3Dmark2001 coming to an End??

[afireinside]

Yeah AM3 is nice looking, short, and tests the whole system. Not AS good as 3d01 but its all we will have if they kill 01 without replacing it. To bad the ARC is crap...

[OPPAINTER]

Looks like Worm over at Futuremark locked the Thread

OPP

[bias_hjorth]

I like the participants in that thread
Quote GazC:
"If (when) you decide to drop your only decent "full system" benchmark, I hope it will be possible for a third party enthusiast site, like Xtremesystems, for example to be given the code and information for the '01 ORB so that it can be kept alive for the majority of us who would like to see it continue. "


Although I dont like his reply

Quote the WoRM
"The sourcecode for 3DMark2001SE can not be "open sourced" as it contains code from third party members. Handing the ORB to some other site(s) is not possible either. The ORB for 2001 is the same as for our other benchmarks, so handing out the ORB for 2001 would mean that we would hand out the whole ORB. Besides, if we would do it, the client would still need to be patched in order to make the submission to some other location. Just not possible."

[perkam]

"The sourcecode for 3DMark2001SE can not be "open sourced" as it contains code from third party members. Handing the ORB to some other site(s) is not possible either. The ORB for 2001 is the same as for our other benchmarks, so handing out the ORB for 2001 would mean that we would hand out the whole ORB. Besides, if we would do it, the client would still need to be patched in order to make the submission to some other location. Just not possible."

Sour Beans but not to worry, there are enough open-source benchmarks going around (I like renderbench ) that it shouldnt be a problem, we'll just use 01 in offline mode if they do LOL

Perkam

[jjcom]

I can understand the first part of that responce, but Why not just give the site a copy of the ORB with everything, and have a redirect on their submission page so that it goes to something like XS.org/ORB/01 or something, or woudl that be possible? Could be hard for them tho...

jjcom

[perkam]

I think Kazoo/Chilly1/Fugger are having one heck of time maintaining the servers for 100,000 XS members to come here and discuss their views without any server hiccups as it is that adding yet another HUGE database of info and its maintenance might just be too much, unless the venture can help pay for it self (XS 3dMark02SE PRO Anyone ).

Not a bad idea, but I'd like to hear from them first.

Perkam

[blinky]

3dmark01 is really the most fun bench

people like me who cant afford x800 or 6800 series cards really have no use for 03 or 05 because its so vid card dependant. this would be really sad if they scrapped 01, that is THE benchmark, in my opinion, that defines the greatest OCers, because it requires so many things to be clocks and tweaked

[cadaveca]

LoL..what's wrong with PCMARK'04?

[jjcom]

I think Kazoo/Chilly1/Fugger are having one heck of time maintaining the servers for 100,000 XS members to come here and discuss their views without any server hiccups as it is that adding yet another HUGE database of info and its maintenance might just be too much, unless the venture can help pay for it self (XS 3dMark02SE PRO Anyone ).

Not a bad idea, but I'd like to hear from them first.

Perkam

yeah, I know what you mean, I was just using XS as an example. Plus the huge bandwidth needed...

jjcom

[jayjaya29]

Man, it would suck so bad if they scrapped '01. Everybody trusts it, and everybody is so familiar with it, so why take it down. When I bench, I hardly ever use '03 and '05 becuase I know minor increase in clock speeds will not increase my score at all. I say keep '01 or make another bench program that did what '01 has done.

[Gautam]

From Futuremark's perspective, I can sorta understand why they'd want to phase out a 4 year old benchmark, but it'll be a sad day indeed when/if they put it to rest...whats nice about 3dmark01 is that its a gaming benchmark, just with the GPU bottleneck taken out.

[charlie]

Gaming in it's purest form IS a combination of CPU and GPU power...
THUS, we need a bench hat has individual game tests stressing CPU almost exclusively, like Carlo/hi.... and GT1 from '03....
Then a couple nice dx8/9 GT's and maybe another heavy CPU maybe a rendering test??

C

[jkabaseball]

i agree if they drop it, they shoudl replace it, not a newer 05 version, replace the all around. There is no way in hell we will get the test or the ORB. It would be like microsoft giving us source code for win98.

With 01se if you and a friend were going at it, they where many different ways you could pull 100 points off. WIth the newer tests, you better start cascading that GPU if you want more.

[Kanavit]

yea, 4 years in computer time is alot. heck 1 year is enough to fossilize any new computer system. 2k1 still is the best benchmark and needs a face lift badly. Is it so hard to apply the latest technology with 2k1 game engine? Like using HDR or sm 3.0 or rewriting 2k1 with new dx 9.0c game code. I'm tired of Car test and Dragothic, graphically looks soo old nowadays.

[DarkManX_BG]

Even if they drop it, it wouldn't be THAT much of a problem. Sharing scores with others wouldn't be a problem, we have screenshots for that I mean, there's no SuperPi ORB either. However, once a new piece of hardware gets released, things might get really complicated - imagine you have the newest kick-a$$ card by <insert your favourite GPU manifacturer here>, you get 35k in 03 and 20k in 05, and you can't run 3DMark2k1 because it's too old for your card...
On the other hand side, it's been quite a while since the last 2k1 patch anyway, and it's still working fine with every card out there...

[zakelwe]

Well I read all 157 posts in that thread and then find it is locked before I could have my say, which always really gets my goat. Also, you can tell Neeyik is from Beyond3d, they are totally video card orientated over there and sometimes fail to see the bigger picture.

