3DMark07 To Be Fully Quad Core Optimized

[milkcafe]

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4358

We have heard that Futuremark's 3D Mark 07 will be fully Quad-Core Optimized, even in the Game Tests. Users will gain more frame rates with a Quad Core Processor even in graphics tests. Current beta version seem to indicate that there are 3 Games Tests.

[Cybercat]

I wish they'd stick to making a graphics card benchmark instead of making their tests more and more CPU limited.

[Cooper]

I hope that 8P quad-core server with on-board grafic won`t beat 8800GTX :rolleyes:

[NickS]

I just got dual core ~2 months ago. Forget this..

[Kanavit]

cool, my hard earned 5.7k pts now be 2.3k. :(

[Eastcoasthandle]

They have alienated a large portion of the enthusiast market haven't they? Why can't they just add the quad core as an option? What I am saying is have the option to use quad, dual or single then create a field of results for each based on CPU alone. That way the benchmark results will be fair and equatable.

[milkcafe]

3Dmark06 has alreadly supported 4 core CPU ,has not fully support 8 core CPU

3DMark06 CPU score (2.66G E6700 2.05k , 2.66G Kentsfield 4.1k ,and the Clovertown is only 5.6k)


I hope that 8P quad-core server with on-board grafic won`t beat 8800GTX :rolleyes:

despite the on-borad video chipset

Benching with the different CPU power ,there will be a big different result for the mainstream video cards

for eg. the "7900GT system's score" is higher than a 8800GTS system in the 3Dmark06 Benching



8 cores Intel Xeon X5355 Clovertown 2.66GHz
nVidia Quadro FX4500 @ 450/1320 (thought to be 7900GT)

3DMark06 5675
http://image.kansai.com/kdc/41247/zsWcD5Ls.jpg



single core AMD Sempron 3000+ 128k L2 @ 2.3GHz
nVidia Geforce 8800 GTS @ 500/1600

3DMark06 5565
http://vista.rash.jp/img/vi6561037425.jpg

[gOJDO]

It will provide missleading scores. For example it will show more points on quadcore system with slower/same graphics card and show less on dualcore with faster/same graphics. And we all know that games peformance depends of the graphics cards, the most. At same time there would be only few games that will have benfit of quadcore system, compared to dualcore.

[Scimitar]

Rydermark sounds like the better benchmark for next year. It is supposed to be gpu limited and runs at 1600X1200 with 4Xaa and 16Xaf. This is the exact same settings that I play many games at. Hmmmm.

[nn_step]

Why not 50 Core while they are at it?

[metro.cl]

Why not 50 Core while they are at it?

2x :)

[Kunaak]

hahah...

this is funny,

this is no different then 2006, and in 2006 no ones complaining.
but do the same thing in 2007 and all the sudden its "unfair".

I sure am glad I am not a programmer.
I am a smart ass by nature, and I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face after something like this...

its fine in 2006... but it's unfair and misleading in 2007? hhaha...

[Serra]

this just a market strategy to rush quad or multicore, pretty obvious to me :rolleyes:

Yes, I see now. By optimizing 3DMark07 to take advantage of quad cores, Futuremark - which is in no way I can tell connected with Intel or AMD - will profit because suddenly everyone will run out to buy quad cores! What a brilliant strategy, too bad you discovered it.

[gOJDO]

hahah...

this is funny,

this is no different then 2006, and in 2006 no ones complaining.
but do the same thing in 2007 and all the sudden its "unfair".

I sure am glad I am not a programmer.
I am a smart ass by nature, and I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face after something like this...

its fine in 2006... but it's unfair and misleading in 2007? hhaha...
Well, you are actually right. It is missleading now and in 2007.

[Cybercat]

It will provide missleading scores. For example it will show more points on quadcore system with slower/same graphics card and show less on dualcore with faster/same graphics. And we all know that games peformance depends of the graphics cards, the most. At same time there would be only few games that will have benfit of quadcore system, compared to dualcore.I think trying to make 3DMark into a game benchmark is pointless and futile. We have games that we can use for benchmarking. Having a benchmark that showed what the card could do without limitation from other components would actually serve a purpose, you could determine exactly what a card's strengths and weaknesses are.

hahah...

this is funny,

this is no different then 2006, and in 2006 no ones complaining.
but do the same thing in 2007 and all the sudden its "unfair".

I sure am glad I am not a programmer.
I am a smart ass by nature, and I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face after something like this...

its fine in 2006... but it's unfair and misleading in 2007? hhaha...you obviously missed all the complaints people were making about 06 as well, how dual core users had an unfair advantage over single core users even though they had the same graphics card. It's gone from a 3DMark benchmark to another form of PCMark, only with less precise testing.

[kiwi]

I will buy quad core because UT2007 will support it :)

I just got dual core ~2 months ago. Forget this..

