02-11-2003, 05:57 PM
|
#1 |
|
Banned
  Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
3dmark 2003 is out!
3dMark 2003 is out. Its 171 megs. I'll post my score later when my download finishes.
http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml |
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 06:08 PM
|
#2 |
|
Admiral
 Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
OH! Beat me to the link by 13 minutes....d/ling....
__________________
Five years... |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 07:01 PM
|
#3 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
STuuuuuPID!
My downloads (3 so far) keep getting cut off. Maybe I won't be downloading this this evening
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 07:56 PM
|
#4 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
Yeah. Both times I tried I got about 90-100 megs done and it died. Really frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 08:20 PM
|
#5 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
got it
use the european mirrors-they are just as fast and its early morning over there.
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 08:36 PM
|
#6 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
"Holy Slideshow, Batman!"
My rig right now...
So...without DX9 optimized drivers...this thing runs BE-U-TI-FULL...  but slow.  Oh well. I do find it funny that when The Matrix was cool-we had Matrix-like scenes. Now the LOTR is cool-we have trolls and stuff. Also, FalconNW is out (The King is Dead), and Alienware is in (Long Live the King of high-priced gaming computers) Last edited by Bires : 02-11-2003 at 08:47 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 08:41 PM
|
#7 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
Now none of the servers work. Time to start looking on irc...
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 08:42 PM
|
#8 |
|
Chief of Naval Operations
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 11,037
  |
Hardocp won't be using 3dmark 2003 as a benchmark.
"3DMark03, a DirectX 9 Benchmark?" This is one question that we really must ask ourselves. Game 1 is a very simple DX7 test that is not representative of any current games. Game Tests 2 and 3 are DX8.1 but use Pixel Shader 1.4, which is not used by any games we are aware of and will not be to our knowledge. Game 4 is a hybrid of DX8/DX9. It is these four tests that determine the overall score. Only one game test in this benchmark DirectX 9 and then only partially. One issue we have been discussing as of late with amoungst ourselves and with ATI and NVIDIA, is the implementation of real world game benchmarking versus synthetic benchmarking. We do feel that synthetic benchmarks do have their place if used properly. Actual games or gaming engines should remain the primary focus though. When it comes right down to it we would rather see improvements and gains in real world games rather than in synthetic benchmarks. First seen here: http://www.3dchipset.com/index.php#1178 Also note next news post Nvidia is displeased with 3DMark03 -------------- I've never gone for 3dmark. Ohh lookie my 3dmarks went up 100. BFD! |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 08:54 PM
|
#9 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
This prog gives you tons of info about your system, and it records cpu FSB and video card core and memory clocks in the compare record. Nice touch.
There is also a very handy benchy for determining your framerate hit from your soundcard. It runs one of the tests with sound off, then again with sound on (EAX on my Audigy). Another nice touch. I don't aggree with comparing one benched system with another you have no control over, as you can still tweak the drivers for performance and make your FPS increase while your image quality tanks, but as a benchy for overall system performance-this one is pretty good (initial opinion). It still lacks one thing I have wanted these demos/benchies to have: TEMPERATURE MONITORING!!!!!  Would it kill these programers to have a little radio button to have the program monitor CPU and mobo temps during the benchmark? I'm still waiting... |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 09:34 PM
|
#10 |
|
the lemonizer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Calabasas, CA
Posts: 5,373
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 09:46 PM
|
#11 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
need more RAM...
The demo is pretty nifty (the WWII part anyway). I noticed while it and the benchmarks were running, that my HD had a lot of activity. I also noticed that some of the scenes ran fine, then slowed down for no on-screan reason. So, I deduced that 256 of PC2100 is not going to cut it for this prog. (Futuremark says 256M minimum...I think not)
Luckily, I have a 512 of PC3200 on its way.  |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003, 11:56 PM
|
#12 |
|
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The middle of the country
Posts: 1,424
|
Wow, ran this just now and it's REALLY working my system hard...I have AMDXP 1800+ (OC to 2000+), 512MB of Crucial PC2100, and ATI Radeon 9700 Pro with latest drivers and DX9... Score: 4509
The second set of tests, especially the second one with the girl with the sword (ala LOTR), framerates dropped into the 1 to 5 FPS range...  I want to reboot and run it again...I like the fact that some of the tests have sound now--shows what an impact it can have on framerates. EDIT: I just ran it again, and got 4477...I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.  Detailed results here.
