3D Mark 2005 released

by **LordShard** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:23 pm

Originally posted by Ryan
OMG QUICK DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL IF YOU HAVE A BETTER SCORE THAN SOMEONE ELSE, THAT MEANS THAT YOU ePENIS IS LARGER THAN THE GUY ON THE OTHER END OF THE MONITOR.

MAKE SURE TO RUB IT IN HIS FACE THAT HE IS A LOSER AND DOESN'T SPEND ENOUGH MONEY ON HIS COMPUTER. THIS CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING::: HIS COMPUTER IS HORRIBLE IN EVERY ASPECT IF HE SCORES LOW ON 3D MARK.

Oops. Caps. Sorry. Don't know what got into me.

EDIT: WAIT, I DECIDED TO GIVE IT A TRY TO SEE HOW LARGE MY ePEN0R REALLY IS. TELL ME HOW THIS IS.

SOmebody has a "tiney" ePENOR

by **Ryan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:14 pm

I despise benchmarking (If you couldn't already tell.)

Why? Its a good tool! (You say).

No. It's not.

Benchmarking for gamers, in my honest opinion, is a complete waste of time. Benchmarking is useless.. use common sense. I am sooooo tired of people being 'greater than thou' by upgrading and getting 3 more FPS in Quake 3. BIG DEAL!!!!!!

Read the minium requirements. Then, read the suggested requirements. If you meet them, or even better, exceed them, guess what?! YOU CAN PLAY THE GAME! And I know many people with crap computer than own people with the best money can by.

Games are skill.. not who has the better computer. And just because your computer costs $10,000 and mine cost $700 doesn't mean you are going to own me becasue you get 3 more FPS in Battlefield. Congrats.

Among computer nerds, because they have nothing else the claim superiority in, they cling to benchmarking. If they score higher there, then they will NEVER let it down. Its a never ending vicious cycle. Who cares!??!?!! Unless your a graphics designer, or 3D modeler, you really don't need to score a few points higher than the next guy. Let it go!!!!

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:41 pm

The only thing good about 3D mark is using it to test how stable your system is if you overclock. That is it, and it is not even the best program to use for that!

by **shockwave203** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Ryan
I despise benchmarking (If you couldn't already tell.)

Why? Its a good tool! (You say).

No. It's not.

Benchmarking for gamers, in my honest opinion, is a complete waste of time. Benchmarking is useless.. use common sense. I am sooooo tired of people being 'greater than thou' by upgrading and getting 3 more FPS in Quake 3. BIG DEAL!!!!!!

Read the minium requirements. Then, read the suggested requirements. If you meet them, or even better, exceed them, guess what?! YOU CAN PLAY THE GAME! And I know many people with crap computer than own people with the best money can by.

Games are skill.. not who has the better computer. And just because your computer costs $10,000 and mine cost $700 doesn't mean you are going to own me becasue you get 3 more FPS in Battlefield. Congrats.

Among computer nerds, because they have nothing else the claim superiority in, they cling to benchmarking. If they score higher there, then they will NEVER let it down. Its a never ending vicious cycle. Who cares!??!?!! Unless your a graphics designer, or 3D modeler, you really don't need to score a few points higher than the next guy. Let it go!!!!

i disagree. it is a good tool.

let's say that I spent $700 on my system. let's also say that you spent $700 on a system. we have the same processors, the same video card, basically the same setup.

You say HL2 run awesome, I say it runs slow. Instead of just leaving it at that, you can compare the benchmakrs between the two system, and see which one is lagging.

Maybe it's laggin in the sound tests-soundcard/sound drivers could be the problem. even if the benches don't tell you what's wrong, you'll be able to see which system is having a problem so it can be corrected.

Maybe bench marks mean nothing to you, but for people who want to get the best performance for their dolloar because they don't want to throw insane amounts of money into setting up a fast computer, they're very useful.

