• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3dmark06... anyone else disappointed?

I know one thing, this guy is disappointed...

3DMark06_FX5200.jpg
 
...... but when I hear of people with the same system as my running everything on ultra high with 4xAA at 1600x1200 and no slow down I get annoyed even though it's probably 100% they're lying.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it makes me laugh too, when someone sais they play COD2 on their 9800 at max 1600 etc., I say "not another one" lol.
Though saying that, a non sm3/HDR card would not have to work as hard to show all these pretty effects.
I think "smooth motion" occurs between 70 - 100 fps, but is that just how I see things ? and some people see 30fps as being smooth ?. :confused:
 
juno_first said:
...... but when I hear of people with the same system as my running everything on ultra high with 4xAA at 1600x1200 and no slow down I get annoyed even though it's probably 100% they're lying.
Click to expand...

I think "smooth motion" occurs between 70 - 100 fps, but is that just how I see things ? and some people see 30fps as being smooth ?. :confused:[/QUOTE]

I think it changes game to game. In CoD2 mid 30s feels fine and but in other games below it needs to be above 50fps to seem smooth to me.
 
Mundu said:
......I hear of people with the same system as my running everything on ultra high with 4xAA at 1600x1200 and no slow down I get annoyed even though it's probably 100% they're lying.
Click to expand...


its not that people are lying, its mainly because their eyes percieve framerates differently. i have been pc gaming for around 15 years and i have had a various number of consoles.

now im a person who prefers pal video rather than ntsc since i can tell the framerate difference between 24fps and 25fps.

a lot of console gamers don;t know the difference in frames per second, iv seen many ps2 games run at a weak framerate and seem jerky all the time and the players accepted it as being normal. now those same guys i know do pc gaming and they say that they have all thier settings maxed out in games and it runs real smooth, 100% perfect etc, but when i ask them to get a fps readout they are normally in the 30fps range..... now for me 30fps is crap in games like hl2 etc. so i have a more powerful machine than all of the people i know and when playing at the same settings in games as the others do i notice lag and jerkyness where they are used to it from consoles etc.

60fps is minimum required framerate in a game for me. may a time i have been round a mates yard and looked over thier shoulder to see an abysmal framerate and them not complain about it.
its not that they are lying its just the way some have become accustomed to the way they percieve images.

most pc purists can easily spot a struggling machine to one that is gangsterishly powerful. but they guys i know deffo chat a load of poo when it comes to judging how smooth a game is running.
 
There has been quite a bit of "games don't support dual core" bouncing around this thread, but 2 games I've been playing recently, Quake 4 and COD 2, have both recently had dual core patches released and I've seen a solid boost in both there performances.....

I think these patches show that its not that difficult to have games utilizing dual core and that game makers are interested in making use of dual core.
I won't be surprised if just about every high spec game from now on will be dual core friendly.

Back on topic, I think 3dmark06 really is just a slightly improved 05, should have been a patch or something, not worth the 06 title :(
 
and don't forget that both AMD and Intel have been open about the slow down in the rate at which chips have been getting recently. They haven't said they've hit the "wall" yet, but they are turning their attention to other technology, ie dual core and quad core to increase performance rather than frequency. Sooner or later as mentioned above all new games will adopt multi-core.

All futuremark have done is to to take the latest technology and use that in their benchmarking (SM3 and multi-core) - what else would they do.

No one can say they are disappointed with 3DM06, isn't it more like they are disappointed with how their rig has scored?

As for 3DM06, yeah it would have been nice to have some fresh eye-candy, albeit the visuals in 3DM06 are stunning.

Just my two-cents
 
james.miller said:
who cares what you think its meant for. the fact is it is the 'wolrds leading 3d benchmark', one which everybody who doesnt know better will look for when choosing a card. It will influence them more than just about anything else so yeah, it's damn well misleading.
Click to expand...
And right you are Mr. Miller :).

My X2 4400+ @ 2.5ghz with a stock X800XT got only 2643 marks. Yet I see 6600GT's getting 3000 even though my X800XT absolutely flattens and stomps all over the GT in games.
 
Well, 06 kinda sucks a bit.....as did 05.....and 03 :) But a new 3DMark is an "event" more than anything - a bit like a new Star Wars movie coming out. It's a little bit sad that's I've actually read comments like "oh yes - this is what I bought my 7800 SLI for!!!!!". I mean, seriously......get a grip.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a new version of Final Reality to come out.....them were the days......
 
its a meaningless synthetic benchmark. I play games, not benchmarks. This one is really a laugh, I had 0fps throughout the "CPU" test despite my cpu at 2.9ghz x 2. lol.
bring back 3dmark01
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom