3DMark 11 out on 30th November

[Katzenschleuder]

Come again when you have used more then TWO benchmarks to 'prove' 3DMark's performance measurements are 'completely wrong'.

Your attitude and statements actually make Computerbase.de look like an unreliable and not trustworthy as you jump to conclusions based on very preliminary data and incorrect comparisons. First of all, you post a comparison using different resolutions and then you come with average numbers based on two benchmarks. If one of those two benchmarks are biased, your results are biased as well.

That you think that the benchmarks shown do not represent the reality about how realistically 3DMark mimics the GPU workload of games is just your baseless opinion. You can pick comparisons with many games and you will see the same obvious discrepancy when comparing to 3DMark results:

EDIT: now with even more games/GPUs of the generation targeted with 3DMark Vantage!
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...3dmark_vantage

And again, considering ratings of games in higher resolution even favours a correlation to 3DMark Vantage because they are more limited by the GPU.

In addition, this is not about definding some kind of 'glorious hobby' but rather about the correct interpretation of numbers. For some reason, you make it sound as if those who defend the 3DMark performance measurements are taking this discussion too personal. I'm actually starting to believe the opposite is true and you're just trying to enforce your own opinion about the validity and value of a benchmark like 3DMark upon other people.

Why do you bother when you evidently don't care about the realism of the 3DMark-workload anyway considering that you argue to have the feature to pull 3DMark apart into even more meaningless sub-benchmarks!