:P

[-Sweeper_]

I will buy quad core because UT2007 will support it :)



:P


Crysis too. :woot:

[Vapor]

Why not 50 Core while they are at it?Probably because they just don't have the time to code for that effectively....and still meet the "2007" naming criterion. :p:

[Fred_Pohl]

Damb! Now I have to run out and buy a quad core to run 3DM07... :rolleyes:

[Fr3ak]

There will be a lot of games that dont benefit from a quadcore over a dual core, simply because the number of different threads for a game is limited. Its only a handful of games, that will be capable to make use of all 4 cores.

So I am not so sure that 3D Mark07 will be very representitive when it comes to measure game performance. I dont know what Futuremark's goal is, but it once had the purpose to represent real world game performance.

Then again, the last few 3D Marks were using latest technology, which was ahead of games for quite some time, so maybe we will have a lot more more-than-2-core-optimised games in '08.

[perkam]

hahah...

this is funny,

this is no different then 2006, and in 2006 no ones complaining.
but do the same thing in 2007 and all the sudden its "unfair".

I sure am glad I am not a programmer.
I am a smart ass by nature, and I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face after something like this...

its fine in 2006... but it's unfair and misleading in 2007? hhaha...If you have two cars in your parking lot, and you didn't notice that one got stolen yesterday, the robber coming back for the second one doesn't make it any better an act.

Not to mention people here go to bed at night with their 3DMark WR Trophies, and if Futuremark continues to be sponsored by processor companies, it will continue to make benchmarks that will make it necessary to have a high power CPU to get a good score, even if you don't need one.

That is why the best benchmark are games themselves. Not to mention anyone with a quad core has no right to have a say in this. I was howling and bashing when 3d06 came out when I saw their dependency on dual core...but those with dual cores didn't seem to mind ;)

Perkam

[Cuthalu]

hahah...

this is funny,

this is no different then 2006, and in 2006 no ones complaining.
but do the same thing in 2007 and all the sudden its "unfair".

its fine in 2006... but it's unfair and misleading in 2007? hhaha...

Where do you get that from? I've seen several people including myself being very distatisfied with the cpu-score system long before knowing anything about '07.

[Kanavit]

call it PCmark07.

edit: i expected something more with DX10 API and physX. this is disappointing man. :(

like i am going to go run and buy Quad core cpu or 4x4 so i can get high 3dmarks.

[Omastar]

Well, in 2005 the big thing was high clocked single cores for all the 3dmark05 WRs (FX-57 @ 3.7GHz, anyone?), and it was the 'gaming' processor to end all single cores, but then 2006 rolled around and the vast majority of games were still threaded for single cores, but 3dmark06 also rolled around and the benchers saw the writing on the wall and moved on to dual cores for WRs, although they didn't help in actual game play.

Now 3dmark07 is on the horizon and, what, 2 games that aren't even out yet are threaded for quad core? But you better believe everyone going for the best 3dmark07 scores will be using Core 2 Quads initially. Will 4 cores help in current games? Nope. But will they 18 months from now? Yep. It's just like the transition from single to dual core. It may be slow, but it's coming, nonetheless, and benchers now are the forerunners to what will become mainstream.

[grimREEFER]

what!
sm4.0 tests!?
how many ppl have these cards?
they are alienating a large group of ppl buying forcing ppl to actually have fast computers to get high scores.
i say that scoring should be done on the basis of effort.

[biohead]

what!
sm4.0 tests!?
how many ppl have these cards?
they are alienating a large group of ppl buying forcing ppl to actually have fast computers to get high scores.
i say that scoring should be done on the basis of effort.
well, previously hardware needed to catch up. now software needs to catch up.

[Syn.]

3D01 gives you bigger score if you got a faster clocked single-core CPU. Faster Single Core counts and people OC'ed thier chips so that they will raise thier overall score for thier GPU's

3D06 gives you a Bigger Cpu score if you are running a multi-core system. People are still trying to overclock thier CPU's to get a better scores for thier CPU's.

3D07 will have better support from more then 2 Core CPU's which most people will be buying in 2007. People will still push the MHz on thier CPU's to increase thier GPU scores the only difference being is that they will have more then one core to overclock.


What has changed? People are still going to buy faster CPU's to aid thier GPU's. The only thing that is changing is that 3DMark is becoming properly multi-threaded like the games of 2007 will all be, there fore it will be a much more accurate benchmark. (Alan Wake, CPU Physics?)

Saying that adding multithreading is going to benefit the people with Quad Core systems and calling it unfair for Single Core users is same as saying that 2Ghz CPU benchmark is unfair to those having 1Ghz CPU.

CPU's are now evolving in direction of adding more cores not GHz and its about fecking time that the software is going to actually start using the new CPU's properly.

Its nothing but evloution and if you dont want to evolve with the rest of us then you will become nothing but a fossil.

[eXceededgoku]

Hangon if 3Dmark07 is going to be DX10 I don't understand why they would make the processor more dependent when the driver model of DX10 goes completely against that because of current problems anyway :S.... I'm confused is this going to be another DX9 benchmark?!?
If it is DX10 then it doesn't really matter what cpu you have (to a certain degree) since a lot of the CPU bottlenecks have been removed and all that.

[Nedjo]

Only way that they know/will add SMP support inside game test is trough physics. That will make upcoming 3DMark the worst GRAPHICS benchmark, and somehow better gaming benchmark.

They don’t have multithreaded graphics engine, and with support for SM4.0, and Geometry shader, there’s even less need for CPU dependences. Intel, and after merger AMD is playing a strong role in 3DMArk development, and despite every trends in graphics evolution, they will strong-hand Futuremark to make even more CPU dependable benchmark!

That really sux, ‘cos DX10 power is really in insulating the GPU from the bottlenecks of the CPU dependency!

[Kingcarcas]

Crysis too. :woot:
+ Alan Wake, which is coming out in 2008 :confused: It looks like my dual core will be obsolete when i finally get it :eek:

[grimREEFER]

i think there also might be a test where having an ageia physics card helps.
that would make things quite interesting.

[milkcafe]

[ Ice Fighters ] @ IDF2006

It is said to be the 3DMark07 game Test

(the 8800GTX is only 16fps)

http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/IDF2006_IceStormFighters2.jpg

[Scimitar]

Sounds pretty nice actually.

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/393/ice_storm_fighters.jpg

[Hicks]

yay, great, more benchmarks that means sweet :banana::banana::banana::banana: all.

[Kanavit]

omg, intel bought futuremark?

[DilTech]

only 16FPS? rofl ^^
bandwith limited it seems :D

More like verrrrry early driver limited, with a still in the works demo that's far from optimized.

Remember how poorly the fear beta ran compared to the actual game?

[gdogg]

Yay, a new version of my favorite game, time to get a quad core, water cooling.

Gonna be a fun year :D

I honestly go quad core for multi-tasking, running mutliple taxing applications + games etc, benching is my last worry.

But being as the a64 was such a huge increase for even a 9800pro's capabilities, I find it good to have the cpu part in there, it doesn't currently reflect what happens in games, but its just like, hd2900xt with am2 3200+ vs hd2900xt with c2d e6400, do they really give you the same in games either?

Sure cores are different, but it depends on games too, I would like to see more games having an ability to use 4 cores, and even if futuremark gets there first, it doesn't matter to me, as long as games get more AI, PhysX, better textures, etc, making use of the 4 cores, like the new source engine should do, even 8 from what they say.

[jimmyz]

if it would have been single threaded everyone would have called it a dinasaur. it's a catch 22

[diablomonic]

as a game programmer with my main field being physics programming, I just want to say: STOP WHINING. This is a good thing. all next gen games SHOULD make use of multi cores. If they don't, then they aren't really next gen. Physics in particular can get a huge boost from multi cores if done right (or physx if it ever becomes widely used), so I would be very disappointed if it didn't test multi cores.

[virtualrain]

If you want to look strictly at graphics performance, 3dMark06 shows you a breakdown of SM2 SM3 and CPU scores... if you don't want to bias the score by CPU... just ignore that score... what's so bad about it? :confused:

Surely 3dMark07 will do the same. That way if you want a system score you can look at the total and if you want to see where a specific GPU is strong or weak you can look at the SM scores. :shrug:

Do you want a guy running an Athlon 3000 with Volt Modded GTX's setting world bench records? I didn't think so.

[[XC] gomeler]

Insane thread revival :up: Looking forward to the two new 3DMark benchs

[Trunks]

gomeler;2289102']Looking forward to the two new 3DMark benchs
There is only one 3dmark underway,
the other benchmark is a pcmark.

[xlink]

so...


how much is Intel paying them for this?

[LuckyNV]

Futuremark 3D bench software has always been about the future of gaming and not catering for the current needs.

Anyone try remember back to when 3DMark 2003 was released, what cards did we have back then and how well did they perform? Games shifted from being CPU dependent (3DM2001) to more GPU dependent (3DM2003) and now with dual/quads becoming ever more cheaper, and game developers starting to cater for this hardware, it will slowly become more CPU dependent again, except this time its not just raw CPU speed, but how many threads the CPU can support.

[triple_A]

Well, i think it;s fine to support 4 cores in all tests.
I only hope that the graphics tests will be gpu bottlenecked, so that even with a geforce 8800 you won't gain 10fps from going from dual to quadcore.

And people; since when is 3dmark representative for gaming performance? :ROTF: