9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 9. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 18:42 |
Dev |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Feb 5, 2013, 08:32:
Dev wrote on Feb 4, 2013, 22:55:
Yes, I'm sure they didn't make any compromises at all to get it to run on smartphones. Just like MS didn't make any compromises in dumbing down win 8 to be the same on all platforms.
Oh wait...
You know better than this, Dev. It's as easy as clicking the link. You definitely know better than this. What you're doing is essentially what all those crappy game blogs do with the "OMG OVEREXAGGERATION FOR PAGE CLICKS?" headlines.
Right in Steam:
Fire Strike - For high performance gaming PCs
Use Fire Strike to test the performance of dedicated gaming PCs, or use the Fire Strike Extreme preset for high-end systems with multiple GPUs. Fire Strike uses a multi-threaded DirectX 11 engine to test DirectX hardware.
Cloud Gate - For notebooks and home PCs
Use Cloud Gate to test the performance of notebooks and typical home PCs. Cloud Gate uses a DirectX 11 engine limited to Direct3D feature level 10, making it suitable for testing DirectX 10 compatible hardware.
Ice Storm - For tablets and entry-level PCs
Use Ice Storm to test the performance of your Windows tablet, ultra-portable notebook or entry-level PC. Ice Storm uses a DirectX 11 engine limited to Direct3D feature level 9, making it the ideal benchmark for modern portable devices targeting that feature level. You can compare Ice Storm scores from Windows, Windows RT, Android and iOS devices at futuremark.com.
Yes I saw that before I posted. But while it has different demos for each mode, it looks to me like it still uses the same engine on all 3 of them, so I'm not totally convinced.
However, after further thought there's at least one category in which it will be quite useful. Developers to be able to compare smartphones to desktops and help them with figuring out porting to/from PC, as well as figuring out how to balance the power of the largest ios/android demographics with graphical levels, so there's that at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 18:24 |
Dev |
|
|
Arithon wrote on Feb 5, 2013, 07:01:
I see little value in recent benchmarks, since most are now "on this weeks cards / hardware"
I want to see how much bang-for-buck I get for my money compared to the 2010 video card I have in my PC right now.
There are some sites that give you "HD5870 vs GTX660Ti" for example, but they are the exception.
The problem with new benchmark software is it removes the ability to compare with previous hardware. i.e. 3Dmark06 (from 2010) gives my card "23611" but 3Dmark11 (from last year) gives the 660 Ti "9027". That's no help to anyone. Both cards will run in my PC, so I want a meaningful comparison.
If 3DMark have a database of comparable test results for hardware going back some time that they share with purchasers of the software, then I'd be interested to know more, otherwise not.
3dmark does have a database of results, but its a different for each 3dmark they release. You'd have to run the older dx9 benchmark versions (I dont recall the latest 3dmark which went only to dx9) to be able to compare to the widest range of hardware/os. You could also compare those numbers to futuremarks online database.
http://www.3dmark.com/search
You can specify what version of 3dmark in the advanced search.
I find the most useful thing for getting a rough estimate of old or strange (like mobile) graphics cards and new ones is tom's hierarchy charts for video cards (it has tiers going back to the nvidia TNT). It also helps makes sense of ATI's horrible model naming schemes (and sometimes nvidia does similar confusing things), and see where they fall. And you can see how far down intel integrated is (although the 4000 is at least not terrible).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
So (in a made up example pulling numbers out of thin air) if say I have a tier 7 card, and a tier 1 graphics card costs $700, and a tier 2 graphics card costs $500, tier 3 costs $400, tier 4 costs $350, tier 5 costs $300, tier 6 costs $250, then the minimum to upgrade that tier 7 card would be $250, and to upgrade it significantly I'd have to spend $350 or more.
Also I find it useful when someone asks me what graphics card to get. I ask them to tell me what they want to spend, and show them that chart and say something like: "for $200 you can get a tier X card, and it will cost $300 or more to move up significantly. In the $200 range these are the nvidia and ATI cards that have the same tier of performance, so I suggest looking for a sale on these"
This comment was edited on Feb 5, 2013, 18:35. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 09:41 |
Quboid |
|
|
Arithon wrote on Feb 5, 2013, 07:01:
I see little value in recent benchmarks, since most are now "on this weeks cards / hardware"
I want to see how much bang-for-buck I get for my money compared to the 2010 video card I have in my PC right now.
There are some sites that give you "HD5870 vs GTX660Ti" for example, but they are the exception.
