• 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.

How well do you think this relates true performance?

jrodga2k5

jrodga2k5

jrodga2k5

Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2005
Posts
9,155
Location
Scotland
Well 3d mark 06 has come out and we are all having our systems judged yet again, the joys! Everyone is going crazy with the usual, OMG my PC got 0wn3d and thats fair enough! But really why upgrade purely because of it!

In terms of performance we have seen the GTX 512 at top of the mountain as expected but then the GTX 256 follows it which to many will probably be a surprise!

Then the next card is the ATi x1800xt 512 but that is again closely and I mean closely followed by the 7800 GT! I slight overclock and the GT takes over the x1800xt with ease!

But in reality this is not the case as we have seen from the games we play today with the results usually swapping the 256gtx and the x1800xt round and then the x1800xl comes onto a level playing field with the GT!

I'd sayj the results were pretty unexpected, i admit i never expected them tocome out the way they did but hey, thats probably due to NVidia's better SM 3.0 engine which is technically in its 2nd Generation whereas ATi's is in its 1st!

With new games coming out this year and a lot of these technologies being implememented do you think the 3dmark 06 results will happen in games? I severely doubt it! Just trying to get a fairly good discussion on all our cards and technology so feel free to add to this.

P.S anyone got the 1024x748 results for 3D mark 06 yet as that would be interesting to see if the performance hit was as severe as bumping the res up as well as all the added effects.
 
I just use 3DMark to see if my system is performingas it should by comparing it to similar systems and to see if overclocking has any effect but that's it.

I just upgrade when I find my games run too slow, I need to sacrifice IQ or when I have some money left over, not because 3DMark'06 runs like a slideshow.
 
As for the result of 3d mark, according to brent at hardocp one of the tests supports an nvidia supported feature (vertex texture fetch) but not an ati supported feature (R2VB). Hard to say what kind of impact this has on overall results but untill the ati feature is patched in the results seem kind of pointless to me at the minute.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028870089&postcount=128
 
As for the result of 3d mark, according to brent at hardocp one of the tests supports an nvidia supported feature (vertex texture fetch) but not an ati supported feature (R2VB). Hard to say what kind of impact this has on overall results but untill the ati feature is patched in the results seem kind of pointless to me at the minute.
Click to expand...

Well if i got this right, and if not feel free to correct me. VTX is a feature of the shader model 3 / directx 9, so all cards that are directx 9 compliant should in theory support that.

The R2VB is an ATI extension to OPENGL and not supported by directx (or not in the shader model 3 specs).

3d Mark being a directx benchmark (right?) shouldnt have to support that and should only support the features of the directx9.0c (or whatever) runtime as thats the standard new directx games should be programmed to.
 
Well if it is an opengl only feature i don't know why brent would have mentioned it seeing as it would not afect the benchmark in anyway, it must have something to do with direct 3d or i don't know what he's getting at.
 
The main problem is this could really hit ATI very hard on there sales of the XT1800xt..There is 1000's of gamers out there that buy there cards mainly on which card get the highest 3d mark score...

Am guessing ATI are going be far from happy with the results that coming out from the new 3d mark 06 test.
 
Last edited:
chaparral said:
The main problem is this could really hit ATI very hard on there sales of the XT1800xt..There is 1000's of gamers out there that buy there cards mainly on which card get the highest 3d mark score...
Click to expand...

YEah that is completely true man! A lot of people relate a high 3d mark score to a high gaming score when obviously with the new 3dmark this is not the case. To say that a 7800gt is faster than an x1800xt is just not right! That is well documented though so I see that not being a problem!

I see the the mainstream market being a bit more biased because of these results. Now look at the x1800xl which scores 3100 stock and then you have a gt which will score a good 400 to 500 marks more than it?! thats something I see as being a huge dissasdvantage to ATi
 
Gerard said:
As for the result of 3d mark, according to brent at hardocp one of the tests supports an nvidia supported feature (vertex texture fetch) but not an ati supported feature (R2VB). Hard to say what kind of impact this has on overall results but untill the ati feature is patched in the results seem kind of pointless to me at the minute.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028870089&postcount=128
Click to expand...
Not really pointless, ATI decided not to have that feature so in other words they pay for that omission.

