3DMark 11 out on 30th November

[massman]

PS.: Yes people, I know that you despise me for having the brassiness to citisize your glorious hobby.

Come again when you have used more than TWO benchmarks to 'prove' 3DMark's performance measurements are inherently incorrect.

Your attitude and statements actually make Computerbase.de look like an unreliable and untrustworthy 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.

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.

[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!

[massman]

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 ratings with many games like here and will see the same obvious discrepancy when comparing to 3DMark results.
And again, considering ratings of games in higher resolution even favours a correlation to 3DMark Vantage because they are more limited by the GPU.

What are those performance charts based on? DX9, DX10, DX11 or a combination of all?

You're undermining your own argument by using either too little or too much data to prove that 3DMark Vantage, an indication tool for DX10 performance, is inherenlty producing false results. If you want to compare DX10 performance accuracy, you need multiple (more than two) DX10 benchmarks using the same resolution as the preset you're comparing your results to. Preferably also the same IQ settings. You have to exclude all data that does not fit the comparison, which includes alternative resolutions, IQ settings and game-types.

Then, to prove 3DMark is inherently incorrect, you will need to do correlative research to find out if one of your OWN games is biased specificly towards one type of graphics card as it might bias your overall figures.

If you've done all that research and still come to the conclusion that 3DMark is wrong 50% of the time, you can write an article which will end with the conclusion: "although 3DMark gives you a good view on what hardware is capable, when considering purchasing a new graphics card it's better to check out more than just the 3DMark number". Also, you might want to give readers the advise to also check out other hardware websites to see if different platforms give different performance.

So, the conclusion of all this: if you rely on one graph to decide what product is best for you, you're a retard.

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!

Sadly enough, you again incorrectly analyze data.

The ability to run sub-tests separatly has nothing to do with the benchmark's relevance as a performance indicator. When comparing products, you should always use the same methodology (you know this, right?). For comparison purposes, it's quite obvious that any overclocker will also use the full benchmark.

Being able to run sub-tests separatly has nothing to do with performance comparison between hardware products. It's for overclockers to compete against each other. Those two are very different segments of the IT community.

[Katzenschleuder]

What are those performance charts based on? DX9, DX10, DX11 or a combination of all?

You're undermining your own argument by using either too little or too much data to prove that 3DMark Vantage, an indication tool for DX10 performance, is inherenlty producing false results. If you want to compare DX10 performance accuracy, you need multiple (more than two) DX10 benchmarks using the same resolution as the preset you're comparing your results to. Preferably also the same IQ settings. You have to exclude all data that does not fit the comparison, which includes alternative resolutions, IQ settings and game-types.

Then, to prove 3DMark is inherently incorrect, you will need to do correlative research to find out if one of your OWN games is biased specificly towards one type of graphics card as it might bias your overall figures.

If you've done all that research and still come to the conclusion that 3DMark is wrong 50% of the time, you can write an article which will end with the conclusion: "although 3DMark gives you a good view on what hardware is capable, when considering purchasing a new graphics card it's better to check out more than just the 3DMark number". Also, you might want to give readers the advise to also check out other hardware websites to see if different platforms give different performance.

So, the conclusion of all this: if you rely on one graph to decide what product is best for you, you're a retard.

You obviously rigerously ignore my efforts made for argumenation, so go and live happily with your opinion.

Sadly enough, you again incorrectly analyze data.

The ability to run sub-tests separatly has nothing to do with the benchmark's relevance as a performance indicator. When comparing products, you should always use the same methodology (you know this, right?). For comparison purposes, it's quite obvious that any overclocker will also use the full benchmark.

Being able to run sub-tests separatly has nothing to do with performance comparison between hardware products. It's for overclockers to compete against each other. Those two are very different segments of the IT community.

So why do you bother to use a benchmark if you don't care about the practical relevance in the first place?

[massman]

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

What I am saying is: there are many games out there and the performance of a specific product VARIES from game to game. Therefore, it is necessary to test MANY games to come to an overall conclusion.

What you did was test 2 DX10-based games and compared that to 1 3DMark score. To jump to the conclusion that 3DMark is inherently(*) not capable of producing valid scores is highly debatable as you need a lot more data.

The problem is that you take things even further and claim that valuable resources are wasted on 3DMark and are even dragging FM's business model into this discussion. You're simply jumping from one conclusion to another without having decent data to back up your claims. All I've seen so far is a 7-year old quote about an old DX8 benchmark and a comparison between 3Dmark and the average performance of 2 games. It would be outrageous to claim any validity on this.

