Saw this at Xtreme 3D Team -section already, but I think this deserves a thread in the News section.http://www.3dmark.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark
Preview/trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eY_En9VcwM
Printable View
Saw this at Xtreme 3D Team -section already, but I think this deserves a thread in the News section.http://www.3dmark.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark
Preview/trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eY_En9VcwM
great.
for those who probably will not click the link:
includes 4 games (the 2 scenes rendered with 2 settings)
physics test
combined test (seems to be physics in a game)
and a demo (of the 2 videos weve seen), which also scales the settings based on your PC
FREE EDITION INCLUDES:
only the Performance preset
limited saved scores (nothing about limiting score submissions)
ADVANCED (20$, 15 if you have vantage advanced):
no adds
all 3 presets (entry, performance, extreme)
PRO: (alot of $s)
image quality tool (would be nice to know if you can still choose to save a certain frame during a test like 06 let you)
the rest is kinda expected.
double posted
ow darn, even more torture for our GPUs and CPUs :p
very cool cant wait for it to be here
Just in time for the 6900 and 570 reviews. :clap:
My computer already melted.
well if you plan to run it on any of the comp in your sig then there will be no melting of any kind. 3Dmark11 is DX11 only no DX10 support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power5
looks great, can't wait to try it out!
With how cheap vantage looked I am looking forward to this.
Coming closer and closer to photo realistic graphics. Unbelievable.
Yea Vantage looked really bad compared to the 2 demos we already saw a hint of. I always saw 3DMark more like a tech demo than real representative of beautiful gfx (OK the old Nature demos were quite good) but this time they seemed to have done a better job than 3DMar05 - Vantage.
got the pre order upgrade version :)
damn.. $995 for the pro version, why so expensive ?
cause your a business whos using their product publicly for advertisement of specs. im not sure if a reviewer falls under this category or if its really just the big guys (ie: dell)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loque
im sure their rules of use will go over this.
It comes before the 6900s are released - the extensive use of DX11 features should make the 580's far superior than any card AMD has to offer, including the 5970 :D obviously that is going to (has to) change with the introduction of 6970, but for 13 days GTX 580's will be super kings :D
what about PCMark Vantage? dont they usually release the two (3DM, PCM) close to each other?
dose a physics test mean no physX, im really hoping that it dose.
that depends what tessellation mode they use, if they use a non tessellation dx11 effect or the one that ati is good at they should still keep it for single card.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
PCMV came out like a year to a year and half before 3DM and they only change when the base kernel changes, vista and 7 are the same base so i would not expect one until windows8 in 2-3 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
it says hardware supported bullet physics if i read correctlyQuote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Physics is OpenCL from my understanding.
i really hope that they make it wont do it on gpu by default thenQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Nice can't wait for its release which is sooner than I was expecting.
I need to buy new card that support DX11
Yay.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
I think they should allow you to choose the physics renderer, or run the tests multiple times (once each for each renderer).
the cpu test is for the cpu, when u run it on the gpu its a cheat and not showing what its intended to or atleast that was the rules with the last one. if its a cpu test it should test the cpu though as when u let a gpu go unloaded and do some kind of cuda or OCL to the whole gpu its not a representative test of what it would do while gaming. now for a feature test or not by default thats fine but making it do it by default just makes it so people cheat inadvertently by not knowing better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I think they should have tests that relate to things that actually affect game performance. If the industry is moving towards GPU physics then I think this "futuristic" physics test should default to the GPU. To test the CPU they could include an AI test.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
i think the point of not allowing physX for competitive OCing in Vantage is that it's an nvidia feature only more than anything
this time it looks like both vendors will benefit from it so idk what to think.
i'm too for going forward but on the other hand, zanabar is right, if enabled it's not a CPU test anymore it's a CPU+gpu test, so cpu subscores won't be comparable unless you have the same GPU too so it makes comparison nearly impossible which is the main point about a benchmark.