It's the same in games that support this feature, the nVidia card would also have an advantage over the ATI card.

*****DISCLAIMER*****
I have no idea what the feature is and if it is advantageous to nVidia or not.
 
Yes wasn't Vertex Fetch that thing that ATi thought they were too good for, they claimed 'SM3 done right' or some objects missing from my anatomy that I compensate for by swearing cos it makes me feel more manly and left that feature out claiming to have a superior software method or something.

Surprisingly all their future cards will support that feature in hardware. :o

But then again i'll give it a couple of weeks before ATi discover some 'bug' or 'optimise their programmable memory controller' to get a large boost. ;)
 
Last edited:
I dont trust the 3DMark Benchmarks anymore ever since the previous versions being specially tweaked for whatever manufacturer to gain points. I believe its only use now is good for marketing new products to the little kids with too much money buying new graphics cards that score higher. It doesnt represent real world benchmarks and never will.

King.
 
popcorn.gif
 
Toytown said:
Well if i got this right, and if not feel free to correct me. VTX is a feature of the shader model 3 / directx 9, so all cards that are directx 9 compliant should in theory support that.

The R2VB is an ATI extension to OPENGL and not supported by directx (or not in the shader model 3 specs).

3d Mark being a directx benchmark (right?) shouldnt have to support that and should only support the features of the directx9.0c (or whatever) runtime as thats the standard new directx games should be programmed to.
Click to expand...


That is correct, VTF is an official Microsft DX9.0c specification and an SM3.0 specification. ATI does not provide support for this feature in the R520 and instead provides a hack work around. 3dMark06 supports the official feature and not the IHV specific hack.

However, this should actually make very little difference to the final scores.
 
jrodga2k5 said:
YEah that is completely true man! A lot of people relate a high 3d mark score to a high gaming score when obviously with the new 3dmark this is not the case. To say that a 7800gt is faster than an x1800xt is just not right! That is well documented though so I see that not being a problem!

I see the the mainstream market being a bit more biased because of these results. Now look at the x1800xl which scores 3100 stock and then you have a gt which will score a good 400 to 500 marks more than it?! thats something I see as being a huge dissasdvantage to ATi
Click to expand...

Sometimes companies get things wrong when they are trying to balance the transistor budget for new hardware they are developing.

Nvidia were crucified when 3Dmark03 came out, for their lower quality PS2 support. The fx5900 ultra without driver hacks scored much lower than a radeon 9700/9800, which influenced a lot of people to buy ATI cards, despite the fact that most available games (until far cry, half life 2 etc appeared )ran at similar speeds. Nvidia skimped on a feature game developers wanted and paid the price.

If ATI's scores being lower are due to missing vertex texture fetch, and this is a feature that is being used in forthcoming games, then they too will see lower sales of their products, regardless of how well games run.

Kinda sad that as 3dmark has become less relevant to general gaming performance measurement, its influence has grown so much.
 
To compare:
I get 50-77fps in COD2 & my brothers PC gets 70-91fps with the machines below & I also have to disable SLI & boot on 1 core to get 50fps in S-Sam2 or I get 15fps, even AMD Blobby dancer which is dual core is 40% slower on mine. This is typical of other games too, so is 3dmk06 any use to see how todays games go ?, are todays games coded properly to use SLI/dual core?.

my PC
X2 4400 @ 11x250= 2.75Ghz,
2GB 3200 DDR OCZ3200 plat
2 x 7800GTX 256 Aopen @ 470/1.3

3D Mark Score = 7669
SM2 = 3148
SM3 = 3297
CPU = 2059

my brothers PC
FX57 @ 15x200= 3Ghz,
1GB 3200 DDR Geil3200
1x7800GTX Aopen @ 450, 1.25

3D Mark Score = 4127
SM2 = 1788
SM3 = 1766
CPU = 1177
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom