PCMark2004-What a joke....

[Kunaak]

I just spent 4 hours downloading it, and a few other things that it won't run without.

first I download it-no problem.
try to install it, and it tells me I need windows media encoder 9.
why?

it's something I don't want, and never plan to use...
so I get alittle pissed and just download that too.
being on 56k, that means another hour to wait to download something I have no intention of using...

fine.

then it tells me I need DX9.
I don't want DX9.
DX9 screws up my benchmarking...
but I just say-ok whatever, and download that too.
theres another hour.

so finally-4 hours later, I get it up and running.
do a benchmark, and guess what???

no CPU score.
no Mem Score.
no HD score.

all the scores are locked out of the free version and all you get is a "system score" to check out.

you get nothing in the free version except a "system score" which tells me absolutly nothing.
at stock I get 3811...
very sick of all this BS I just went through just to get a "system" score, I just throw my hands up in the air and say "ok forget-whatever..." and hit "online results browser"

then guess what?

I can't get it online to load.
I am online, but it just stalls forever.
and never loads...

:rolleyes:

[Slickthellama]

futuremark is getting really greedy, like with 2003 and how you cant change the tests run.

[Evil_Spork]

Discussion of 'cracked' versions or illegally related topics are not tolerated.

**Edited by JBELL**

[Holst]

Yep, they are jsut putting people off using there products.

2001 is such a great success mainly becuase its easy to use as a free product.

My main bugbear about 3dm 2003 is that you cant drop some tests, so tweaking is impossible on the free one as it takes 30min to run one bench... so I dont use it at all.

I wont even install PCmark 2004, thanks for the heads up Kuunak saved me a DL...

If somebody can come out with a good DX9 benchamrk with online compare (how hard can it be?) then they will clean up... I am hoping that carmak will see the oppotunity with doom3.

[faruquehabib]

yes, thanks for the heads-up...damn companies thinkin about themselves

[Iridium192_217]

I must say kunaak, you've had some terrible luck with comps lately, first athlon 64 & now this.

[saaya]

thx a lot knuaak, almost went through all that sh*t :D already had dled 2004 and was about to try to install it...

who cares about pcmark anyways? like who tunes his system to get office or photoshop to load faster :rolleyes:

2k1 was/is mainly a succuess because it looks good if you ask me... period.

2k3 looks friggin ugly and is coded so diferent and so unefficient it doesnt let you draw conclusions about the game performence of a card anymore

[Geforce4ti4200]

maybe in 3dmark2005 they will get stuff right this time

[Slickthellama]

tru dat, we will have to wait 4 longhorn tho im afraid :(

[cowpuppy]

Kunaak: I'm sorry guy but I'm sittng back LMAO cause I think about this and then back to your fustrations with the via chipset and I couldnt help myself.

Everyone better watch out JB is on a role today (Evil_Spork)

[SoulEdge]

Futuremark's products are getting worse with every release. Hmm, kind of like Abit. Hmm, like VIA too. Wait, like everyone else too! Sheesh, quality products, hardware or software is becoming a rare thing. We need to have a "good company" appreciation thread. All this crap lately is depressing.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Holst
My main bugbear about 3dm 2003 is that you cant drop some tests, so tweaking is impossible on the free one as it takes 30min to run one bench... so I dont use it at all.
You can hit Esc after Mother Nature to just get your score.


If somebody can come out with a good DX9 benchamrk with online compare (how hard can it be?) then they will clean up... I am hoping that carmak will see the oppotunity with doom3.
We have AM3 for that. Also, Doom 3 is OpenGL.

[matt simis]

Originally posted by Holst
Yep, they are jsut putting people off using there products.

2001 is such a great success mainly becuase its easy to use as a free product.

My main bugbear about 3dm 2003 is that you cant drop some tests, so tweaking is impossible on the free one as it takes 30min to run one bench... so I dont use it at all.

I wont even install PCmark 2004, thanks for the heads up Kuunak saved me a DL...

If somebody can come out with a good DX9 benchamrk with online compare (how hard can it be?) then they will clean up... I am hoping that carmak will see the oppotunity with doom3.


If by "success" you mean loadsa people used it then yes... but if you mean success in the profit sense, then I would say no, the openness of 2001 meant buying the software was a little pointless. They are a company, out to make money, they are not your friend or members of your little scene.

Stop b!tchin (its not just you of course) about how Futuremark arent handing you stuff for free anymore. If you like the software so damn much, go buy it and then you shouldnt have as many reasons to complain and if you did, you would be an actual customer and your opinions would actually count (a little..). Whinging over the free versions is pathetic.



