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
Hrel - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Are you guys ever gonna review those ARM based NAS boxes or not?humbi83 - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
single(gs, phs,cs) / sli af1 / sli af2ice storm 30402 (27721,45965, - ) / 125970 (247612,46323,-) / 125551 (246867, 46159, - )
cloud gate 14687 (26205, 5786 , - ) / 18518 (49233,5817, - ) / 18501 (49182, 5812, - )
fire strike 3106 (3585, 8296 , 1057) / 5667 (6926 , 8330, 2007) / 5795 (7011,8306,2104)
Landspeeder - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Just what I was looking for!Any chance to try an OC on the CPU/GPUs?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
I tried overclocking the GPU on a P170EM and it totally wouldn't work -- all the utilities I tried basically hard locked the system the instant you applied new clocks. If anyone has a recommended utility for overclocking notebooks, I'd like to know what it is.humbi83 - Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - link
Hmm... 7970m seems much more powerfull. 3585 vs ~4700. Maybe I could improve the score using new drivers but I don't have time for it (or overclocking or anything else until they disable the demos). SLI works by the way :D.A couple of things (long rant):
Disable the frigging demos (I'm starting to repeat myself, not OK) !!!!! or set them looping on some other button from the launcher.
No easily discernible screen tearing at 1k FPS (are they actually showing 1K or just offscreen + 60 on screen).
They have troubles with identifying the SLI on/off , GPU vendor, GPU speed etc.
You can see that the first test is targeted towards mobile stuff. Very bald looking (did I mentioned 1K fps?). What would be nice is to also see attached to the tests the GPU utilization (if not already done).
Phy tests seem rushed. Even in the last combined test, the rocks in the background fall kinda funny. BTW, cloth simulation is way off. Also .. was I using the gpu for physics?? Don't know, don't think so.
Looking over their "invalid config guide" seems that if you have a dedicated PPU the test is invalid. So what if the frigging cellphone can't do complex stuff, use all available hw at your disposal and then worry about scoring???!!!! Do you get better fps, then that is a good thing. Score it accordingly. FPS was a common denominator. Use it! Fidelity(phy&gfx) + Keeping the Illusion of movement is what the end user is concerned not what hw you use to get there. If the phone in your pocket can't do that ... well it's a phone, in another 3-5 years it will.
Last test/demo(actually just the combined part of the test) is what I was expecting, just that we should have had 3 of those not just 1 + 2 with fps >200. I mean 5 tests where 3 are actually DX11 with all the bells and whatnot. I have 4GB of mem per card, are you using that, I want the pcie to fry from all the swapping.
Also, use the demos as a more lengthy benchmark !!!
Thees tests should represent the future of content fidelity, now they waste their time with 10(actually between 9&11) year old tech because this is where the money is right now.
First time I ran 3dMark (2006) my PC was almost leaning towards seconds per frame in some situations. Now I get with a frigging laptop almost 10fps in their most demanding test. NOT OK. I know you can do better FM!!
Cheers!
Landspeeder - Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - link
I know XOTIC PC offers it on both the CPU and GPU... perhaps they can shed some light?akhaddd - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
so frickin awesome i love me some computer stuffGTRagnarok - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Why is my Ice Storm score so high with my M17x R4 with a 3720QM and 7970M?http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18860
129064 overall
244590 graphics
48646 physics
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Are you using Enduro or do you have it disabled? I had it enabled on the M17x, so that could be the reason. Also, you're using 12.10 drivers and I'm using 13.1, so maybe that makes a difference.Krysto - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - link
Disappointing that it won't support OpenGL ES 3.0 right from the start. Also I wonder how "fair" the tests will be between DirectX and OpenGL devices. Will games that look and work identical on these 2 different API's, get the same score?If not then it will be a pretty useless "cross-platform" benchmark. But we'll see.