Red birds, green birds and 3DMark06

[LiamC]

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=9293

red bird: "We was robbed!"
green bird: "we r da 1337 cru. w3 r0x!"

 

[time]

Great read, Bill!

The minimum system requirements, from Futuremark's site:

• Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
• DirectX® 9 compatible graphics adapter with Pixel Shader 2.0 support or later
• Graphics memory of 256 MB minimum*
• 1GB of system RAM or more - 1.5GB of free hard disk space
• Windows® XP 32bit operating system with latest Service Packs and updates installed
  DirectX® 9.0c December 2005 or later
  Microsoft Excel® 2003 or XP for some 3DMark functionality
  Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 for some 3DMark functionality

:eekers:

 

[LiamC]

just your average gaming machine really

:roll:

Hasn't converted me to believing in 3DMark either. It really seems pointless as a tool.

 

[time]

Like one of the people who commented on the article, I only use it (3DMark01) for testing system stability.

I did download 3DMark03 a while ago; recently I actually ran it on a couple of newer graphics cards out of curiosity. It did highlight how weak and useless FX5200 cards are, but I already knew that.

 

[Mercutio]

The only use I've seen for 3D mark is for measuring the size of one's E-penis at LAN parties. People with case lights and windows and high 3D Mark scores are invariably overcompensating for the shame of their tiny, tiny pee-pee.

Also, I'm pretty sure that graphics-related "gaming" benchmarking bears about as much resemblance to reality as the last all-girl porno movie I watched, since, about six hours after the NDAs are lifted on every new ATI or nVidia card, we get the story about how they're cheating in 3D Mark with their new hardware.

 

[ddrueding]

I use 3D Mark in a different way. After someone buys a $2000 gaming rig, the first thing I do is show them the latest 3D Mark test. I don't do it to show them the result, but to show them how darn pretty it is. "See? This is what you paid $2000 for." During gaming, they all turn down their graphics and stare at the crosshair, so I needed something else to be pretty. Oh, testing system stability, especially on fanless GPUs, is another good use for it.

 

[sechs]

How many 2.5GHz AMD processors are actually out there?

 

[Sol]

3D Mark is also useful for testing just how much manufacturers have broken the latest SE or other budget version of a card. For comparing two cards with the same core and just differences like memory bandwidth and clock speeds the tests are quite valid...

 

[LiamC]

How many 2.5GHz AMD processors are actually out there?

I thought that as well then read it as meaning 2500+ and the author not knowing the difference. Either way, it doesn't say a lot.

 

[ddrueding]

How many 2.5GHz AMD processors are actually out there?

I thought that as well then read it as meaning 2500+ and the author not knowing the difference. Either way, it doesn't say a lot.

My A64 is running @ 2.48Ghz....

 

[ddrueding]

...of course the PCI Radeon 7000 probably won't do so well.

 

[CougTek]

My Radeon 9550 256MB is already slow for 3D Mark 2003. Even though it has pixel shader 2.0, I don't think it would be enough to play 3D Mark 2006.

 

[Buck]

What's with the bird subject line? I'm waiting for Pradeep to show up with his hunting gear.

 

[ddrueding]

What's with the bird subject line? I'm waiting for Pradeep to show up with his hunting gear.

No sooner had the green bird flown out through the open window, no doubt seeking the shoulder of a pirate with eye patch and peg leg on which to land, than a redbird perched on the top of my monitor, singing a very different song. This creature, too, noted that 3DMark05 was excessively vertex-bound, but its take on the future was considerably grimmer. It warbled a tune of concern that 3DMark06 wouldn't track well with game performance—a, erm, cardinal sin for "the gamer's benchmark."

The redbird then sang several verses of lament over specific issues with 3DMark06. The depth stencil format, explained the first sad stanza, requires a painful pixel-shader-based workaround on some hardware but not on others. Stanza two wistfully noted that no such shader-based workaround is required for the HDR graphics tests with AA—the tests are simply grayed out in the dialog box when antialiasing is enabled on hardware incapable of doing AA alongside 16-bit floating-point texturing and blending. (These were quite lengthy verses, in iambic pentameter.)

 

[Bozo]

You have to wonder what he was smoking when he wrote that article. :eekers:

Or maybe I just don't get it


Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[time]

I thought it was brilliant.

If you don't get the bird references, head on over to a couple of graphics chip manufacturer sites and look at their logos.