Big_Baller868 said:
I saw this article and liked it so I thought I would let you guys read the article. Great review its done by ace hardware. I have hardly heard of them but the atricle seemed solid enough.
In the end, 3dmark = junk on a stick imho.
ACE normally has very good reviews and technical articles but sadly this was not one of their best . It totally misses the point . 3dm 2003 is made specifically for GPU stress testing in techniques agreed on by the big players as being representative of future software .
It is therefore no small wonder that CPU speed made no real difference . We already know that . It is very important to specifically test the GPU and not only have tests like 3dm 2001SE which was too easily affected by mem timings and CPU changes . For example an overclocked GF4 MX 460 in a fast rig will give very good 3dmarks in 2001SE and make it look better than lets say a GF3 or Matrox Parhelia on a midrange system or slightly lower system . But that is rubbish in the real world . No 3dMark score can make that MX run Doom3 properly or any directX 8 class program for that matter . But those scores would fool many people because 2001SE allowed the system to make a vcard look better than it really was , and it allowed cards to get scores in tests when they should get zero .
What 2003 has done is limit external system factors and at the same time be harsh on cards for not supporting standard features .This is very important, when directX9 games come out there will either be no workaround for such features in games or the workaround to allow lower cards will be slower +/- uglier . You cannot permit a vcard to parade with high scores that are attributable to the cpu or mem timing or fsb . All together these changes from 2001 SE have produced a much bettter vcard benchmark .
Some people compare it to todays games and say that it is not representative
. DUH ......... that is because it is meant to be a future or forward looking benchmark just like all of the others before it . 2000 and 2001SE didn't represent real world performance at the time either . But look at them now , there are very few cases where a card is consitently better than another in 3dmark 2000 or 2001SE but is slower in real world D3d tests ! 2003 has to be given time . It is actually amazing how many supposedly experienced reviewers strongly attack 2003 but ignore the same and worse faults/limitations in 2000 , 2001SE and any other benchmark for that matter . Sadly, many have been infected by a certain IHV who has an axe to grind and benchmarks to defraud . ( I'm not lumping ACE's in this crowd and hopt to never have to do it )
Finally as a side note , I have no problem with overall game syatem benchmarks like 3dmark 2001SE as these have their place but we all need to stop getting confused about the scope and aim and limitations of each benchmark out there .