more "gamers" now than ever before.. I think there are deffinitly more hardware junkies now than there were before, but there are also many more people in the world than before. The extreme PC enthusiast market is such an interesting place to be involved in due to the complexity, and simplicity of it. On the complexity side of it.. we have been from the original days.. of few pipes, and simple shaders.. and have experienced the process of calculation on a very basic level.. and now find ourselves involved in a fiesta of pipes and polygons.. which is where the "simplicity" comes into play.

For those who have stayed the way of the hardware side of things.. the technology now is amazingly complex.. but basically simple, which is where I believe the "passion" for this industry comes from, thus.. the excitment.. thus.. the willingness to pay a premium. If no one buys... then prices comes down.

Few years ago... we didn't have "so many" choices... but today.. each manufacture produces at least 5 decent cards... and one to rule them all.. I think companies gadge their prices vs. what OEM system builders offer (HP,DELL) on average.

It really was a different market then... with different demands... lets just hope prices only begin to come down from here.
 
DougLite said:
along with a need to run at a higher resolution to make it less CPU limited and more bound to GPU(s) performance.

If that were the case they wouldn't have factored in the CPU perf as part of the overall score.
 
What a joke. I am running a dual core AMD X2 oc'd to 2.4, mem at 240 2.5,3,2,5 and an X800XL @ 440/560 and all I get is 2030 3d marks.

Looks like quad SLI and dual core opteron is what they are trying to sell us.
 
[H]Rapper said:
What a joke. I am running a dual core AMD X2 oc'd to 2.4, mem at 240 2.5,3,2,5 and an X800XL @ 440/560 and all I get is 2030 3d marks.

Looks like quad SLI and dual core opteron is what they are trying to sell us.
It is GPU limited. Doesn't matter how fast your CPU or memory is. All is cares is that the X800XL is not that good. I wish it was like '01 when everything mattered including CPU.
 
well since it's wayyy too slow to download it now, i noticed the minimum requirements:
* Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
* DirectX® 9 compatible graphics adapter with Pixel Shader 2.0 support or later, and graphics memory of 256 MB minimum*
* 1GB of system RAM or more - 1.5GB of free hard disk space
* Windows® XP 32bit operating system with latest Service Packs and updates installed
* DirectX® 9.0c December 2005 or later
* Microsoft Excel® 2003 or XP for some 3DMark functionality
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 for some 3DMark functionality

so my 6600GT 128MB PCIe cannot run this? i am guessing this benchmark is really for enthusiasts.
 
TheJackal said:
well since it's wayyy too slow to download it now, i noticed the minimum requirements:
* Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
* DirectX® 9 compatible graphics adapter with Pixel Shader 2.0 support or later, and graphics memory of 256 MB minimum*
* 1GB of system RAM or more - 1.5GB of free hard disk space
* Windows® XP 32bit operating system with latest Service Packs and updates installed
* DirectX® 9.0c December 2005 or later
* Microsoft Excel® 2003 or XP for some 3DMark functionality
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 for some 3DMark functionality

so my 6600GT 128MB PCIe cannot run this? i am guessing this benchmark is really for enthusiasts.

It will run it.
Here is a link to compatable cards.

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum...868673&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1
 
ah thanks :)

i don't think i will download this one. if a x800xl gets like 2xxx, fuck, mine isn't worth running. see you guys next generation! :cool:
 
THIS SPOT RESERVED FOR MY BENCHMARK...

I would just like to comment that I am butthurt I didnt select the upgrade option an I downloaded and paid for the full retail version... DOH!
 
this is definitely a kick in the nuts but at least the gfx are nice. got 7851 on my first run...
 
Arkanian said:
It is GPU limited. Doesn't matter how fast your CPU or memory is. All is cares is that the X800XL is not that good. I wish it was like '01 when everything mattered including CPU.
Oh, yes, that explains why the CPU score is now included in the overall score in '06. :rolleyes:
 
Hmmmmm, with latest drivers for everything I get 4030,installing the new CAT 6.1 now and will post scores from that.


EDIT; A whole 9fps more with the 6.1 cats 4039 hmmmm.
 
Back
Top