I've given you pointers on how to make a solid case against 3DMark's software. You can either put your fingers in your ears whilst shouting the words "na na na, I cannot hear you" or you can do actual research and prove your point with solid data.

You made a very bold statement regarding Futuremark, which means you better have some damn good evidence to back that statement up. If not, you're just one of the million other internet users who have yet-another opinion.

(*): inherently = it's a characteristic of the benchmark that it will product incorrect performance indications.

You obviously rigerously ignore my efforts made for argumenation, so go and live happily with your opinion.

I did not ignore your argumentation. In fact, I looked at the argumentation closely (which can be proven by the fact I identified you providing the wrong graph) and based on what I see explained how your conclusion might not be valid. I've also given you reasons why I think it's possibly not valid and even how you could improve validity and make a solid case.

I was expecting this to happen at one point in this discussion as online discussions often end up with "let's agree to disagree". Looks like the world is full of people who think they're 100% right and do not accept criticism.

So why do you bother to use a benchmark if you don't care about the practical relevance of it anyway?

How is that a relevant point in this discussion? Are you trying to say that because I'm using the benchmark in a different way than you do, I'm not entitled to analyze provided data and explain why conclusions based on that data are not valid? Does this mean I have to be a hardware reviewer in order to call judgement?

As I explained earlier, there are different segments of the IT community that are using this benchmark. There is:

- hardware reviewers: compare performance of retail products
- hardware manufacturers: internal testing of performance, performance gain and validity
- performance enthusiasts: using to compare performance of different setups
- people who bought a new pc: "look the graphics are cool"
- die-hard overclockers: competing against each other to get the highest possible score

Who are you to say your chart based on the two tested DX10 games have more practical relevance if I, as reader, are never going to play any of those two games? They give an indication, just like 3DMark does. You just happen to believe your testing is more accurate because you've used 2 benchmarks instead of 1 and you obviously dislike 3DMark.

[T_M]

you are making me hot with all this jargon mathsman

[Katzenschleuder]

What I am saying is: there are many games out there and the performance of a specific product VARIES from game to game. Therefore, it is necessary to test MANY games to come to an overall conclusion.

What you did was test 2 DX10-based games and compared that to 1 3DMark score. To jump to the conclusion that 3DMark is inherently(*) not capable of producing valid scores is highly debatable as you need a lot more data.

No, I explicitely said that this observation can me made with the sum of all relevant measurements.
I also made a comparison with an overall rating of MANY games and GPUs which were exactly the target generation of 3DMark Vantage.

The problem is that you take things even further and claim that valuable resources are wasted on 3DMark and are even dragging FM's business model into this discussion. You're simply jumping from one conclusion to another without having decent data to back up your claims. All I've seen so far is a 7-year old quote about an old DX8 benchmark and a comparison between 3Dmark and the average performance of 2 games. It would be outrageous to claim any validity on this.

Again, you clearly deliberately ignore and twist the arguments that I made.

That 3DMark does (naturally) not create realistic game workloads is one side of my criticism.
The other side is that Futuremark openly advertises (as proven by the link to their program page) to let those influence the benchmark who pay them.

Why in hell is this "jumping from one conclusion to another"?!

I've given you pointers on how to make a solid case against 3DMark's software. You can either put your fingers in your ears whilst shouting the words "na na na, I cannot hear you" or you can do actual research and prove your point with solid data.

I did not ignore your argumentation. In fact, I looked at the argumentation closely (which can be proven by the fact I identified you providing the wrong graph) and based on what I see explained how your conclusion might not be valid. I've also given you reasons why I think it's possibly not valid and even how you could improve validity and make a solid case.

Yeah Mister, how more often are you going to claim the absurdity that all my argumentation is based on "2 games", even though everyone can see with a blink of an eye this is not true?

How is that a relevant point in this discussion? Are you trying to say that because I'm using the benchmark in a different way than you do, I'm not entitled to analyze provided data and explain why conclusions based on that data are not valid? Does this mean I have to be a hardware reviewer in order to call judgement?

As I explained earlier, there are different segments of the IT community that are using this benchmark. There is:

- hardware reviewers: compare performance of retail products
- hardware manufacturers: internal testing of performance, performance gain and validity
- performance enthusiasts: using to compare performance of different setups
- people who bought a new pc: "look the graphics are cool"
- die-hard overclockers: competing against each other to get the highest possible score

You still haven't answered my question why you bother to use a benchmark in the first place if you don't care about it's relevance. Because that is what you do by demanding that 3DMark should be pulled apart into meaningless pieces for the convenience of "overclockers".

Who are you to say your chart based on the two tested DX10 games have more practical relevance if I, as reader, are never going to play any of those two games? They give an indication, just like 3DMark does. You just happen to believe your testing is more accurate because you've used 2 benchmarks instead of 1 and you obviously dislike 3DMark.

I think I understand your method: The more often you say that I base my findings on only "two games", the more true it get's, right?

[massman]

No, I explicitely said that this observation can me made with the sum of all relevant measurements.
I also made a comparison with an overall rating of MANY games and GPUs which were exactly the target generation of 3DMark Vantage.

...

Yeah Mister, how more often are you going to claim the absurdity that all my argumentation is based on "2 games", even though everyone can see with a blink of an eye this is not true?

Many games or many DX10 games.

3DMark Vantage is a DX10 performance indication tool. Using performance charts based on the combination of DX9, DX10 and DX11 results is not a valid comparison.

I followed the link to of the chart you provided a couple of posts ago and I did not find a multi-game DX10 performance analysis. If I missed it, please link to the correct graph and data.

The other side is that Futuremark openly advertises (as proven by the link to their program page) to let those influence the benchmark who pay them.

There's a thin line between influencing the benchmark and working together to make it a good performance indication tool.

This is the way the hardware manufacturers also work with game developpers. Nvidia and AMD help game developpers to provide the best end-user experience. Do you also think game developpers have an outrageous business model because they accept Nvidia to support the development of their game financially in order to make sure the game is making most use of the different aspects of a hardware product?

You still haven't answered my question why you bother to use a benchmark in the first place if you don't care about it's relevance. Because that is what you do by demanding that 3DMark should be pulled apart into meaningless pieces for the convenience of "overclockers".

The reason why I use it is completely irrelevant to this discussion; perhaps I'm just using it to relieve myself when seeing Jane Nash jump of the platform.

Also, I don't demand Futuremark to pull the benchmark into meaningless pieces. In fact, by suggesting an extra preset ('Freestyle') I allow Futuremark to maintain all the presets they want for performance analysis and just add another one to be used for competitive overclocking.

If anything, I'm trying to add more value to the product by allowing for it to be used by both the performance analysis group and the competitive overclocking group.

I think I understand your method: The more often you say that I base my findings on only "two games", the more true it get's, right?

If only you could break that logic by giving me a chart that doesn't only take 2 DX10 games into account.

[Manicdan]

for those wanting to run games out of order, why not just run the one you want and look at the FPS? it may not be a score, but its still the number that goes into the score

[Katzenschleuder]

Many games or many DX10 games.

3DMark Vantage is a DX10 performance indication tool. Using performance charts based on the combination of DX9, DX10 and DX11 results is not a valid comparison.

I followed the link to of the chart you provided a couple of posts ago and I did not find a multi-game DX10 performance analysis. If I missed it, please link to the correct graph and data.

Simply look at this very page.

Btw.: The performance difference between D3D10 GPUs in D3D9 games is practically identical because new features like geometry programs are not used in a way that is relevant to performance differences between architectures. There is some difference in the (completely overdone) tesselation demonstrated in the early D3D11 games however.

There's a thin line between influencing the benchmark and working together to make it a good performance indication tool.

EXACTLY! The line is very thin.
Their business model is in stark contrast to the typical public domain benchmarks and also to sponsored entities in the media, because they (openly) make the ability, to influence the test, dependent on money input.

This is the way the hardware manufacturers also work with game developpers. Nvidia and AMD help game developpers to provide the best end-user experience. Do you also think game developpers have an outrageous business model because they accept Nvidia to support the development of their game financially in order to make sure the game is making most use of the different aspects of a hardware product?

I definitely critisize the many cases where IHVs bought a ticket into the game code to favour their products.

The reason why I use it is completely irrelevant to this discussion; perhaps I'm just using it to relieve myself when seeing Jane Nash jump of the platform.

So you set a demand for no good reason.

Also, I don't demand Futuremark to pull the benchmark into meaningless pieces. In fact, by suggesting an extra preset ('Freestyle') I allow Futuremark to maintain all the presets they want for performance analysis and just add another one to be used for competitive overclocking.

If anything, I'm trying to add more value to the product by allowing for it to be used by both the performance analysis group and the competitive overclocking group.

Well you ask very persistently without giving an explanation why it matters to you to run meaningless sub-benchmarks even though there are already plenty there.

If only you could break that logic by giving me a chart that doesn't only take 2 DX10 games into account.

Well simply read the posts you are replying to for once.

[massman]

Btw.: The difference of performance characteristics between D3D9 & D3D10 games is very marginal. So the performance difference between D3D10 GPUs in D3D9 games is practically identical because new features like geometry programs are not used in a way that is relevant to performance differences between architectures. There is some difference in the (completely overdone) tesselation demonstrated in the early D3D11 games however.

Well ... exclude those DX9 for optimal comparison. 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.

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.

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

* Nvidia ForceWare 174.16
* Nvidia ForceWare 174.53 (9800 GX2, 9800 GTX)
* Nvidia GeForce 177.34 (GTX 280)
* Nvidia GeForce 177.39 (9800 GTX+, GTX 260)
* Nvidia GeForce 177.72 (9500 GT, 9800 GT)
* Nvidia GeForce 177.92 (9600 GSO)
* ATi Catalyst 8.3
* ATi Catalyst 8.6 Release 5 (HD 4850, HD 4870)
* ATi Catalyst Sample 8-52-2 (HD 4870 X2)
* ATi Catalyst Sample 8.53_RC1 (HD 4670)

Well you ask very persistently without giving an explanation why it matters to you for running meaningless sub-benchmarks.

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.

[Gautam]

nearly all people "using" 3DMark don't care in the least about the relevance of what they are measuring

...

There are people who have the noble idea to destroy hardware which is worth thousands of Euro just to run an absolutely useless calculation a few miliseconds faster. And your product attracts people who support this mentality.

You got it. to XtremeSystems.

[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?

[Leeghoofd]

for those wanting to run games out of order, why not just run the one you want and look at the FPS? it may not be a score, but its still the number that goes into the score

It's not about the single scores mate we need an overal score.... This ispart of the so called called tweaking... Every overclocker will test different operating systems, driver versions, CPU/GPU scaling... this is all part of the fun...

3Dmark01 was very tweakable, as the run order of the tests could give you a higher score... but since 03 this is no longer possible...

Nothing as boring as just pressing : run benchmark... If you aren't a bencher you won't see the point in the request to split up the subtests and the ability to run them in a different order...


Jeezus Katz give it a break , in fact you are making a total fool out of yaself... Maybe start a petition and ask who thinks the same as you... Or indeed write an article with decent updated data and prove your point.

Ah I almost forget to point out : you lost sight of the money thing... get that started again plz so entertaining...


Grabbing some popcorn and will watch the spectacle from the sideline....

[saaya]

katzenschleuder, why are you against adding an extra feature?
its not like you have to use it... and most people probably wont... but for the ones that are benching for the sake of benching, it would be a lot of fun...
so whats the problem with that?

its like arguing that ocing should be locked cause most people prefer a stable system over a fast unstable system...
well its better to have a choice, isnt it?

[Leeghoofd]

I think Katz will never install it Sascha :p and if he ever does : EPIC FAIL !!!

[Manicdan]

It's not about the single scores mate we need an overal score.... This ispart of the so called called tweaking... Every overclocker will test different operating systems, driver versions, CPU/GPU scaling... this is all part of the fun...

3Dmark01 was very tweakable, as the run order of the tests could give you a higher score... but since 03 this is no longer possible...

Nothing as boring as just pressing : run benchmark... If you aren't a bencher you won't see the point in the request to split up the subtests and the ability to run them in a different order...

i think its possible then for HWbot to break up 3dmark11 into a score and then also each games fps, so people can fight over having the highest of each as sub components to that total. even if futuremark does not, i think hwbot would be a good compromise.

[Leeghoofd]

That could be a possibility, but to keep it up against the Orb results, it's better to still obtain a final score... but if it ain't possible for the coders then it's like that... laying back now to watch the spectacle...

Love ya case mod man, very nice work

[Katzenschleuder]

katzenschleuder, why are you against adding an extra feature?
its not like you have to use it... and most people probably wont... but for the ones that are benching for the sake of benching, it would be a lot of fun...
so whats the problem with that?

its like arguing that ocing should be locked cause most people prefer a stable system over a fast unstable system...
well its better to have a choice, isnt it?