Many of your questions are answered in the product pages.
http://preorder.3dmark.com/benchmarks/
There are actually *six* tests. Four graphics tests that use two sets of assets from deep sea and high temple demo scenes, each is balanced differently to stress different GPU features of DX11. Then there are two additional tests - a CPU physics test ("the test with the crappy graphics") and a combined test that has it all - Rigid body physics simulation on a moderate number of objects (CPU), Soft body physics using DirectCompute and the Bullet physics library running on the GPU and tessellation & lighting effects - like you would have in a game running on DX11 and using all these at once.
Graphics Test 4 and the combined test are expected to push your hardware the most and all tests in combination are designed to poke each aspect to get a fair 3DMark score that isn't biased based on one specific DX11 feature and/or bottleneck. Yes, the team has done their homework and found some interesting things about DX11 along the way...
And of course in default run you first get two demo scenes with audio that are designed to just look damn cool and run well, showing off your hardware. They don't affect the score and can be disabled if all you want is to bench and get numbers.
Running the vantage test on GPU with intent to cheat is a cheat, yes. Running it on GPU with intent to compare to other GPU's is fine. Given the limited testing ability of vantage its a little pointless for sure, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Correct. You can run Vantage with GPU PhysX, but at that point the score is usable only for comparing against other systems using GPU PhysX.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
To get a score that is comparable to any other DX10 hardware, disable PPU is the box to tick (or disable GPU PhysX in NVIDIA drivers).
And yes, 3DMark 11 uses only DX11 API functions (including DirectCompute) so none of this is an issue with it.
Actually looks reasonable,
Hope this is a "turning point" for 3Dmark, back to its roots of providing a glimpse into upcoming gaming visuals, not already dated looking crap like 06 and Vantage were
*remembers the good ol days of 99 - 03*
I didn't see any mention of it on the product page but have you guys included the targeted feature tests for texturing, shading etc like you've done in the past or is it just the game and physics tests now?Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
I miss the days when it was free.
this looks promising, cant wait to try this!
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razrback16
3DMark 11 has free Basic Edition with no "trial key" limitations or anything like that. It'll be pretty much as 3DMark 06 was.
sounds good, but even if the numbers are useful to analyze the gaming performance of a system, its too bad that the benchmark gets those numbers running game atypical animations...
since vantage 3dmark looks more like a 3dsmax or rendermonkey benchmark than a GAME benchmark... everybody loves 2k1 cause it emulates common games and game scenarios... fps, racing, action/mmorpg... its a shame that newer versions dont do this anymore... thats what made 3dmark and madonion/fm famous and successful...
i agree the transition has moved from ingame action to cutscenes, there was some action in vantage, but not like 01/03. i dont believe there is anything actually wrong with doing a scene rather than a cut of a ingame timedemo. what i think is wrong is how much we dont really need 60fps with a slow moving panning render. if you get 10fps you can kinda see whats going on just fine in 06 or vantage, while in 01/03 you would be lost. and with more options for running the game, the need for 60fps is easily available by running a lower setting. so if you multi expensive gpu solutions, run on extreme. or if your a midrange guy, run entry, since in real life you would want your 60fps, these "games" in 3dmark make it look good enough because it appears to be smooth.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Free edition sounds great!
These [paid versions] should also be bundled with MSI cards, apparently, so even better! :up:
3DMark 11 settings: eXtreme
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1423/36045208.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3050/21107786.jpg
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7125/48494198.jpg
http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2641/40390408.jpg
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/8040/31478559.jpg
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7703/42346701.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/742/27314663.jpg
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8498/12691303.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2351/95388818.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/601/79676003.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7974/86555172.jpg
More Photos
Source
http://www.chiphell.com/thread-141186-1-1.html
thank you cold2010 :toast:
Test platform
Processor
Intel Core i7-950 3.06GHz (133x23)
Radiator
Thermalright HR-02
Motherboard
ASUS P6X58D Premium X58
Memory
Corsair TR3X6G1600C8D DDR3 1600 2Gx3 (8-8-8-24) 1.65v
Hard drive
Intel X25-M G2 160G SSD
Power
Seasonic X-750
Monitor
DELL UltraSharp 3008WFP 30 "
Chassis
SilverStone RV02-E
System
Microsoft Windows 7 64bit
Driver
ATi Catalyst 10.10
NVIDIA 262.99
Patch
DirectX End-User Runtimes (2010.6)
3DMark 11 eXtreme mode
HD6870___2302
HD6850___2269
GTX 460 1GB___1772
http://www.chiphell.com/thread-141210-1-1.html
something about the 6870 and 6850 being that close in score makes me wonder something is wrong. the specs between the 2 are no where near just 1.5% different, so why are the scores only 1.5% different. unless its cpu bound, but then why is a 460 30% behindQuote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
I would have said the only spec they both share that closely would be tessellation, but that wouldn't explain the 460 performance unless Fermi really does dislike combined loads. So second guess would be drivers, I expect both sides will have new drivers released soon to show their cards in the best light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Nice it leaked earlier than I thought it would.
