3Dmark 2006 released.

[Metalmurphy]

Guess its that time of the year again for futuremark to show how much do our PC suck

I'll post some screenshots as soon as i finish downloading

http://www.futuremark.com/news/?news...601/2006011807

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Metalmurphy]

Bleh i sugest u dont even bother downloading. The free version doesnt have all the texts and doesnt even let you choose the options :S

Bleh what a waste of traffic

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[refraction]

well far as i can see (ive not downloaded it yet) its just 05 with a couple of changed scenes and HDR lighting.

but heres an overview with screenshots http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=1

__________________

http://www.generalemu.net/
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz (425x8), Leadtek GTX 280 1Gb, 1.8Tb HDs, 2Gb Corsair DDR2-800 @ DDR2-1020 5-5-5-18 Dual Channel
Dont PM me for help, use the forums, thats what its for!

[F-3582]

Bah, who needs HDR, anyway?! I mean, look at PS2 games like ICO or Xenosaga 2 doing that sort of effects without even knowing what HDR is! Really, that shot could have been produced by a PS2 as well!

P.S.: Just looked at your frame rate and afterwards on your PC specs. Man, that 3DMark engine REALLY sucks!

__________________

In a world without walls and fences - who needs Windows and Gates?

---

Last edited by F-3582; January 18th, 2006 at 19:32..

[raksmey1309]

Yes my PC going to cry about it.

[Metalmurphy]

Originally Posted by F-3582

Bah, who needs HDR, anyway?! I mean, look at PS2 games like ICO or Xenosaga 2 doing that sort of effects without even knowing what HDR is! Really, that shot could have been produced by a PS2 as well!

Trust me it wouldnt You should see it in motion, but yeah i agree the engine should run at least a little bit better.


As for HDR, its beautifull when done right (HL2).

And refraction thats what i said to my self, this should be 3dmark2005 2. But i think thats just the Basic version, Now theres an advanced and Pro version that have more stuff. In basic we can't even change the damn options :S

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Grv]

Originally Posted by F-3582

Man, that 3DMark engine REALLY sucks!

People had such gripes with F.E.A.R. as well. The ignorance that takes place is similar to the one that leads to questioning PCSX2's performance on today's modern PCs.

If you have any idea how much dynamically calculated precision there is in the lighting in these SM2/SM3 game demo's, the effects of softshadowing and HDR, and the amount of dynamic lights casted onto a huge number of reflecting objects; you'll come to understand that such dynamic precision is impossible to achieve without a huge amount of added overhead, thus delivering "terrible performance".

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

yeah i agree the engine should run at least a little bit better.

I wish I could instantly be aware of unoptomized code in an engine that is the first to display such a myriad of heavy techniques on your home PC. Unless you're able to volunteer to optimize it for them, you have no way of knowing.

__________________
Signed,
--"Not young enough to know everything."

[Metalmurphy]

Seeing as i've seen better looking GAMES (not just demos) running better i believe that yes it should run better.

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[F-3582]

I think that there's still a difference between an emulator utilizing lots of CPU for emulating completely different hardware and an engine being written solely for the system it is running on.

OK, call me ignorant, but I only judged from what I saw and I saw hardly any reflection, only a bit shadowing and a pretty bright sunlight.

__________________

In a world without walls and fences - who needs Windows and Gates?

[Grv]

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

Seeing as i've seen better looking GAMES (not just demos) running better i believe that yes it should run better.

Like X3, the space "sim"?

Originally Posted by F-3582

I think that there's still a difference between an emulator utilizing lots of CPU for emulating completely different hardware and an engine being written solely for the system it is running on.

Definitely. But then, I wasn't comparing them, now was I.

Originally Posted by F-3582

OK, call me ignorant, but I only judged from what I saw and I saw hardly any reflection, only a bit shadowing and a pretty bright sunlight.

Reflection..? I meant as in reflecting light, not having a reflection. A bit shadowing? What about the dynamic lighting in all game tests, and the softshadowing in the latter two? A pretty bright sunlight? Did you notice the effects it had on the objects it casted its light on?



I mentioned F.E.A.R. because of all the people initially whining about the system requirements, without understanding that this game is most accurate and most excessive in use of dynamic lighting of any PC game thus far. Ever shot a hanging light in that game? Do you realize the added complexity over the current Doom3- and Source-engine powered games, right out of the box?

I mentioned PCSX2 because it contains the perfect analogy (that anyone on Ngemu can understand) for my explanation: complexity requires more overhead. More overhead degrades performance.

Imagine coding stuff that behaves according to real world rules. Those are some nasty amounts of rules and checks, and the output is far more complex than anything less real can depict so far. Trying to get more accurate real world behaviour or dynamics in code, adds in complexity. Complexity requires more overhead. You guys think 3DMark06 just showed pretty graphics, neglecting the accuracy of the lighting (which was completely dynamic) compared to what we're used to, and the effects of softshadowing?

__________________
Signed,
--"Not young enough to know everything."

[Metalmurphy]

Originally Posted by Gaurav

Like X3, the space "sim"?

erm no but i dont see where ur going with that... X3 IS one of the best looking PC games around.

Oh and btw ur talking like u want to show u know alot when u actually dont. Nothing u said is new / unkown to us.

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Random-hero]

Hey nice benchmark.... To run this program smoothly you have to get a pc that doesn't even exist. 3d mark you're the best.


But hey .. nice graphic.