Normal overclocking can have practical use in contrast to the nonsense to ask for the feature to take meaningless measurments. You don't care about what is being measured. So why are you not satisfied with 3DMark01 and GPU-Z?
Well I have the honest answer that you are afraid of to speak out: Because you want to have the ILLUSION to do something meaningful.

[Manicdan]

Normal overclocking can have practical use in contrast to the nonsense to ask for the feature to take meaningless measurments. You don't care about what is being measured. So why are you not satisfied with 3DMark01 and GPU-Z?
Well I have the honest answer that you are afraid of to speak out: Because you want to have the ILLUSION to do something meaningful.

illusion is not the same as reaching an achievement, and i dont mean those on xbox. why do you care what reasons people have for what they do? some want to push the limits of hardware cause its for recognition, others cause they like blowing stuff up, others cause its to hang out with friends from various countries. many needs can be met from extreme overclocking, and just cause you dont have those needs does not mean they do not exist.

[massman]

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.

It compromises the validity of your comparison.

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.

On the contrary, it's a very useful tool to evaluate performance. Also, it does get close to average. Doesn't get it right always, but it gets close enough to see what card is high-end, which is low-end, which is mainstream.

Your argument was this, by the way:

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.

...

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.

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

Why wouldn't you?

Obviously you have very clear evidence that Futuremark is taking money from IHVs to make a biased benchmark that is totally not useful. Making an article with all this evidence would be a great way to, and I quote, no longer "support Futuremark by using or even buying their benchmarks" as all of use "are hurting the game and graphics hardware industry by doing that!"

Instead, you continue to use their software in your reviews.

Argh... this has no significant impact on performance

Test validity.

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

This makes no sense whatsoever.

[Katzenschleuder]

illusion is not the same as reaching an achievement, and i dont mean those on xbox. why do you care what reasons people have for what they do? some want to push the limits of hardware cause its for recognition, others cause they like blowing stuff up, others cause its to hang out with friends from various countries. many needs can be met from extreme overclocking, and just cause you dont have those needs does not mean they do not exist.

The point is that you want the illusion to achieve something useful.


The reason why I am complaining is because millions of Euro and a huge amount of driver development resources are wasted into 3DMark while PC games fight for their existence!

[Manicdan]

The point is that you want the illusion to achieve something useful.


The reason why I am complaining is because millions of Euro and a huge amount of driver development resources are wasted into 3DMark while PC games fight for their existence!

all forms of entertainment are an illusion to achieve something useful. there is no point to watching tv other than to entertained, yet it works right?

what do you do in your spare time? i assume its something useless and irrelevant, but to you is fun. if your answer is that you play with dolls, i could say your just crazy, but that would be judgmental, which i am not.

[Katzenschleuder]

It compromises the validity of your comparison.

This must mean that you can show us now that a D3D10 feature used in a game causes a significant difference of relative performance between types of GPUs when compared to D3D9. Go ahead: what is this exactly?

On the contrary, it's a very useful tool to evaluate performance. Also, it does get close to average. Doesn't get it right always, but it gets close enough to see what card is high-end, which is low-end, which is mainstream.

I can do the exact same thing with even more precision using a program that I can program in half an hour and that runs ten seconds.

Your argument was this, by the way:

Yep, what's the problem with this?

Why wouldn't you?

Obviously you have very clear evidence that Futuremark is taking money from IHVs to make a biased benchmark that is totally not useful. Making an article with all this evidence would be a great way to, and I quote, no longer "support Futuremark by using or even buying their benchmarks" as all of use "are hurting the game and graphics hardware industry by doing that!"

Instead, you continue to use their software in your reviews.

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding here. I am not an author for ComputerBase. I used their tests because they are the only ones I know of who make performance ratings.

Test validity.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

?

[Katzenschleuder]

all forms of entertainment are an illusion to achieve something useful. there is no point to watching tv other than to entertained, yet it works right?

what do you do in your spare time? i assume its something useless and irrelevant, but to you is fun. if your answer is that you play with dolls, i could say your just crazy, but that would be judgmental, which i am not.

Well I don't know about you, but I think that I speak for nearly all sane people on this planet when I say that we do NOT think that we do something useful when enjoying various forms of entertainment.

The point was not that your fun is useless but that you ask for something to preserve your illusion of doing something useful/meaningful. Maybe the realization of that is a cause to rethink if you really have that much fun doing it?