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:56 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
i disagree. it is a good tool.

let's say that I spent $700 on my system. let's also say that you spent $700 on a system. we have the same processors, the same video card, basically the same setup.

You say HL2 run awesome, I say it runs slow. Instead of just leaving it at that, you can compare the benchmakrs between the two system, and see which one is lagging.

Maybe it's laggin in the sound tests-soundcard/sound drivers could be the problem. even if the benches don't tell you what's wrong, you'll be able to see which system is having a problem so it can be corrected.

Maybe bench marks mean nothing to you, but for people who want to get the best performance for their dolloar because they don't want to throw insane amounts of money into setting up a fast computer, they're very useful.

Again, benchmarks won't tell you who has the better, faster, more efficient computer. All this is is a matter of 'pride'. If you really want a tool that can tell you where your computer is being slow, get Software Sandra.

Far more useful, and unlike 3DMark, isn't crap.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:28 pm

i disagree. it is a good tool.

let's say that I spent $700 on my system. let's also say that you spent $700 on a system. we have the same processors, the same video card, basically the same setup.

You say HL2 run awesome, I say it runs slow. Instead of just leaving it at that, you can compare the benchmakrs between the two system, and see which one is lagging.

Maybe it's laggin in the sound tests-soundcard/sound drivers could be the problem. even if the benches don't tell you what's wrong, you'll be able to see which system is having a problem so it can be corrected.

Maybe bench marks mean nothing to you, but for people who want to get the best performance for their dolloar because they don't want to throw insane amounts of money into setting up a fast computer, they're very useful.

Er what?:confused:

You say HL2 run awesome, I say it runs slow. Instead of just leaving it at that, you can compare the benchmakrs between the two system, and see which one is lagging.

I think its a safe bet without using any type of performance software to figure out who has the slower laggy system. I'm willing to infer right then and there that you are having problems with your system.

And if the damn thing doesn't tell you why you are having that problem what the hell good is it?

by **shockwave203** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:48 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus

I think its a safe bet without using any type of performance software to figure out who has the slower laggy system. I'm willing to infer right then and there that you are having problems with your system.

with a bench, you can see how bad your performance compares to someone else with the same system. if you have a difference of 2000 points, you know something major is going on instead of "guessing" how many fps the other person is getting.

And if the damn thing doesn't tell you why you are having that problem what the hell good is it?

it's good because atlest you can see that you have a problem in the first place.

when i first bought my Radeon 9700, I thought BF42 ran pretty good. I downloaded 3dmark and ran a bench, and when it was compared to other people who had the same system it showed i was getting horrible performance. I fiddled with drivers and mobo chipset drivers to make my system faster, and when i was finished i made huge speed improvements.

it helped me out big time, so it undoubtedly helps others.

by **LordShard** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:53 pm

ha ha ha, I've run programs with minimum requirements and even under minimum requirements.

I like benchmarking, and oh yeah, lets say you buy a gateway PC for $700 and anouther guy buys a dell PC for $700 you can see who's PC is better and maybe get your money back for the better PC!

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:28 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
with a bench, you can see how bad your performance compares to someone else with the same system. if you have a difference of 2000 points, you know something major is going on instead of "guessing" how many fps the other person is getting.

it's good because atlest you can see that you have a problem in the first place.

when i first bought my Radeon 9700, I thought BF42 ran pretty good. I downloaded 3dmark and ran a bench, and when it was compared to other people who had the same system it showed i was getting horrible performance. I fiddled with drivers and mobo chipset drivers to make my system faster, and when i was finished i made huge speed improvements.

it helped me out big time, so it undoubtedly helps others.

Benchmarks are not about performance anymore. After ATI and Nvidia used driver 'cheats' to raise their scores, any benchmarks using synthetic (ie. 3DMark) tests means nothing.

