Lars, get rid of the stupid benchmarks!

[Spitfire_x86]

What's the point of benchmarking Warcraft III and C&C Generals? These games are CPU intensive games just like any other RTS game. A GeForce4 MX440 is fine for playing any current RTS game. Warcraft III was benched at 8x speed. Nobody plays Warcraft III at 8x speed. There's no reason for benchmarking RTS games at this moment. They do nothing but increase the list of game benchmarked.

Quake III Team Arena: Another useless benchmark. Every card listed in VGA Chart Part III is good enough for playing this game (even XGI V3)

Question about BF1942 benchmark: I don't think it's a good idea to benchmark a game via "play by hand method" for a professional review, because it's very unreliable.

I would like to see Max Payne2 benchmark.

All other benchmarks are fine. Including "Call of Duty" benchmark is a very nice decision.

There's no GeForce2 MX400 in the VGA chart. It's still a widely used card. I'll be very glad if you add it by updating article.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[splenda20]

Some RTS games are very CPU intensive, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be used in benchmarks. Some graphic cards pass off responsibilities to the CPU and it's important to see which ones do in case you don't have a good CPU.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I think it's a Graphics Card comparison chart

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[TKS]

Bump!

(right on Spitfire!!)

----------
<b>It is always brave to say what everyone thinks. </b> <i>Georges Duhamel</i>

TKS

 

[Spitfire_x86]

IMO, Lars is still doing good

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[coolsquirtle]

add the VGA chart link to the FAQ spitfire

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Why not? Though it's not perfect, it's pretty good.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Some sites either have too much card or the graphs are confusing

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[daddywags214]

I totally agree with that. Also, I think it'd be nice to have a Max Payne 2 bench, I got that game for Christmas and it freaking rules. Also, how about a MS FlightSim bench? That would be nice. Call of Duty was a smart choice too.

AMD 2500+, 1gb DDR333, Radeon 9800 Pro, Audigy 2. Yummy...

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Yeah, Flight Sim. would be good (since it's popular)

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[bandikoot]

I think that if you start putting links to one you need to put links to more to be fair. This<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2003.html" target="_new"> xbit article</A> springs to mind. Nice (long) intro, just the mid-high range, and no confusing graphs. Even if they were, the purpose of the FAQ, IMO, is to help people by providing info, which means even if a site might be confusing to some, it should still be listed for those that can get it.

 

[endyen]

How bout if he just limits Quake 3 engine benchies to less than ten.

 

[phial]

heh, yea

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
dhlucke - "Phew...ok my wrists are hurting. I'm taking a break."

 

[Borsti]

Happy new year to everybody!

Well, I can understand your concerns about C&C and WarIII. But you have to keep in mind that CPU limitation does not mean it´s playable on all cards. I used over 40 cards! There ARE huge differences in those games. It´s only CPU limited on actual high-end cards. That´s the reason to use them. The VGA charts show you if a card upgrade makes sense for you or not for your favorite game. It´s not a shootout between 9800 and 5900!!!!!!!

The same goes to Q3. It´s still a very good indicator for older games. Old cards are still fast enough. I know that - you know that, but there are still many people who don´t!

Regarding MP2... I´m still trying to find a good way to use it as a benchmark. Regarding the "meassuring by hand", there are differences of +/- 1FPS each run... so it might only be 99% reliable but we don´t need more precission for the VGA charts. Or is +/- 1 FPS a reason not to buy a certain card!?

My best wishes

Lars

 

[BirdRobin]

Firestarter Benchmark is good too! (I hope im correct)

Athlon XP 1800+ (1.52ghz) O/Ced.
Gigabyte GA-7VKML
Powercolour R9600pro Bravo @ 480/340
128+256 PC2100 DDR
IBM 20gb 5400rpm 2mb+WD 40gb 5400rpm 2mb
Creative SB Live! 5.1 Digital

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Thanks for visiting this thread and sharing your views.

I agree that some cards may not play C&C Generals smoothly, but Warcraft III is not a big challenge for graphics cards. It's playable with even GeForce2 MX400 in 1024 x 768 x 32 bit. Moreover, WC3 was benchmarked with 8x replay speed. Doen't it mean it stresses the system 8x more? Nobody plays WC3 at 8x replay speed. So the results are not suggesting real gameplay experience.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Howdy Lars/<font color=red>Borsti</font color=red>, and a Happy and Healthy '04 to you too;

One of the things I that I think alot of people find questionable is the $/fps rating (Fbucks! - exclamation for emphasis ). Some of the prices seemed a little off, and the testing seemed a little skewed by the inclusion of older games,a nd the lack of a common quality. Running the MX at full detail and the FX5700U or R9600P at no detail to get a true equal comparison of $/fps. How was Halo calculated, the results you have would unfairly disadvantage newer cards IMO. It's hard to compare across technologies. I would've prefered the break-down/up of the categories to separate the DX9 cards from the DX8/8.1 cards from the DX7 cards. Does Aquamark3 account for such things, it seems strange that the FX5200 would perform below and MX4xx, unless of course the card is drawing items that the MX doesn't that isn't being accounted for by the demo.

I would prefer a like vs like comparison. And while 3Dmk03 is 'questionable' as a benchmark nowadays, I don't give A3 much more weight, despite my early eagerness for it as an 'objective' benchmark.

I have to applaud the addition of many more benchmarks.

It would have been nice to see the processor difference again like the previous chart, as I'm sure than a PIII 1.2ghz or P4 1.6ghz with an R9800Pro or FX5900/50 would likely still outperform and FX5200/R9600non-pro in some situations and it would've been nice to bring those quirks out. Since most of us are saying things like "don't buy and R9800 with your old ssystem you won't see much benifit from it, yet that's based on what may be outdated info. The shader and bump map intensive games may be more card-centric and may see great benifit even on slower system. Just a thing I miss from the previous chart.

Anywhoo, as always, thank you for your hard work.


- 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> GA to SK