[speedy_j]

I think modern video-accelerators have been tuned not for games, but 3DMark
People spent their money just to get more marks )

[Grv]

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

erm no but i dont see where ur going with that... X3 IS one of the best looking PC games around.

It also runs better than 3DMark06, which is why I thought you meant this one. There is good reason why.

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

Oh and btw ur talking like u want to show u know alot when u actually dont.

Actually, I was trying to inform on why certain choices of words are very bad and actually a bit insulting to anyone who worked on this. If I wanted to show I know a lot, I would've made my previous post sincerely longer and would've probably made fun of you in the process. I'm not like that, but since I don't take kindly to the non-sensical crap that is your remark, I will adapt to your customs just this once:

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

Nothing u said is new / unkown to us.

I see. The remarks made sure are typical for those knowledgable on why it performs slowly, even after a single run. What if I said I made it all up?


Thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't bother.

__________________
Signed,
--"Not young enough to know everything."

[F-3582]

Originally Posted by Gaurav

Definitely. But then, I wasn't comparing them, now was I.

Really? At least you used them as some sort of in-between-similarity in your argumentation... somehow, I think Besides, a few sentences after that statement you did a comparison, right?

Originally Posted by Gaurav

Reflection..? I meant as in reflecting light, not having a reflection. A bit shadowing? What about the dynamic lighting in all game tests, and the softshadowing in the latter two? A pretty bright sunlight? Did you notice the effects it had on the objects it casted its light on?

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the last 3DMark running on a computer I 0wned was 3DMark01, I think. I was of course only referring to the screenshot Murphy posted. At least that one looked pretty crude in my humble opinion. Besides, I already mentioned that there are lots of games (mostly on the console side) that do some of these effects - that sun thing, for example - just by using some nifty big sort-of corona effect.


Of course, scenes of that accuracy are near (or completely?) impossible to run smooth on a system like mine, but seeing the recent progress in CPU and GPU technology, I don't see why they should run that choppy even on a PC like Metalmurphy's.

__________________

In a world without walls and fences - who needs Windows and Gates?

[General Plot]

Strangely enough, I ran this on my rig, and it said that I couldn't run the HDL/SM 3.0 tests, which is weird, cause my video card supports shading 3.0. I have the latest drivers from Nvidia and newest Directx, but by not being able to run those test, my score was really hindered.

__________________

Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Official betatester of PCSX2 and Co-owner of General Emulation

[Clements]

I got 2667 in the test without overclocking my video card, so I am happy.

3DMark is not designed to run fast on most hardware, but to tax hardware using the very latest effects to give an idea how future games may look.

Originally Posted by General Plot

Strangely enough, I ran this on my rig, and it said that I couldn't run the HDL/SM 3.0 tests, which is weird, cause my video card supports shading 3.0. I have the latest drivers from Nvidia and newest Directx, but by not being able to run those test, my score was really hindered.

Try Forcing AA off. NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score.

__________________

PJ64 Homepage | ZSNES Documentation Project | bsnes Supporter

---

Last edited by Clements; January 20th, 2006 at 19:21..

[General Plot]

Originally Posted by Clements

Try Forcing AA off. NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score.

Do this through 3DMark, or through my GeForce controls?

__________________

Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Official betatester of PCSX2 and Co-owner of General Emulation

[Metalmurphy]

Through ur device controls, u can't even change through 3Dmark unless u bought it.

"NVIDIA cards cannot process HDR and AA at the same time, so the SM3.0 tests won't report a score."

Actually most of the games dont allow it but i dont think its a Nvidia problem. HL2 does HDR and AA with no problems.

I see. The remarks made sure are typical for those knowledgable on why it performs slowly, even after a single run. What if I said I made it all up?

it seems u got me wrong, of course if it runs slow is for a reason... thats obvious, but the true key on game making is making it look nice while using the less gpu/processing power as possible. Thats something 3Dmark2006 didnt even bother with it. And why should them, i understand they're point of view, but imo i call it bad devolopment, even for a benchmark

If I wanted to show I know a lot, I would've made my previous post sincerely longer and...

please do

would've probably made fun of you in the process.

u already did and thats why i was pissed.

__________________

-------------------------------- Computer Specs ----------------------------------
Intel Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 HT → 4x 512MB DDR-DIMM → ASUS GF 6800 GT
Sound Blaster X-Fi → 2x Maxtor 80 GB (RAID 0)
Hitachi 19'' Monitor → Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Last edited by Metalmurphy; January 20th, 2006 at 20:23..

[Clements]

Originally Posted by Metalmurphy

Actually most of the games dont allow it but i dont think its a Nvidia problem. HL2 does HDR and AA with no problems.

It is a NVIDIA problem.

Originally Posted by Extremetech

There's one major curiosity in how 3DMark06 handles these tests. As we all know, GeForce 6 and 7 series cards cannot perform floating-point blending and multisample anti-aliasing together in hardware. These are Shader Model 3.0 cards and are capable of running the SM3.0 + HDR tests, but if you enable AA in 3DMark06 the SM3.0 tests won't run. If you enable AA in 3DMark06, you simply get no final score for GeForce 6 or 7 cards.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1912117,00.asp

Half-Life 2 is probably using a different method of rendering HDR or is not 'true' HDR that is using floating-point blending. The problem is well known since right back when the HDR patch for Farcry was released, and only X1xxx cards can do true HDR+AA at the same time right now.

__________________

PJ64 Homepage | ZSNES Documentation Project | bsnes Supporter