3DMark 11 RC
Quote:
GTX580：X1748
GTX 460：X923
HD5830：X845
HD5870：X1234
HD5870CF：X2350
HD6850：X899
HD6870：X1120
ok so the numbers get more confusing
extreme mode on both attempts shows a range of 100% difference. so i guess we can say that we have no idea what the scores will be. or the first run wasnt really extreme, but performance.
edit, or the previous numbers were gpu score, and this is total score
I would take all of this with a huge mountain of salt. Just saying... :rolleyes:
LOL. Funny how "pinch of salt" has lost all meaning. Its a pinch of salt because it is very tinny amount, that way the saying works. Saying a huge mountain of salt actually means that you should believe what ever it is said because it has a lot of proof behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
BOT: Vantage was a hit and miss benchmark for me. They got few things wrong. 11 looks ok so far. Will decide when i give it a run.
Figure of speech fail.
My point is: There is no final build yet, so even if those scores are from the benchmark, they may or may not have anything to do with the final numbers... and obviously any builds that exist at this point are under NDA - not that it seems to bother chiphell with, well, anyone :D
Nah you got it right. The less reliable/tasty the rumour/food the more salt is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
The owner of chiphell claims that these results are from RC version (instead of beta version in one of his previous post), and should reflect close to RTM results.Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
very good point! in earlier benches high fps really made a difference, in the newer benchmarks from fm thats not the case as the camera is moving slowly... thats actually something that even 2k1 doesnt do very well, everything is 3rd person... a real game benchmark HAS to have some first person view tests imo... i mean just compare the most popular games and check how many are first person and how many third person... yet all "game benchmarks" from fm are third person... i think fm should focus more on really simulating and measuring game performance than building their investor/manufacturer relations like theyve been doing in the past years :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
I'm just saying that there are actually multiple RC builds and the last one doesn't have a stamp "gold" on it just yet and until it does, anything can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
Update
GTS 450：604
HD5750：602
HD5770：722
According to previous experience with leaks from him, he'd been quite accurate about those kinds of stuff. It's now only 5 days left for us before we can download 3DM11 from the official site anyway so we shall see it through :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
thx cold :toast:
bottom of page 3 same threadQuote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
HD6970: X1807
don't know if true
X1807 puts it just ahead of GTX 580
If true, it looks like the rumors that Cayman XT is much faster than Cypress in DX11 by a good amount is true
We understand that there could be different RC builds. But the gist of the results shouldn't change. Why would one RC build provide such a difference in results that would cause you to post like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
Just like game balance is one of the final tasks you do, weighting each score would only come after seeing each test run bug free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
I'm fairly certain he had access to one of the RC builds. If I'd have to guess, RC1. I'm saying that those numbers are _not_ from a final build and hence may change. One important part of the final testing process is to ensure that the scoring formula is robust across huge range of hardware and changes are still possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
RC = "we think this could be gold". If something turns up, changes are made a and new RC is made. If not, it gets a stamp of approval and becomes gold.
here is more details about futuremark in an interview with Oliver baltuch president at futuremark inc.
http://www.overclocking-tv.com/conte...president.html
Over the weekend we made the difficult decision to postpone the launch of 3DMark 11 by a few days.
Our aim is that 3DMark 11 should provide accurate, reliable and consistent results from the start. With that goal in mind we are taking some extra time now to fix a couple of difficult bugs rather than patch the benchmark immediately after launch.
It might take a day, it might be a week, but either way we'll confirm the new launch date as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Noooo! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
I thought I could have downloaded in a few hours :(
If they have insane QA hell like some game developers it won't be ready this year. :rolleyes:
No, it is most likely just one or two day delay, but we can't confirm the date until we are absolutely positively 100% sure or it becomes a running joke of a constantly slipping release date...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
We hope to confirm the new date tomorrow, but as some final critical bits are not yet, well, final, and it is almost 6PM here in Finland, this was the only choice we had.
take all the time you need, i wont have dx11 card for atleast a month, lol.
3D Mark11= Duke Duken Forever (launch)? :D
I don't mind waiting a couple of days. At least us pre-orders got shattered horizon for free for our patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
It's only been delayed once just for a couple of days so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
So AMD drivers aren't ready yet :P
that was pretty cool to offer Shattered Horizon for the delay :)
on a side note.. it seems there's a new user name feature for 3dmark accounts, so pick a name before it gets taken :D
is that different from ORB accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loque
Not good. Lets waits another two days.
yes go on the new orb then "settings" on the left, at the top you can set a usernameQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
awesome, from now on i will be known as ManicdanQuote:
Originally Posted by mk-ultra
now i just need to buy a dx11 card and enough LN2 to make national security raise an eyebrow.
Wonder what showstopper bugs could creep in this late in the game, especially when it comes to consistency. I'm assuming the benchmarks have been run tens of thousands of times internally so inconsistent scoring is a strange thing to find at this point. Oh well.
Yeah, it is not unlikely that they haven't released the newest version of their useless bling bling benchmark because a client paid enough to make further adjustments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Borden
IHVs directly pay Futuremark for the service to "validate and optimize their software to the platform". Too bad that most people don't comprehend that Futuremark is significantly hurting the industry with that and they then even actively hype this miserable product that completely fails to mimic the workload of real (future) games.
And before some bling bling Benchmark fans go for my throat again, look - they even say this openly:http://www.futuremark.com/bdp/3dmark/Quote:
BDP Members get the following privileges and benefits
* Ability to influence Futuremark’s 3DMark roadmap and implementation
* Access to specification documents, alphas, betas and release candidate code drops of benchmarks
* Frequent communication and briefing
* Scheduled conference calls
* Troubleshooting for drivers and new technology
...
:mad:
So yeah, if you are smart enough to comprehend the issue: don't support them by using their useless benchmark and simply use real games instead.
Yeah but when hardware vendors sponsor games they do exactly the same thing in fact taking nvidia as a example they sometimes have more influence. AMD drivers aren't going to make much of a difference between the 580 and the 6870 anyway.
If AMD had enough influence to cause the launch to be in November for driver reasons then they'd have enough influence to force the launch to be delayed due to Cayman.
3Dmark.com = ORB (the new one)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
While I cannot go to exact details or give examples, you couldn't be more wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
The goal is to have a stable and fair benchmark. Has always been. BDP helps to ensure that - you have to understand that all major vendors are in BDP. They also watch very carefully what each other does (duh!) and get early builds for testing and comments - and trust me, they do care. They also bring a lot more eyeballs for verifying and testing the code. Who do you think is best at spotting stuff that could be deemed "unfair" to vendor X than, well, vendor X themselves?
And yes, BDP has been instrumental in helping to get that final polish done.
Wasn't really showstoppers, crashes or anything like that - just minor nagging things that presented us with an option - launch on time with known issues that would need a patch quickly or take a few extra days and fix them first. Since benchmarks are trickier to update after launch (especially if the issue affects score in any way), option 2 was, in our opinion, a better idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Any one tryed this yet with it coming out today!
From what i know isn't coming today, is delayed.
http://forum.lab501.ro/attachment.ph...1&d=1291046010
So you are saying yourself that the IHV not paying you will have a disadvantage. That you call this a process of "transparency and fairness", is just laughable!Quote:
Originally Posted by FM_Jarnis
To give you an example what your own customers have to say about your business model:http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...287#Post167287Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Craighead, NVIDIA
So, in the end the IHVs pay Futuremark for useless benchmarks directly and they have to waste additional resources with costly API call wrappers.
You say that 3DMark isn't useless? The point of 3DMark Vantage has been to predict performance of Direct3D 10 games, right? Well look for yourself: http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2428/3dmarkj.jpghttp://img829.imageshack.us/img829/739/games0.jpg Computerbase.de
6 out of 12 misplaced performance predictions - a perfect random mean! But what else can you expect from a benchmark that creates scenes that are totally atypical for games?!
So people: Don't support Futuremark by using or even buying their benchmarks. You are hurting the game and graphics hardware industry by doing that!
Tell me first which game is perfect ? All games have bugs, some games prefer red teams cards, some prefer the green teams cards... I don't like the way the game industry is heading with so many console games being recoded for PC use... makes them buggy, choppy and so annoying for keyboard inputs...
So what do you suggest then ? Can you create the ideal benchmark to predict similar gameplay ? It's impossible, you can just stress on new technology, it's new features..., every game code got it's own quirks, bugs, etc... If a benchmark doesn't favour their brand, then they will call it lame, if the other competitor performs better : they will accuse them of using optimised drivers etc... It's always something...
The game industry it's hurting itself by using sortlike apps as Steam. Not allowing to create dedicated servers for online/LAN party wars by users, bad patch behaviour,... etc, etc,... Not by Futuremark benchmarks... don't be silly... I don't even see how futuremark could hurt the graphics industry...
Mostly the GPU's that perform well in Vantage, will do so in games... Get your facts straight bud !
Your numbers suggest that the Xtreme preset is quite an accurate measurement, apart from the 4870X2 which is greatly underestimated. The other cards are in the right order and even the ratio is pretty much accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
The quality of your will to read and consider stated arguments is direct proportional to your use of sane punctuation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I have accidentally posted a unreleated benchmark that includes many D3D9 titles, which I fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Can you also fix the chart so it compares similar resolutions? And as for the Vantage numbers: are these overall scores or GPU scores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
//edit: I saw on your site that you actually HAVE numbers with similar resolutions. Why not show that one? Why use a different graph? ...
The point is to have a GPU-limited scenario like in 3DMark and it doesn't make much difference anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
That's why I asked: "Are those points overall score or GPU score?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
And, yes, it actually makes a difference. At equal resolutions, the order and ratio are again quite accurate (slightly in favor of Nvidia cards) if you bear in mind that Vantage was released back in Apr'08 and has to measure the performance of a Nov'10 product.
http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//difference.png
I sincerly hope you don't spread this hate anywhere else.
I replied to your statement. What is the ideal benchmark to you ? Can it be done ? Don't think so... Take eg the Hawx 2 benchmark : performs brilliant on Nvidia and AMD performance is sub par... If that benchmark was taken as a reference I would partly agree with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
The new numbers you posted show in the top that the 5970 dual GPU is maybe not correctly supported by the driver, the game doesn't benefit from it... the lower end cards, are hit and miss : maybe not enough ram on the GTX 460 (768 version) , drivers not optimised etc... I don't see that much discrepancies...
Take into consideration that Vantage is aging. Drivers, games & hardware have been optimised,... I just want to state that creating a benchmark ( maybe sometimes even before a decent game is released ( supporting the new technology ) is never gonna be ideal...
Are you saying FM is biasing their benchmark in favour of one team ? Being it the one that pays the most :p Then the beleive in the benchmark and company would go rapidly downhill... don't think they can make that man...
What the heck?! Most GPUs are still rated incorrectly: 5870/470; 6850/460; 5830/465; 4870/5770; 260/5770; 450/5750; 4870/260 ... They are all rated incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
The whole point here is that this is the only pretended intent of 3DMark!Quote:
if you bear in mind that Vantage was released back in Apr'08 and has to measure the performance of a Nov'10 product.
I am sure that you are going to continue to be happy to support Futuremark with their business model that is evidently hurting the industry.Quote:
I sincerly hope you don't spread this hate anywhere else.
I never said that it is realistic to think that one can create a benchmark that mimics the workload of upcoming games, early in the GPU generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
The whole point here is that Futuremark promises to deliver this and fails for good reason. Have you read the inofficial statement made by Nvidia which also makes this clear?
