Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested
by Josh Venning on January 18, 2006 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
As we've said before, 3DMark is a somewhat specialized benchmarking tool with the ability to measure a lot of different aspects of a gaming system, and while it may not be best suited for testing performance between cards, there are many other things this program is useful for.
3DMark06 is quite useful for doing more focused comparisons with hardware components. For instance, comparing 3DMark results between a card and an overclocked version of itself can give a good idea of how a given card's clock speeds scale. Another use would be for testing drivers and to determine what kind of improvements certain features may have had between updates. We typically use looped game benchmarks when testing the stability of a graphics card while overclocking, but 3DMark would make a good tool for this as well. With 3DMark's demos, any graphical tearing or visual anomalies would very easily be seen. By taking screen shots, 3DMark would also be a great tool for comparing image quality in Anti-Aliasing or filtering for example.
There are likely many other uses for this program, which we can't mention here, and there is no doubt that 3DMark will remain a popular benchmarking program. Our uses for this program mostly involve more specific feature comparisons rather than those between the performance of different cards. Again, real-world tests show how 3DMark test scores don't really reflect actual performance in a game, particularly when you consider that different games will always favor different graphics hardware.
The bottom line is that a graphics card was made for playing games. Futuremark has developed a nice tool with excellent graphical elements in this latest version of 3DMark, which hopefully game makers will aspire to achieve in future games. Regardless of how you use it, 3DMark06 shows off some very impressive graphics and is a definite improvement over 3DMark05 both in visual quality and in the types of performance tests used. We certainly won't be focusing on 3DMark scores in future graphics card comparisons, but we may see some of the feature set tests or image quality comparisons pop up down the road.
As we've said before, 3DMark is a somewhat specialized benchmarking tool with the ability to measure a lot of different aspects of a gaming system, and while it may not be best suited for testing performance between cards, there are many other things this program is useful for.
3DMark06 is quite useful for doing more focused comparisons with hardware components. For instance, comparing 3DMark results between a card and an overclocked version of itself can give a good idea of how a given card's clock speeds scale. Another use would be for testing drivers and to determine what kind of improvements certain features may have had between updates. We typically use looped game benchmarks when testing the stability of a graphics card while overclocking, but 3DMark would make a good tool for this as well. With 3DMark's demos, any graphical tearing or visual anomalies would very easily be seen. By taking screen shots, 3DMark would also be a great tool for comparing image quality in Anti-Aliasing or filtering for example.
There are likely many other uses for this program, which we can't mention here, and there is no doubt that 3DMark will remain a popular benchmarking program. Our uses for this program mostly involve more specific feature comparisons rather than those between the performance of different cards. Again, real-world tests show how 3DMark test scores don't really reflect actual performance in a game, particularly when you consider that different games will always favor different graphics hardware.
The bottom line is that a graphics card was made for playing games. Futuremark has developed a nice tool with excellent graphical elements in this latest version of 3DMark, which hopefully game makers will aspire to achieve in future games. Regardless of how you use it, 3DMark06 shows off some very impressive graphics and is a definite improvement over 3DMark05 both in visual quality and in the types of performance tests used. We certainly won't be focusing on 3DMark scores in future graphics card comparisons, but we may see some of the feature set tests or image quality comparisons pop up down the road.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."wtf?
stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."Ah, but on the other hand, "There are likely many other uses for this program which we can't mention here".
In any case, this is way more interesting than your average graphics benchmark review.
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
In case you think I'm making that up, its at the end of Page 3. Methinks Josh needs Elimidate more than 3DMark06Orbs - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
LOL! I love Elimidate, although Elimidate would not provide a deep, meaningful connection, but more shallow beauty (admitedly, whoring themselves in public and bitching at each other at an ever increasing volume). Good times.peldor - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
"Right now, the hardware that is available is prompting advancements in game development, and we can't easily predict what types of games we might see in the near or semi-near future."You mean we won't have more WW2 shooters, with the occassional relief Zombie Mutant Alien? But now everything will have Bright Lights and Dark Shadows! Because that seems extremely likely to me. Game developers rarely chase new game types, and it's not really the hardware that motivates them AFAICT.
KingofL337 - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Whats the relation ship of these cards. Which is ahigher performance part?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
X800 Pro = 12 pipelines at 475 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.X800 GTO = 12 pipelines at 400 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.
However, many people have had success in unlocking and/or overclocking GTO cards. If you can get 16 pipelines at 475 MHz, for example, it would be 33% faster on the core than the Pro. If you just overclock to 475 MHz and don't unlock the pipelines, you've got an X850 Pro. (R480 core vs. R420 core, I think? It doesn't make much difference, though.)
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Let the driver "optimizations" begin!PeteRoy - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
No Intel vs AMD?ViRGE - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
3dMark is and always has been primarily a GPU-oriented benchmark, Intel vs. AMD wouldn't tell us much if the GPU is the bottleneck(and if it isn't, all it would tell us is that AMD outperformed Intel like they tend to do in these kinds of tests).