The problem with new benchmark software is it removes the ability to compare with previous hardware. i.e. 3Dmark06 (from 2010) gives my card "23611" but 3Dmark11 (from last year) gives the 660 Ti "9027". That's no help to anyone. Both cards will run in my PC, so I want a meaningful comparison.
If 3DMark have a database of comparable test results for hardware going back some time that they share with purchasers of the software, then I'd be interested to know more, otherwise not.
QFT!
I have a Geforce 460 and I'll probably upgrade for the Autumn games rush, but no site will have performance comparisons that really mean a damn thing to me and I don't trust comparing a benchmark today with one from a couple of years ago even in the extremely unlikely event that the same hardware is used.
This comment was edited on Feb 5, 2013, 11:48. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 08:32 |
Beamer |
|
|
Dev wrote on Feb 4, 2013, 22:55:
Yes, I'm sure they didn't make any compromises at all to get it to run on smartphones. Just like MS didn't make any compromises in dumbing down win 8 to be the same on all platforms.
Oh wait...
You know better than this, Dev. It's as easy as clicking the link. You definitely know better than this. What you're doing is essentially what all those crappy game blogs do with the "OMG OVEREXAGGERATION FOR PAGE CLICKS?" headlines.
Right in Steam:
Fire Strike - For high performance gaming PCs
Use Fire Strike to test the performance of dedicated gaming PCs, or use the Fire Strike Extreme preset for high-end systems with multiple GPUs. Fire Strike uses a multi-threaded DirectX 11 engine to test DirectX hardware.
Cloud Gate - For notebooks and home PCs
Use Cloud Gate to test the performance of notebooks and typical home PCs. Cloud Gate uses a DirectX 11 engine limited to Direct3D feature level 10, making it suitable for testing DirectX 10 compatible hardware.
Ice Storm - For tablets and entry-level PCs
Use Ice Storm to test the performance of your Windows tablet, ultra-portable notebook or entry-level PC. Ice Storm uses a DirectX 11 engine limited to Direct3D feature level 9, making it the ideal benchmark for modern portable devices targeting that feature level. You can compare Ice Storm scores from Windows, Windows RT, Android and iOS devices at futuremark.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 07:01 |
Arithon |
|
|
I see little value in recent benchmarks, since most are now "on this weeks cards / hardware"
I want to see how much bang-for-buck I get for my money compared to the 2010 video card I have in my PC right now.
There are some sites that give you "HD5870 vs GTX660Ti" for example, but they are the exception.
The problem with new benchmark software is it removes the ability to compare with previous hardware. i.e. 3Dmark06 (from 2010) gives my card "23611" but 3Dmark11 (from last year) gives the 660 Ti "9027". That's no help to anyone. Both cards will run in my PC, so I want a meaningful comparison.
If 3DMark have a database of comparable test results for hardware going back some time that they share with purchasers of the software, then I'd be interested to know more, otherwise not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 5, 2013, 06:24 |
Quinn |
|
|
I have one of the newest rigs out there but fuck me my PC was buckling at the DX11 stuff.
Hope my rig isn't under-performing.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Favourite games of all time: 1. Severance. 2. Vampire the Masquerade Redemption. 3. *can't come up with #3* |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 4, 2013, 23:52 |
jacobvandy |
|
|
| So, my understanding is that only one test was built to stress PCs? Do they even have a CPU test anymore? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 4, 2013, 22:55 |
Dev |
|
|
BTW, the free version won't bench past 720p.
Last few versions of 3dmark weren't that impressive to me. They used to be "ZOMG I want a game like that." Now they are more "meh, my games are better than that, and on my years old graphics card"
Edit: When it first comes up it says:
3DMark is a performance benchmark for all your hardware from smartphones and tablets, to notebooks and desktop PCs.
Yes, I'm sure they didn't make any compromises at all to get it to run on smartphones. Just like MS didn't make any compromises in dumbing down win 8 to be the same on all platforms.
Oh wait...
Edit 2: They want $1000 for the business version!?!? Also, the free version won't even let you set the higher detail versions of the gaming mode. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: New 3DMark |
Feb 4, 2013, 21:42 |
jdreyer |
|
|
Here's the Steam product page. $18.74
I dunno, 3DMark releases used to be something I looked forward to, sort of a "where PC gaming will be in a few years" kind of thing, in addition to the awesome spectacle they used to show, almost like movie shorts. But I haven't really check them out in several years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
