Quote Originally Posted by massman View Post
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.

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.
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.
Why are you making up the claim that this "based on price/performance ratios", when it clearly is not?

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 even they are saying that 3DMark is not a good representation of game performance is in which way speaking for them?

That's quite different from your idea, which is apparently based on an interview from 2003.

So far I've seen an outdated quote
Outdated? They continue with exactly the same business model that has been critisized by IHVs, which is even openly advertised by Futuremark today.

and a couple of charts that show 3DMark is fairly accurate in grouping similar performant products.
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?