2004 - 2008 charts.

[robcardiv]

the
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
scored roughly 4950 on 3dmark on the 2008 charts.

my current amd 1x 3000+ 64bit chip scored 3500 on the 3dmark chart from 2004.

would it be correct to judge the 2004 rating of 3500(2ghz) against the 2008 rating of 4950(2.8ghz)?

meaning that the chip gains maybe 30-40 percent more process power?

Im about to buy a 7400 or so chip.
Im curious how much stronger the chip would be, other than the obvious duel core issue.


I can run crysis decently enough with the old Amd 3000+ chip on low settings.
the 7400 chips seem to run it very well, but still show that crysis is too much for these chips on Max settings.

So I guess its safe to say that the new 7400 duo core isnt twice as powerfull?
Granted.. its a great great worthy upgrade. But even 4 or 5 years later the diffrences are still in one ballpark.

 

[Mondoman]

The 3Dmark program changes from year to year, so you can't compare different years' scores directly. Also, the CPU doesn't have such a big influence on graphics benchmarks; rather the graphics board is the main thing being tested in 3Dmark. Your e7200 should be easily more than twice as fast per core as your Athlon 64.

 

[13thmonkey]

I think that each generation of 3d mark sets the baseline for a nominal system at 1000 pts, so your machine is currently 3.5x quicker (kind of) than the nominal system for 3dmark03? and the C2D is 5x quicker than the baseline machine for 3dmark06?. I'm not sure about the jumps between 03-05-06.

 

[amdfangirl]

Wait, does THG state what version is used?

 

[13thmonkey]

well for the 2004 scores they couldn't have used 05 or 06, and for the 2008 scores they might have used 05 or 06, I think they stopped at 05 a lot of the time?