It's about game performance, not benchmark performance.

by **shockwave203** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:31 pm

Originally posted by Evan
Benchmarks are not about performance anymore. After ATI and Nvidia used driver 'cheats' to raise their scores, any benchmarks using [b]synthetic (ie. 3DMark) tests means nothing.

It's about game performance, not benchmark performance. [/B]

and as I said before, they help when you compare similiar setups. you don't have to worry about one 9800pro cheating and the other rendering everything the way it should.

so no, it is still about performance.

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:36 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
and as I said before, they help when you compare [b]similiar setups. you don't have to worry about one 9800pro cheating and the other rendering everything the way it should.

so no, it is still about performance. [/B]

Again, benchmarks mean NOTHING! So what if I scored higher or lower than someone else? It means nothing.

by **shockwave203** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:45 pm

Originally posted by Evan
Again, benchmarks mean NOTHING! So what if I scored higher or lower than someone else? It means nothing.

please go back and read my previous posts so you have some clue as to what I'm talking about.

similiar systems should offer similiar performance. if one scores 2000 points below a very similiar system, something is up.

understand yet?

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:00 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
please go back and read my previous posts so you have some clue as to what I'm talking about.

similiar systems should offer similiar performance. if one scores 2000 points below a very similiar system, something is up.

understand yet?

That's not true. Similar, but differently configured systems will produce results unequal to the 'average' of benchmarks of the same system.

For example, I've ran 3DMark with and without programs like Photoshop, AIM, etc. Huge impact on scores, but my system is not slower than any other that has the same setup.

Another example, my AMD 2800+ XP CPU outpeforms my dads P4 2.53Ghz CPU in every test we've ever ran. His computer is newer than mine, has better hardware than mine, yet I score higher than him.

Understand yet?

by **shockwave203** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:05 pm

Originally posted by Evan
That's not true. Similar, but differently configured systems will produce results unequal to the 'average' of benchmarks of the same system.

For example, I've ran 3DMark with and without programs like Photoshop, AIM, etc. Huge impact on scores, but my system is not slower than any other that has the same setup.

Another example, my AMD 2800+ XP CPU outpeforms my dads P4 2.53Ghz CPU in every test we've ever ran. His computer is newer than mine, has better hardware than mine, yet I score higher than him.

Understand yet?

so according to you 3dmark is useless. tell tommy boy that it's useless, even though he posted his 3dmark score. everyone saw how extremely low it was and tried to help him out. last i remember, he was able to speed his system up by quite a bit.

you can't necessarily accomplish the same thing with games because some titles have conflicts with specific hardware. 3dmark, for the most part, doesn't. so we can use it as a universal tool to see the general performance of someone's system if they think it's running on the slow side.

you think it's caused more problems for people than it's helped? NO. if you don't want to use it, don't use it. the fact of the matter is that it can help determine if their pc is running in the 'ball-park' speed it should be.

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
so according to you 3dmark is useless. tell tommy boy that it's useless, even though he posted his 3dmark score. everyone saw how extremely low it was and tried to help him out. last i remember, he was able to speed his system up by quite a bit.

you can't necessarily accomplish the same thing with games because some titles have conflicts with specific hardware. 3dmark, for the most part, doesn't. so we can use it as a universal tool to see the general performance of someone's system if they think it's running on the slow side.

you think it's caused more problems for people than it's helped? NO. if you don't want to use it, don't use it. the fact of the matter is that it can help determine if their pc is running in the 'ball-park' speed it should be.

Who determines the 'ball-park speed'. No one but the user who uses 3DMark!

You're missing my point.

3DMark is a synthetic benchmark of a computer system. Synthetic performance benchmarking will not yield the same performance as in actual, real peformance. Granted, my 3DMark scores are low - but my PC still performs the same, if not better than many computers that have better hardware, such as my father's P4.

Just so you can understand, in plain English: Synthetic benchmarks don't allow for realistic computer use which is the key to any real judgement of performance.

3D Mark 2005 released

Who is online