What worries me is Futuremarks attitude to their own product. They still seem to think it is the gamers benchmark, however it stopped being solely the gamers benchmark they took the decision to have league tables in place. From the day they decided that it became a benchers benchmark as well, not only that but a very popular one also. Would 3dmark be as popular without the tables ?

As well as the tables Futuremark went one step further when they introduced charging to the end users, surely those end users now have some say in how the company progresses ? I know they get lots of money from nvidia , Ati etc but that is all tied into how popular their product is again with people who use it. If people do not use it then Ati or nvidia will not be paying either.

It concerns me that Worm and Futuremark are "surprised" how popular 2001 still is, do they not know why their product is popular ?

In regards to a new 3dmark, comments above by other XS members such as Kunaak and Charlie are spot on, we know 2001 now is out of date but we also know why it is popular, so why not bring a new version . Surely that is a company's dream, just rehash something old and save on delevelopement costs and the worry it might not be popular. Look at the new Ford GT based on the Ford GT40 for how to do this.

The great things about 2001 are

1) It has tests that can be run independently or in different order
2) It has tests that are dependent on cpu, memory and graphics
3) It has tests that people have a feel for and so can tell if it is bugged or a wrong setting is being used.
4) It allows tweaking on varous levels.

Now that cpu and memory speed can be changed on the fly in Windows easily 1) above takes on even more importance.

So what we want for 3dmark2006 is the following , exact same format as 3dmark2001 but running at 1280x1024 ( probably most common screen resolution nowadays ? ) and with 2 low polygon low shader DX8 , 2 high polygon large shader DX8 and 2 DX9 games one of which also equires a lot of cpu power. There's no reason why you cannot have an extreme DX9 level which also requires a lot of cpu power. The game should be multicpu enabled of course as we are entering the dual core world .....

However, I doubt we will get this ( apart from the last) , instead we will probably, if current record is to be followed, get 2 games both very gpu bound and very very boring.

Until nv40/r420 2001 was nicely balanced and you needed a nicely balanced system, 03 and 05 are not balanced, and this is shown by the over-inflated scores of SLi systems.

Regards

Andy

[GazC]

Even if they drop it, it wouldn't be THAT much of a problem. Sharing scores with others wouldn't be a problem, we have screenshots for that I mean, there's no SuperPi ORB either. However, once a new piece of hardware gets released, things might get really complicated - imagine you have the newest kick-a$$ card by <insert your favourite GPU manifacturer here>, you get 35k in 03 and 20k in 05, and you can't run 3DMark2k1 because it's too old for your card...
On the other hand side, it's been quite a while since the last 2k1 patch anyway, and it's still working fine with every card out there...

You are right, but the problem with sharing screenshots is that all I'd need to beat OPPAINTER then is a P3 a Riva TNT and paint

The good thing about the '01 orb is that it is hard to submit a cheat score and cheat scores are very obvious to anyone who has used '01 regularly.

We cannot trust everyone out there

[DarkManX_BG]

You are right, but the problem with sharing screenshots is that all I'd need to beat OPPAINTER then is a P3 a Riva TNT and paint

The good thing about the '01 orb is that it is hard to submit a cheat score and cheat scores are very obvious to anyone who has used '01 regularly.

We cannot trust everyone out there

Sure, trust is an important issue here. But if we can recognize the few cheat scores on the ORB, why shouldn't we be able to recognize a fake screenshot as well? Of course, there will always be someone trying to cheat (and maybe succeeding), but I don't think it'll be that bad.
I know for sure that even if 3DMark2001 really gets dropped by FM, I'll keep using it, sharing my results with others and making small competitions against other people on this and other forums

[$0m#0n#]

Is it hard 2 make a mix of of the 01/03/05? like Car high & low & lobby low from 01, GT1 from 03 & one of the 05 tests?

[GazC]

Is it hard 2 make a mix of of the 01/03/05? like Car high & low & lobby low from 01, GT1 from 03 & one of the 05 tests?

It'd probably make it a huge download. That's three different rendering engines in one download.

[$0m#0n#]

It'd probably make it a huge download. That's three different rendering engines in one download.

500MB 'd b ok I think, not so much

[zakelwe]

I think Futuremarks thought on the matter is they do not go backwards on DX level, and therefore as 05 is purely DX9 then the next 3dmark will also be purely DX9, presumably even more complex.

Assuming that this is thus a given then what is needed is a very complex DX9 game which also puts a large stress on the mutlicore cpu for some of the tests so the cpu matters when the game is released and not 3 years down the line.

Regards

Andy

[Rauf]

i love 3dmark01, but the problem is that it is too old now. It is not a balanced benchmark anymore and it will just get worse with every new generation of video cards. It's already too CPU/RAM dependent; what will happen with the next generation GPUs?
So we need a new benchmark, but who will produce it? If Futuremark gets alot of money from ATI/NVidia as 'zakelwe' says, Futuremark will continue with benchmarks that are only GPU dependent.

Perhaps this problem will be solved with the new GPUs, and 03 will take over where 01 left off? who knows...

[ArcTan]

Sound like 3DMark03 combined with SuperPi to me

maybe you're onto something
3D Pi, Super PI 3D

[DarkManX_BG]

maybe you're onto something
3D Pi, Super PI 3D

3,14DMark