__________________
Last edited by CynJon : 02-12-2003 at 12:17 AM. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 12:02 AM
|
#13 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
1469 marks
AMD 2100+ GF4 Ti4200 @ 270/508 A7N8X 512 pc2700 Overall, I think my system held up rather well. I am NOT impressed with the art they used compared to 2k1SE. When 2001 first came out that nature scene blew us all away with how far ahead of current technology it was and how well done the art itself was, technical difficulty aside. This year there was nothing in the demo that made me gasp at its beauty. You can definitly tell different people worked on this one. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 12:25 AM
|
#14 |
|
Vice Admiral
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ohi
Posts: 4,525
|
1.33ghz t-bird @ 1.33ghz
ecs k7s5a 256mb pc2100 gainward gf3 ti200 @ 200/451 My 3dmark2003 experience aSIa N O u TCaST (11:02:40 PM): ok im scared now that this is gonna lock up my comp or make it hang aSIa N O u TCaST (11:02:42 PM): Wow, ran this just now and it's REALLY working my system hard...I have AMDXP 1800+ (OC to 2000+), 512MB of Crucial PC2100, and ATI Radeon 9700 Pro with latest drivers and DX9... Score: 4509 The second set of tests, especially the second one with the girl with the sword (ala LOTR), framerates dropped into the 1 to 5 FPS range... BLaCKHouL (11:10:08 PM): http://www.lemonizer.com/images/shocam.jpg aSIa N O u TCaST (11:10:51 PM): direct x 9 is required to run this program aSIa N O u TCaST (11:11:00 PM): you can dl it at microsoft.com/xxxxxxx BLaCKHouL (11:11:02 PM): yeah aSIa N O u TCaST (11:11:05 PM): bah aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:00 PM): last time i dled a dx update it screwed up my games BLaCKHouL (11:12:26 PM): look at the cam! aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:30 PM): i did BLaCKHouL (11:12:33 PM): o aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:37 PM): you were wearing your santa hat again BLaCKHouL (11:12:47 PM): it's so soft... aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:00 PM): is it live? aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:04 PM): or relatively live BLaCKHouL (11:13:11 PM): live in theory aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:33 PM): theory of relativity, that is! AH AH BLaCKHouL (11:13:39 PM): lol aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:50 PM): im totally on the ball with the jokes today aSIa N O u TCaST (11:16:31 PM): hey how long does the 3dmark thing last? BLaCKHouL (11:16:32 PM): ah BLaCKHouL (11:16:36 PM): like... BLaCKHouL (11:16:38 PM): a long time BLaCKHouL (11:16:42 PM): 5-10 min aSIa N O u TCaST (11:16:46 PM): ok i'll brb in 5-10 min aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:03 PM): lol **** aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:07 PM): 3dmark crashed BLaCKHouL (11:23:13 PM): lol aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:16 PM): i was in battle of porygon or something aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:23 PM): like the entire thing was doing 1-3fps aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:26 PM): the entire time aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:31 PM): then it went to 0 BLaCKHouL (11:23:32 PM): yeah my fps dove really really low in that one aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:38 PM): and then went back up to 3 aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:44 PM): and then booted me back to desktop aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:39 PM): arg and in the first oen aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:41 PM): with all the planes aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:46 PM): it said Frame xxxx aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:53 PM): i thought that was the frame rate! aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:58 PM): i was like HOLY 500!!! BLaCKHouL (11:25:01 PM): LOL aSIa N O u TCaST (11:25:15 PM): i realized that it wasnt the frame rate after it passed 900 aSIa N O u TCaST (11:25:21 PM): bleh aSIa N O u TCaST (11:26:52 PM): http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/3dmark2003.jpg _--___--_- Yeah, I think I gotta build a new comp.  Last edited by irwin : 02-12-2003 at 12:35 AM. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 01:11 AM
|
#15 |
|
Arrrhh!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: LI NY
Posts: 6,807
 |
My system only supported the first test and scored a 176!
__________________
A priest, a paladin and Varimathras walk into a bar... |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 02:02 AM
|
#16 |
|
Rear Admiral Lower Half
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chi town
Posts: 2,348
|
i need a new computer
 |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 06:43 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Chief News Editor & Master of His Domain
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,161
|
Quote:
On the one hand, I rather agree with them, but then I've never liked 3dmark as a benchmark. On the other hand, getting picky about 3dmark when they benchmark with strange things like turning the sound card off - yeah ok, and that proves what, exactly? Does anyone play games with no sound card? Then benchmarking with no sound is a little misleading, ain't it? Really, there is no 'perfect' way to bench a system, which is why you use real world programs in addition to 'made up' benchmarks like 3DM.
__________________
lpmiller Chief News Editor Nobel Prize Nominee Reverend in the Universal Life Church Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature "The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 07:36 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
Quote:
[RANT] DON'T GIVE IN TO THE MACHINE!!!! Throw the hammer! Buck the status quo. Don't be another "my-system-sucks-because-a-benchy-told-me-so" lamer. [/RANT] Disclaimer: Hey do what you want. It's your $$  |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 09:04 AM
|
#19 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one. As long as the playing field is leveled any test is good.
That said, I think they dropped that ball on this one. Its definitly not "eye candy" like previous years releases. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 10:04 AM
|
#21 | |
|
Lieutenant Commander
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 523
|
Quote:
Not necessary. Take Quake III for example. With these newer systems you need to up the settings way up high and then the difference in really in the margin of error. Or what if we used 3DMark 97. I remember that as the original 3D mark, Did it even give scores? I don't remember. But I doubt that would be an acurate measure for todays systems. Why? It is not optimized for the newer hardware. And What happens when the software is optimized for only X based hardware. Still not an acurate measure because not all software is optimized like that. There is no one solution fits all, even if everybody uses it. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 10:26 AM
|
#22 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
I don't think anyone is advocating using 97 or that anyone is encouraging peopel to still use Quake 3. A bit of common sense goes a long way in selecting your benchmarks.
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 10:53 AM
|
#23 | |
|
Lieutenant Commander
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 523
|
You specifically said
Quote:
A bit of my common sense says 3D mark is not a good tool to benchmark. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 11:22 AM
|
#24 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
You're taking my post out of context to imply that I think as long as everyone uses old programs then its good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 11:29 AM
|
#25 | |
|
Lieutenant Commander
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 523
|
Again You specifically said
Quote:
Now those words right there are yours, and you said that it doesn't matter. So if it doesn't matter, old or new also doesn't matter as long as everyone uses it. Those are your words not mine, they do not need to be taken out of context to assume what I said as you have specifically said that it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 12:11 PM
|
#26 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,700
|
You're just being a d***. I obviously did not intend to mean that we should all use old programs and that would be just as good. Why do you do you feel the need to over-analyze what I said anyway? I think you're just trying to find anyway you can to make me look 'wrong.' I don't let any grudes I have from other threads and topics carry over into others so I suggest you do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 12:46 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Rear Admiral Lower Half
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chi town
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
as far as benchmarks go, i dont put a whole lot of emphasis into them, but they do offer pretty much the only way to compare the performance of two machines. if you wanted to compare the acceleration of two cars you would go out to the track and race them or run time trials. that wouldnt be the definitive answer to which one accelerates better, there are always variables. tires, humidity, ambient temp, wind, driver and what ever but its a benchmark. for computers there are probably dozens of variables that will affect the bench, doesnt make any real difference in the real world when all you are doing is browsing the web and reading emails and gaining 3 fps when playing a game |
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 12:49 PM
|
#28 |
|
Picture of the Day Guru
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 8,756
|
3dMark03:4088
Athlon XP 2400+ Asus A7N8X 512mb PC 2700 Powercolor Radeon 9700 (not Pro) No sound card (just on-board stereo used) I checked my CPU temp after the test and it was 42C (usually 39-40 with stock heatsink and fan). No change in MB temp (30C). All settings to factory.
__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz 
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 01:05 PM
|
#29 |
|
Admiral
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5,064
|
I remember when I was running my Radeon there was some tweaks in the tweaker (Radeonator I think) that could be set for 3dMark2001. When I set them, I got about 500 more points, but the image quality suffers.
My image quality settings are always at the top, so my benchmark results are always a little low. My point is, you can tweak your card to get artificially high (or low) #'s. 3DMark doesn't state those reg tweaks in the compare record. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2003, 01:25 PM
|
#30 | ||
|
Lieutenant Commander
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 523
|
Quote:
Maybe you should reread the posts a little more in detail. My point was not that you said we should all use older programs. My point as stated is Quote:
The entire deal with the older programs is just one of the many flaws in your statement. What Bires said is another. Hell I could squeeze plenty of extra points out of 3D Mark, I could even write a program (If I tried enough) to emulate a 3d card which just draws a blank screen and reports a huge FPS. It is a legitimate score, but it means nothing. Again, There is no one solution fits all, even if everybody uses it. I have no grudges, I could careless who you are, its not until now that I even looked at your name and proceesed the letters in my brain. |
||
|
|
|
Linear Mode