Matt

[Kunaak]

I can be very vocal about things when I get mad-but being mad with the VIA and AMD64 thing is alot different then this.

that built up for 2 weeks, and just one night it was like that extra drop of rain that broke the dam.

this issue with PCMark2004 is just pure disappointment.

see, I was expecting it to be like 3dmark2003, you know, you can run it and see if you like it, but can't change settings or anything.

which in all honesty would have been fine to me.
that gives me a chance to see if I like the benchmark, evaluate it's usefulness and overall "fun" when looking at it from a overclocking standpoint.

but what you get is absolutly nothing.
you get one test.
nothing more.

imagine if you spent 5 hours downloading 3dmark2003 and only got to see the wings benchmark and that was it.
well thats what this is like.
you don't get anything, you can't do anything with it.
just up, and benchmark.
and then you only get about 1/5th of the entire benchmark.
so you can't even tell if you want to bother with the rest.

I don't know-it was just really disappointing.
PCmark2002 is a benchmark I have alot of fun on.
this 2004 version is just another disappointment, but this time even bigger then 3dmark2003 was, cause atleast on 3dmark2003 you could run the benchmark and see if you like it or not...

[cowpuppy]

Oh I feel your pain on the dial-up. I'm on dial-up and I wont even begin to download a 35mg file that would be about 3-4 hrs. The only way I get files of this size is to run over to a buddies that has a high speed conection. Maybe this is one of the reasons I was getting such a chuckle out of your post ;)

[CrashOv3r1De]

Sorry you wasted your time Kunaak. Should of asked me because I too tried thie earlie. Well like they say "nothing is for free"

Well I sometimes follow Evil_Sporks method. It may be censored but you know what I'm talking about....

Anyways Its pointless to spend your money on it. Just stick w/ pcmark 02

[Holst]

Originally posted by matt simis
If by "success" you mean loadsa people used it then yes... but if you mean success in the profit sense, then I would say no, the openness of 2001 meant buying the software was a little pointless. They are a company, out to make money, they are not your friend or members of your little scene.

Stop b!tchin (its not just you of course) about how Futuremark arent handing you stuff for free anymore. If you like the software so damn much, go buy it and then you shouldnt have as many reasons to complain and if you did, you would be an actual customer and your opinions would actually count (a little..). Whinging over the free versions is pathetic.



Matt

I think you have misunderstood my intentions.

Im not saying that 3dmark should be free...

But I think there is an intrinsic problem with there buisiness model with the way they have produced 3dm2003 and pcm2004 in that less people are using them.... and I doubt many more are paying..

Most of futurermarks money (as far as im aware, im not an expert) comes from manufacturers who pay into there development program (or whatever its called) and id expect some income from advertising... they are obviously trying to capitalise on end user purchasing which IMO isnt the right way to go for a benchmark where mass appeal is essential to its success.

Maybee they have just spoiled us with how good 2001 is... although if it was like 2003 would it bee the primary benchmark people use.... I suspect not.

(I feel a bit dumb about pressing esc after mother nature to get a score, ive only run the thing 4-5 times and I never thought to try that :P)

[QuadDamage]

yeah i hear you Kunaak. Also my A64 scores about 50% lower than P4 at 3.8Ghz... what a flop.

[Kunaak]

so it's even biased towards P4's again?

damn...

[QuadDamage]

yes. i was thinking of hooking up my prommie and see what i can do but after i ran a pre-test on air @ 10x210 turbo, cas2/2/2/5 on MSI VIA mobo and compared to some 3.8Ghz P4, totally untweaked i realised i scored way too low to be able to compete. i scored around 4200 vs 7500 P4. So basically i would need a 3Ghz A64 to at leat match that lowly clocked P4...

and yeah, not to mention i had to download and install all that M$ crap...

Kunaak, btw, there are new 4-in-1 4.50 drivers posted at viaarena.com. though you mat wanna try them out.

[Kunaak]

Originally posted by Holst
they are obviously trying to capitalise on end user purchasing which IMO isnt the right way to go for a benchmark where mass appeal is essential to its success.

Maybee they have just spoiled us with how good 2001 is... although if it was like 2003 would it bee the primary benchmark people use.... I suspect not.



I agree completly with your arguement holst, but this part I really see.

I couldn't have said it better, my friend :toast:

[saaya]

Originally posted by matt simis
If by "success" you mean loadsa people used it then yes... but if you mean success in the profit sense, then I would say no, the openness of 2001 meant buying the software was a little pointless. They are a company, out to make money, they are not your friend or members of your little scene.

Stop b!tchin (its not just you of course) about how Futuremark arent handing you stuff for free anymore. If you like the software so damn much, go buy it and then you shouldnt have as many reasons to complain and if you did, you would be an actual customer and your opinions would actually count (a little..). Whinging over the free versions is pathetic.



Matt

dude, its not about the money! :rolleyes: i guess thats all YOU think is important but just have a look at this forum and the scene... amd and intel just released 1000$ cpus and ati and nvidia will release 500$ videocards in a few weeks and all hardcore enthusiasts are buying them, some even buy both cpus and videocards... its NOT about the money....
man i would pay 50$ for a benchmark if it was a GOOD benchmark!!!!

nobody cares about paying money if you actually get something for the money. but as kunaak and everybody else pointed out already you get less and less with every new futuremark release! and they cost more and more and the orb is down more and more often and gets slower every week!

and no, futuremark DOES have to do with the enthusiasts scene, at least thats where they come from. only since they changed their name from MADONION to FUTUREMARK it seems to be all about the money...

i really dont like the role they are playing in the hardware scene... nvidia did cheat in their drivers, but they only released this new patch after nvidia cut their payments to futuremark again. its really sad to see nvidia and ati paying money to futuremark who is blackmailing and pressing money out of them... i hope we get some GOOD benchmarks soon to relief this situation. aquamark3 is already a move towards the right direction, but its not seperated into diferent parts, its all based on one single game engine...


They are a company, out to make money
nice pointing out matt, thats exactly what i think happend to futuremark. they only focus on making money rather than making a good product/offering a good service(orb) and dont think about their resposability towards the industry/scene

[Manoj]

PCMark 2004 sucks.

I only get 4320 Marks with my system running at default clock speeds. No overclocking.


It is silly because my system can beat the Pentium IV 4Ghz system in 3DMark 2001 SE and nearly the same performance in 3DMark 2003.

Intel has paid Futuremark good amount of money. Just in time for Pentium IV 3.2EE.

[Walrusbonzo]

TBH, I'm starting to get in my mind that if the benchmark doesn't do anything remotely useful, then it's a useless benchmark.

Even Super Pi and Pi Fast are useful in a way :D

I for one think we should all start using benchmarks that are actually based around apps that we can actually use and do something with, that is the ONLY way to reflect real life situations.

[Slickthellama]

Originally posted by Holst
If by "success" you mean loadsa people used it then yes... but if you mean success in the profit sense, then I would say no, the openness of 2001 meant buying the software was a little pointless. They are a company, out to make money, they are not your friend or members of your little scene.

Stop b!tchin (its not just you of course) about how Futuremark arent handing you stuff for free anymore. If you like the software so damn much, go buy it and then you shouldnt have as many reasons to complain and if you did, you would be an actual customer and your opinions would actually count (a little..). Whinging over the free versions is pathetic.

You do realize without the "pathetic" free versions they wouldnt have a company right? Without the "pathetic" free versions, people who bought the software wouldn't have anything to compare their systems too. So essentially they shouldn't be just shunning those who don't feel like paying 40.00 for a benchmark. It should be an option, if you like the software, buy it. Like winRAR. They don't have a restricted free version, but I bought it anyway because it is good software.

[CSOFT]

Originally posted by matt simis
If by "success" you mean loadsa people used it then yes... but if you mean success in the profit sense, then I would say no, the openness of 2001 meant buying the software was a little pointless. They are a company, out to make money, they are not your friend or members of your little scene.

Stop b!tchin (its not just you of course) about how Futuremark arent handing you stuff for free anymore. If you like the software so damn much, go buy it and then you shouldnt have as many reasons to complain and if you did, you would be an actual customer and your opinions would actually count (a little..). Whinging over the free versions is pathetic.



Matt

He should have figured that out when they went from a 'cool' name like MadOnion to a 'stick in the mud' name like Futuremark.

I was under the impression they were making big money off affiliates (http://futuremark.com/companyinfo/?affiliates), if they want to make more money off the end user they need to stop the favortisum.

[jmke]

Kunaak you're clearly not the target audience for PCMark2004, it is aimed at those "family" PC's out there, gauging the overall speed of the system for everyday use and also provide a very big scope of different aspects of a system. that explains why one of its tests is "encoding in WMP9".. most XP systems come installed with Windows Movie Maker 9, which allows every n00b to make .wmv file with ease

this for example was made with FRAPS 2.0 + windows movie maker 9
http://users.pandora.be/amd/ima/nfs-underground.wmv

but were are getting off-topic here.

the point of this benchmark is , imho to provide also businesses a quick way to see if the new workstation from Compaq/Dell etc is worth its money, gauging it performance and comparing it to the others.

this benchmark is not really aimed at the gamer or the overclockers out there, PCMark02 did have a memory/hdd/cpu bench in default setup, and that indeed is a shame to see it dropped in the free version in PCMark04. it kills off the competition side of the PCMark04.

PCMark2004-What a joke.... for the overclockers and gamers out there.. yes :)

[razz]

its aimed at family PCs? right, im sure my mom is going to check her email, order some stuff... and benchmark the computer. benchmarks are targeted at enthusiasts, making a benchmark thats only suitable for non enthusiasts doesnt make much sense.