#10996

Vegitto

2004-09-24 19:09

A new low for a benchmark that's next to useless for it's original purpose.

0 0

#10997

Rosco

2004-09-24 21:29

"so if they're going to make an artificial one - at least make it cool." I'll second that. 3DMark 99 was the best, 3DMark2001 was alright, 2003 was very dull. And then they made a benchmark for cell phones? LOL!

0 0

#10998

Rosco

2004-09-24 23:25

What a crock!!!! It was going to time out at about 6 my time, now it starts with a "W" and is back up to 98000000 !!!!! I think I'm going back to using FarCry and UT2004 if I really need to know how fast my builds are going.

0 0

#10999

Rosco

2004-09-25 00:51

I'm all for optimizing. If it makes the game run better and still look as good as before, let 'em rip! Hopefully the ATI A.I. is as good as it sounds. Nice to see nVidia come out with something like it as well. And, would be even better if XGI gets the Vx series into the games!

0 0

#11000

KNIGHT

2004-09-25 01:47

Ooooo! Cool new screensaver :) What? You thought it could be used for anything else? Hahahahaha :D

0 0

#11001

MuffinMan

2004-09-25 10:55

>>thats why u have an artifical benchmark so u will know exactly how each card performsthat particular engine. So the artificial benchmark is important for seeing how ATI and Nvidia cards perform on that particular artificial benchmark. While I agree this can be a little valuable in an overall review set, in isolation it's pretty much useless. So what exactly is your point?

0 0

#11002

MB

2004-09-25 17:23

How about using a game instead?

0 0