For years now Futuremark - Madonion, have used a cpu mark in with their graphics tests and to be quite honest it shows haow little the CPU is used during graphics applications with the exception of Photoshop programs which can be both cpu and graphic intensive. But I don't see a CPU photo-intensive test done on 3dmark06. In fact the whole test seems, for all intensive purposes, to be an Ego test and not a fully professional test. What I would like to see coming from Futuremark is an explanation, even if it is on screen, for each test and what it is meant to achieve. So far it is rare that anyone bothers to watch the test because they are either off watching the TV, washing up etc. But since our graphic experience is dictated so much by one uttility shouldn't their tests be brought into the everyday market. Everyone whom owns a pc these day almost always owns a digital camera and plays games and I'll lay odds there are more. Gamers Benchmark should be updated to everyday graphic intensive bechmark.
-
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.
Why run a graphic test on a CPU?
- Thread starter jeffa123
- Start date
But how much CPU time it used by current games? The only edict for this is DirectX, Opengl uses far less cpu clocks because it uses internal drivers not controlled by DirectX. But games themselves are only using the DirectX libraries as reference. In simple Laymans terms a sound instruction is sent via DX to a play.DLL etc. etc. DirectX is an input output map. How many people play games in DIrextX's software mode? Is 3Dmark saying something to these users because it is not telling me anything about my CPU. A CPU, Intel or Amd has to carry out a lot more instructions other than dealing with graphics. In some principal I do not disagree with you but would it be better if the tests were carried out as a combination instead of sitting through some rendition of jerk wars. Updating a screen is not the CPU's job its the graphics cards. If you can agree that you purchased a graphics card for graphics and ease your CPU useage then you can see my point.
A lot of you have picked up on my point because your all saying that both the CPU and Gpu control the hardware. So why switch off the thing your using the benchmark to test. Yes I gree try a PII or PIII and you would get bad results but thats just the same as buying an AMD chip and not installing a GART control driver. You end up with jerks. Since we agree that both CPU and GPU handle the graphics why not include the cpu score into the GPU accelleration tests. Or is that too intelligent. Or are there users out there still trying to play QUAKE 4 on an Intel 386 PC. I am sorry but the CPU score test in its present format makes no sense to me wether I have one of my old ATI 9700pro boards, Nvidia 5900 ultra, 6800 GE, 6800 Ultra or my SLI 7800GTX installed. It makes the test laborious and time consuming and pretty pointless.
If I found a logical reason for it still to be there then I would have no real arguement but logically it doesn't deserve to be part of the test. Surely Futuremark have better things to do.
If I found a logical reason for it still to be there then I would have no real arguement but logically it doesn't deserve to be part of the test. Surely Futuremark have better things to do.
I accept your reply Smids but you are not taking into account that benchmarking as well as science is not a constant. Why would I like to compare my projects with others which mean absolutely nothing to me. e.g. Someone may have the same setup as me and might overclock theirs to an ungainly amount which may give them an advantage in speed over my system but that does not tell me what they are doing to get that benchmark and why. To me a bench mark is there for a reference point and if you are a true scientist you must accept the Chaos Theory. What may be constant one minute is not the next. If you were to run the same benchmark over and over again for 3 or 4 hours will it tell you what your PC can do or will it just give you a reference point for discussion. Out of all the tests you would have to take a reference point between the highest benchmark and the lowest in true scientific terms. So when you submit to Orb you are saying my machine performed this well or this badly at this point in time. The whole issue of CPU liability goes out the window. Stick to facts. Is the cpu test in 3Dmark pointless because no game switches off graphic acceleration, so why should it even be there. True or false? if its a Gamers benchmark then like my previous answer encorporate the CPU test into the Graphics test in order to reach true graphics benchmarks.
Admittedly there are a hell of a lot of users whom tend to put a half decent PC together only to overclock it so much (so that it only lasts 5 minutes or so after the test) so they can post the Highest score. A processor clocked over the rate it was sold at invalidates its warranty and the same goes for graphics GPU's and Ram. This is a personal thing and nothing against those whom do, but I prefer to buy a piece of equipment and doing with it what the manufacturer designed it to do. If it doesn't measure up then it goes back. If I bought a CPU which was supposed to work at 3,8 GHZ and it worked at 2.8 it would go back. Gone are those days when we could fry an egg on both the Motherboard and AMD Athlon 1.2 GHZ frying underneath it. The heart of a processor is the Motherboard and if the motherboard's timings are out and your Southbridge has gone awry then it doesn't matter what GPU or CPU you have onboard...........Everything and nothing matches up so you end up with a badly constructed machine. As to my reference to the Chaos theory try to imagine all those machines being overclocked to get that one benchmark that puts them on top. How many millions use a benchmark to test a machines stabillity and the many other reasons a benchmark can be used. There is no one result and no one combination which can give an absolute under the circumstances of one BM. If you are looking for comparison fine but at any one given moment some CPU task might cause an interrupt and the BM changes. Sandra Asks you not to even touch your mouse when testing but that still does not prevent USB queue interrupt and link library overrides which for any encounter for a BM must make a test in true state be false.
To have a truer test you would have to boot directly into the benchmark with no O/S in the background in order to give an honest reading from CPU to GPU and RAM effectiveness. I must be boring you by now so I will finish on that note.
To have a truer test you would have to boot directly into the benchmark with no O/S in the background in order to give an honest reading from CPU to GPU and RAM effectiveness. I must be boring you by now so I will finish on that note.