something creepy about 3dmark2001
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: something creepy about 3dmark2001

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    879

    something creepy about 3dmark2001

    i can't quite put my finger on it but its really weird. no system out there (that i've seen) has supported all the testes and monstered them. i've seen a Tbird 1.2 w/GF2ultra get ~3400, then got 3800 fully tweaked (new drivers manly) and someone got 4000 with a P4 1.5 w/GF2ultra, and i haven't seen any GF3 marks (liked to see one with a P4). wonder why i haven't seen a benchmark with a GF3 haven't seen one with a kyro2 either, that would be nice to see.

    also some other interesting thoughts i've seen are:
    1) fillrate is nothing. the diff between 800x600x16 and 1024x768x32 (for me atleast) was about 100 marks (1365 to 1269) and it probebly would not surprise me to see that the diff. between a GF2GTS (200/166) and an GF2ultra (250/220) would be just as small.

    2) current TnL is only the begining of what we are going to see. what's the highest number of triangles a card can do today? 30-35 million? that will be nothing by the end of this year alone. i'm talkin 100-150 million (probebly)

    3) pixel shaders: what the hell are they? i don't really know what they are, but i do think that they will be the talk of the town, like fillrate has always been. the better the pixel shader, higher the mark (and prettier too).

    4) vertex shader: honestly i have no idea what this is, but i liked it how all the Neo's walked around and shot each other anyways, again something that will take over the role of fillrate.

    5) why can't i play the nature game looked really really good on the demo and 2001 trailer movie
    OHHHH that's right it's something only a GF3 can do
    and do i remember correctly that when the GF3 was released for MAC, a demo that John Carmack showed was this very demo... how long ago was that? 3-4 weeks ago? funny how this demo was pretty much ready back then, but for some reason was held back till yesterday (march 13 2001)
    and yet we still dont have any GF3 marks for this.

    just something that i've been thinkin' about.

    *edit* score or 1.2gig tbird

    [This message has been edited by drzaius (edited 03-14-2001).]
    people that drive slow are easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that provide a challange.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    79
    So are you saying there is a conspiracy between Madonion and NVIDIA? Is this there plot to justify that users should go out and buy a nice new Geforce3 so they can be ready for the "games of the future"? Did everyone notice the advertizement by Falcon NW durring the bench? Is NVIDIA trying to make the 6 month production cycle profitable? In one year are we expected to buy a $1000(US) videocard just to run 3DMark2002?

    Sorry just had to get that out!

    ------------------
    Celymine 533a@825
    Asus CUSL2
    Crucial PC133 128megs
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME
    Coppermine 750@900+
    Asus CUSL2
    Mosel PC146 256MEGS
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME/2000
    My Cruddy Webpage/Resume
    http://www.geocities.com/rarraflled

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    41
    Isn't there a card that can run the nature section (Game-4) ?

    Radeon, maybe ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    879
    By rarraflled
    So are you saying there is a conspiracy between Madonion and NVIDIA? Is this there plot to justify that users should go out and buy a nice new Geforce3 so they can be ready for the "games of the future"? Did everyone notice the advertizement by Falcon NW durring the bench? Is NVIDIA trying to make the 6 month production cycle profitable? In one year are we expected to buy a $1000(US) videocard just to run 3DMark2002?
    in a round about way yeah
    but also looking at this you can see what is to be expected within the year. when 3dmark 2000 came out it supported TnL, which at the time only the Geforce1 could do, and since then that TnL part has gotten stronger and more things have been added.
    so by the end of this year, we will have really powerful pixel/vertex shaders and then of couse something else that will improve our 3d gaming experience.

    ------------------
    people that are slow are easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that are hard.
    people that drive slow are easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that provide a challange.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    You know, I've seen some damn long descriptions of where people live, and I was just wondering how freakin' long of a location they actually allow you to write in here. Looks like it's quite a bit. Oh well, if the space is here I'll use it!!! :)
    Posts
    2,330
    A buddy-buddy situation between MadOnion and NVidia is nothing new... which is why I smile when my Radeon beats GTS and GTS pro's, and makes the embm test look like butter (sorry, too much SNL ).

