Ya!!!

[spud]

Check<A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-1012553.html?tag=txt" target="_new">This out</A>.

Found this a little interesting as well.

However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks," the company said.

Wow finally they figured it out, only way to show what each silicon is good at is to add those optimizations. If not its rock vs rock not engineering vs engineering.

-Jeremy

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1060900" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

 

[eden]

Yo Spud my man, the issue with 3dMark is that it's not meant to hold any optimizations. Why else would the Battle of Proxycon level be so badly performing? nVidia, when they bashed Futuremark first, had a point, that the light sources were overwhelming, for nothing. There is no optimization in there, except the use of the excellent PS 1.4. And that is why 3dMark only tests the basic DirectX 9 package, including DX8.1, but does NOT rely on card technology. If you want that, refer to Matrox Sharkmark for Parhelia testing, or nVidia's own demos!
That is what I feel people should know. 3dMark tests raw performance to see which card can get down on its knees and still hold the blade up high. If it does not, it only means that the monkey programmers win, they will continue developping crap programmed graphics, make you buy even more performance, when you could've stayed with the current system you have and get twice the performance with a really well programmed game.
Doom III will demonstrate just that.
In fact, assume this: Doom III and Battle of Proxycon are very much look-alikes. Yet BoP has very bad frame rates. Can you explain why other than the fact it is meant to be without opt to show how much a card can hold on its own?

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Agree with ya' completely. That's my issue. Once you optimize for cards, then 'cheats' or optimization give an artificial idea of how the cards will perform in other games that MAY or may not be optimizeable. If you start with a base, un-optimized test for raw power, then go through ALL the various optimized tests then you will get a better overall picture of the cards, and whether they are being held back by poor drivers or not IMO.

I seriously doubt by the end of the year we will have ANY tests that can't be hacked to shreads to the advantage of one manufacturer or another.

I didn't initially reply to this thread as it was 'old news' heck the article is over a week old, and I was hoping it would die un-responded to. But since you replied I'll chime in with my Ditto.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[eden]

Team Anti-Cheat Force back to the rescue!!! :lol:

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue: