3DMark for Windows Launches; We Test It with Various Laptops
by Jarred Walton on February 5, 2013 5:00 AM ESTInitial Thoughts on 3DMark “2013”
First, let me say that while I understand the reasoning behind eliminating the year/version from the name, I’m going to generally refer to this release as 3DMark 2013, as there will inevitably be another 3DMark in a year or two. With that out of the way, how does this latest release stand up to previous iterations, and is it a useful addition to the benchmark repertoire?
No benchmark is ever perfect, and even “real world gaming benchmarks” can only tell part of the story. As long as we keep that thought forefront when looking at the latest 3DMark, the results are completely reasonable. With the overall scores using both the Graphics and Physics tests, it will always be beneficial to have a fast CPU and GPU working together for 3DMark rather than pairing a fast GPU with a mediocre CPU, but I can’t say that such an approach is wrong—no matter what some companies might try to say, there are always potential uses for more CPU power in games (physics and AI immediately come to mind), though not every game will need a ton of CPU performance.
In terms of advancing the state of the benchmarking industry, it’s good to see the demo modes (cool graphics with sound are more enticing to the average person than a pure graphics benchmark). I also like the addition of graphs that show performance, power, temperatures, etc., though I wish they worked on all of the hardware rather than only some of the platforms. There’s at least the potential to now use 3DMark on its own to do stress testing without running additional utilities (HWiNFO or similar) in the background.
What I want to see now is how the various tablet and smartphone offerings stack up in comparison to the laptops that I’ve tested. Some people have mused that ARM and the latest SoCs are going to kill off the low end laptop market, but we’re still a ways from that happening, at least from a performance perspective. As slow as HD 3000 can be in comparison to other discrete GPUs, it’s probably still faster than any of the currently shipping SoC GPUs, and HD 4000 is another 50-100% faster than HD 3000. They both also use far more power, but when an iPad 4 includes a battery that holds as much power as many budget laptops, we’re not exactly talking about an insurmountable gulf.
What I really wish we had was more than one of the three tests to run on SoCs. Fire Strike is obviously too much for even notebook GPUs right now, but Cloud Gate ought to be able to run on the better SoCs. Ice Storm on the other hand is running at frame rates over 1000 on a high-end desktop GPU, so if that’s the only point of comparison with the SoCs we’re missing quite a bit of detail. Regardless, it will be nice to have another cross-platform benchmark where we can gauge relative performance, and that looks to be exactly what 3DMark provides.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
Steinegal - Saturday, March 9, 2013 - link
In the table listing the system you list the Nehalem Desktop RAM as DDR2-800 I'm pretty shure theySteinegal - Saturday, March 9, 2013 - link
(new comment system needs an edit option)In the table listing the system you list the Nehalem Desktop RAM as DDR2-800, I'm pretty sure they didn't support DDR2.
dj christian - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Would be great if we could get an option to check "notify me if i get replies" when posting in articles.Or integrate the forum for posts made in articles instead as it is now, separated from eachother. Having two different accounts on AT is a pain!
dusk007 - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
I feel like all these scores are useless and don't really tell one anything.If they want to make a 3D benchmark. Why not bench the actual capability rather than fps.
Build a very variable engine & world in its detail.
Give those details weights.
Let the system try to render at 30 to 60 fps or something reasonable.
The benchmark would simply automatically adjust details according to some weight system until it reaches a verdict.
This much detail the system can handle. That way mobile and desktop could be more comparable than a 1000 fps vs 60 fps scene.
As it stands I don't quite see what futuremark accomplished that a few games benchmarks don't do better. Especially with the 2 year update schedule.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
I agree with the last part for sure; I prefer game benchmarks to synthetic graphics tests, but there's a point to running 3DMark on laptops as I note in the article. It's a single score that you can at least get some idea of performance from -- but really, it's three scores per tests, and you still have to use your brain to analyze what it all means. :-pMrSpadge - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
> As it stands I don't quite see what futuremark accomplished that a few games benchmarks don't do better.Really? What praphically demanding games are there which can be benchmarked across different platforms?
cityuser - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Not dare to make nVidia angry ?It's so simply to draw conclusion from the chart, but why so shy to say "AMD WINS" ???
What if the longest graphic bar belongs to nVidia, will anandtech avoid writing "nVidia wins" but write so many irrelevant words??
silverblue - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Irrelevant. It's simply not a fair test. The 630M and 650M are nowhere near the top of their mobile product stack, whereas the 7970M is for AMD. Had there been a 680M in the test, I doubt you'd be saying this.Spunjji - Thursday, February 7, 2013 - link
Did you even read any of the paragraphs around the tests? :/Diagrafeas - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
I am waiting to see how an 3570K and 3770K with 7970 GHz Edition and GTX680 score.Hyperthreading seems to double the scores on physics tests on my systems...