    I too wonder why the nature runs smooth in the demo, but won't run period in the bench. Probably a line of code that does something like "search for GF3, none found, skip test" .

    ------------------
    Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the fact finders. - Daniel C. Dennett
    Off Topic Central - Owned and Operated by HWC members

    IMO, Mr. Derek Smart is a hypocrite: Only someone who is either (a) lying (b) ashamed of their products (c) just plain ashamed, would hestitate to give out some simple and straight forward information. - Derek Smart, Ph.D.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    79
    Hear is another thought. Have we seen any games made from the graphics engine MadOnion is using? If so what are they? Why not use a gaming engine that is or will be used in games? Are they just using the bench to licence there engine out to game makers? How many people are going to go and buy the Geforce3 just to run this bench? Why not just put a frikin CPU socket on the vidcard? Maybe add the option of increasing memory also! Just think, instead of buying a new card just buy the chip and some memory for it!
    I love ranting

    ------------------
    Celymine 533a@825
    Asus CUSL2
    Crucial PC133 128megs
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME
    Coppermine 750@900+
    Asus CUSL2
    Mosel PC146 256MEGS
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME/2000
    My Cruddy Webpage/Resume
    http://www.geocities.com/rarraflled

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    79
    http://www.geocities.com/rarraflled/...l?984703212630
    if it don't show, sorry about the imag it's convered with a freeware program
    ------------------
    Celymine 533a@825
    Asus CUSL2
    Crucial PC133 128megs
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME

    [This message has been edited by rarraflled (edited 03-15-2001).]
    Coppermine 750@900+
    Asus CUSL2
    Mosel PC146 256MEGS
    MSI Geforce2PRO 64megs
    Windows ME/2000
    My Cruddy Webpage/Resume
    http://www.geocities.com/rarraflled

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,169
    Maybe this is a stupid question but what is that "Point Sprites" test all about? It just looked like some stupid horse statue with bad graphics going around in circles.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hell :<)
    Posts
    174
    Well I think that we all need new CPUs more then vid cards for this benchmark. The score only increases by 300 Marks when going from 1024X768 32bit to 640x480 32bit. This is a 2 times lower resolution with 2 times less of a fillrate need meaning that it would double in performance, but it does not. The score look better with faster CPUs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,990
    I am rather curious about how the score is arrived at. We see the results of all tests that were completed but how is the final result computed ?


    ------------------
    Friends don't let friends buy P4s.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hell :<)
    Posts
    174
    Only the first 3 games metter in the Mark score.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    1,978
    I ran it at 1024x768 resolution (gig T-Bird/GeForce 2 GTS)and get a 2910 or something like that. The nature scene looked great at 1024x768 as well.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    1,978
    I was talking about the demo, ooops.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    1,461
    I don't know about you guys but the nature game ran fine on my 16-color cga video card, maybe you guys need to upgrade! Yeah Right!

    ------------------
    /////////////////////
    Don't Tread On Me
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    CPU: Athlon X2 7850 Blackbox edition o/c'd to 3400mhz
    Motherboard: Asus M2N68-AM SE2
    Memory: 4gb Kingston KVR RAM
    Video: BFG Geforce gtx 260 oc v2
    Hard Drives: 1TB Barracuda 7200.12, 500GB WD, 320GB WD, 320GB WD 250GB WD, 250GB Seagate
    Case: APEVIA X-CRUISER-BK Black Steel case
    Power Supply: OCZ 700W StealthXStream Power Supply
    Optical: 22x LG DVD R/W

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Nottingham Uni, England
    Posts
    1,945
    16 colours was EGA, CGA was 4 colours, take it from someone who remembers those days.

    ------------------
    AHHH, I think my computer's got a Virus!

    Oh no, that's Windows 98
    AHHH, I think my computer's got a Virus!

    Oh no, that's Windows XP

    Chimaera: Twin Athlon MP 1900+ @ 1824Mhz, GeForce 3 TI500, 512Megs Crucial RegECC, 100GB Total HDD, SuSE Linux 7.3 + Windoze XP Pro

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •