3DMark 11 out on 30th November

[Katzenschleuder]

No, it has been my point all along.

- For initial performance indications, 3DMark gives quite good accuracy

The previous 3DMark or a fillrate tester combined with a trivial fragment program algorithm that only takes ten seconds for measurements delivers the same level of accuracy on the test subjects.

- For detailed performance indications, you need to test real games.

Which is also what Futuremark said in an interview: http://hwbot.org/article/newsflash/9...mark_president.

The point of dispute is NOT(!) that testing 20 games is more useful. In fact, I would say the data based on multiple test scenarios provide more meaningful results. The point of dispute is that you are trying to prove 3DMark is inherently biased/incorrect/producing false results, whereas truth is that it's quite capable of identifying the performance of a certain product.

Could you please quote me where I have allegedly said that? Why are you continuously putting words in my mouth?!

I am saying and always said the following things:
That 3DMark delivers an incorrect performance estimation because of the natural inability to mimic real games.
The other side of the criticism is that Futuremark is taking money for letting others have an influence on the substance of the benchmark. I am not the only one who critisizes this business model as scandalous in regard of respectability and harmful for the interest of the PC gamer because of the wasted resources which instead would have been spent on driver development.

I think you've learned a valuable lesson about using big statements in 'public'. Perhaps in the future you'll be able to provide your opinion in a more balanced manner, which ultimately will make you lean closer to the true nature of things.

Of course master.