Warp2Search.net » News » March 2004 » FutureMark news soon - An end to the 3DMark03 confusion?

Just as something of a heads-up to those of you who have been following the recent controversies with various websites failing to use certified 3DMark03 drivers for benchmarking, as per the guidelines published by FutureMark, you may be pleased to hear that a solution is now very close to being put into place which will hopefully help to avoid such issues in future.

You can read a bit more here at: Elite Bastards

digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22

#51677 Posted on: 03/03/2004 03:01 PM I'm glad as hell to see FM doing something to try and spread the word, this along with their new red-lettered warning about un-approved drivers should at least honk some IHV people off if nothing else. Good job FutureMark, I'm still rooting for you.

wb22gprix Unregistered

#51678 Posted on: 03/03/2004 04:19 PM I am somewhat amazed that anyone still cares about Futuremark.

digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22

#51679 Posted on: 03/03/2004 04:49 PM FutureMark's benchmarks are some of the most consistant around for me, I'm personally glad as hell that they're being a bit more proactive in defending the integrity of their benchmark. Besides, it's gonna drive nVidia NUTS! :lol:

MuffinMan Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-09-15

#51683 Posted on: 03/03/2004 07:15 PM It wouldn't be so bad if they finally got around to adressing the cheating (or rather, optimising) going on in 2K1. ATI started the ball rolling there and had a massive advantage in the final score over Nvidia because of how they optimised their shaders for the Nature test and, after a few months of getting hammered, Nvidia got wise and included their own optimisations in drivers. It seems that little or nothing was done about it then by Futuremark (or Madonion as they were known) but, even worse, nothing is done about it now. This is important because 2K1 is STILL used in the majority of reviews out there, alongside 2K3. It seems somewhat ironic that they'll allow optimisations in one program and not the other.

owa Unregistered

#51686 Posted on: 03/03/2004 09:15 PM Yeah, same here. I can't believe people are still worried about this and are still trying to address it. I didn't think many people would take a synthetic benchmark all that seriously but to each his own I guess. Personally, I think it is fun trying to get the highest score you can but that's as far as I take it. I actually purchase every version b/c I like it but I mainly use it as a good way of seeing if my system is stable, if my overclock is helping, etc. or if I see someone with a much higher score in their sig and they have similar hardware, I'll check to see what is up with my system. But, that's as far as I take it. I'd never use it for determining what to purchase, it's definitely not the holy grail. All it really shows DX9-wise (IMO) is that today's hardware isn't close to being able to run DX9 games very well. I mean, come on. I have a fairly high end system and in the high detail benchmarks the framerates are in the single digits. Yes, my XP 3000+ / AIW 9800 Pro gets a whopping 6 fps while my XP 2800+ / 5900U gets 7 fps if I'm using non-approved drivers and 5 fps if I use approved drivers. Are you really going to play a game at 7 fps? No. If the game is running well and you're getting 70 fps, does 70 fps versus 65 fps matter? No...except for bragging rights and like I said, it is fun trying to get the highest score but at least have some perspective. Anyway, trying to make the benchmark more than it is is getting really old. My one comment to Futuremark for the next version would be, concentrate more on making it hit a target framerate. At least go for a min of 30 fps as a target framerate. Make the benchmarks come out at around 30+ fps for high-end hardware. Then it's more useful. You have a really great system and you see 40+ and you know you've got something. A mid-range system may dip below 30 and you'll know you have trouble with some of the later games. A low end system may get the teens and it shows you you'll have to reduce settings. I currently don't know how to relate 2-7 fps and what that means gaming-wise. It also makes it very unpleasant to run the benchmark. I use to love to run the older versions but I rarely watch 03 run. It's too painful watching a slide-show. Heh, now don't I look silly. Complain about people still being concerned with this and then I wrote a book for a response. Oh well...

Warp2Search.net » News » March 2004 » FutureMark news soon - An end to the 3DMark03 confusion?