3DMark 11 out on 30th November

[Katzenschleuder]

Well ... exclude those DX9 for optimal comparison.

I have already explained that there is practically no difference. And no, I will not waste my time to attest this to you as well.

Next up is the correlation between Vantage and your game tests as well as the correlation between game tests to see if there are benchmarks that are biasing the results by a great margin.

That there are significant differences between games is the NATURE OF REALITY and exactly my argument why 3DMark will never be a useful tool to evaluate performance! The only goal of 3DMark can be to get close to the avarage, which it obviously (and naturally) doesn't achieve.

Then present that research in a new article with the title "Why Futuremark is no good". Use the conclusion of that article in any of your future reviews to explain to users why you're no longer using the 3DMark software.

Why in hell are you asking me to make an article about this?

Also, try to run comparisons using the same drivers to make sure they are not biasing either 3DMark or game test:

Argh... this has no significant impact on performance:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...formancerating
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...formancerating

It offers the extreme overclocking community new ways to fine-tune hardware and software for most optimal performance. One of the reasons die-hard overclockers are so in love with 3DMark01SE is because the benchmark offers the possibility to fine-tune every single subtest (7 in total) to achieve the highest score as possible.

It has nothing to do with test validity.

Why are you not satisfied with 3DMark01 or GPU-Z then if you don't care about the content of the measurement?