The even worse issue is that the business model of Futuremark makes their benchmark content directly dependent on the money paid by particular industry vendors, which is simply outrageous!
No, it's hurting itself by not taking the PC seriously enough and positioning it as a mainstream rival to PS3/XBOX360Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
That statement Of Nvidia was that the one regarding 3Dmark2003 ? Think if the chosen option was in favour of Nvidia they wouldn't have nagged at all... Think Nvidia is one company that tends to opens a lot of cans of worms with bad expressions... There are even special created drivers by this company that allow "bugged" runs on FM benchmarks, so I wouldn't take it all too seriously... Seems you are not a bencher : we all have drivers ( beta drivers) that create "bugged" runs in sub tests of some Futuremark benchmarks and this results finally in a higher output score... in reply to the statement by the above mentioned nvidia employee, they themselves created the driver to "manipulate" the outcome...
Very good point there... hence why I don't like console converted games... usually need silly hardware requirements for choppy gameplay...Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
Why in hell would that nonsense make a difference to the problem that Futuremark practices an outrageous business model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
What the F are you talking about? ALL IHVs have to waste driver development resources for 3DMark API call wrappers.Quote:
There are even special created drivers by this company that allow "bugged" runs on FM benchmarks, so I wouldn't take it all too seriously...
No, they are rated like you'd expect. The combinations you mention are based on price/performance ratios, which is very sensitive to very small differences in both FPS and price swings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
The point of running 3DMark is that you have 1 number than estimates the rough positioning in the market. Eg: 5970 > GTX580, 480 > 5870 or 4890 >= 5750.
In a very recent interview, Futuremark has explicitly stated that end-users should run as many benchmarks as possible to get a good view on the factual performance of your product. That's quite different from your idea, which is apparently based on an interview from 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
Link to interview: http://hwbot.org/article/newsflash/9...mark_president
Evidently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
So far I've seen an outdated quote and a couple of charts that show 3DMark is fairly accurate in grouping similar performant products.
WTF?! The majority of the GPUs tested have an incorrect performance rating succession when comparing 3DMark with real games! All those combinations that I have listed are rated incorrectly by 3DMark.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Why are you making up the claim that this "based on price/performance ratios", when it clearly is not?
That even they are saying that 3DMark is not a good representation of game performance is in which way speaking for them?Quote:
In a very recent interview, Futuremark has explicitly stated that end-users should run as many benchmarks as possible to get a good view on the factual performance of your product.
Outdated? They continue with exactly the same business model that has been critisized by IHVs, which is even openly advertised by Futuremark today.Quote:
That's quite different from your idea, which is apparently based on an interview from 2003.
So far I've seen an outdated quote
Do you have to punch your head against the wall to make yourself believe that obvious untruth or do you just have to turn a switch for that?Quote:
and a couple of charts that show 3DMark is fairly accurate in grouping similar performant products.
I don't know where to even start, so I'll just state that FM stands behind it's products and states that they produce usable results within the margin of error that is reasonable to expect from a single benchmark.
Will you get more accurate results if you mix multiple benchmarks and games when compared to a single benchmark (even one that has multiple workloads)? Sure. That's simple math.
Does that invalidate any individual benchmark? Nope - a single benchmark has higher error margin than combined score from multiple benchmarks. Duh. That doesn't mean the result is invalid.
Are the differences between 3DMark and a pool of games material? No - they are well within the error margin, especially when you consider that many games run better on cards from specific vendor (accidentally or on purpose), creating bias. Spotty multi-GPU support also creates bias (while 3DMark is always offering full multi-GPU support). You also have to consider that benchmarking a pile of games and creating an average out of that is obviously (slightly) more accurate than any single result (from a benchmark or a game).
3DMark Vantage might not be the best or the prettiest product we've ever done, but one thing it does do is to produce a valid, unbiased score and seems to be doing it even with hardware that was years away from being released when it was shipped. With 3DMark 11, we have the exact same goal.
As for the business model side - I'm not the person to discuss about it. If you want to continue that discussion, I suggest you contact us at bdp [at] futuremark.com - I'm sure our guys are happy to do an interview or provide more details.