3DMark 2006 -
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/3DMark 2006 -
Its available and I need a new PC!
:(
6 fps on the first two demos - which really really look like excerpts from 3D rendered films not real time demos!!!!!!!
and I had to quit the third demo as I was waiting about 6 seconds to update each frame! Ah well.
Stunning work people - Mustang you must be very proud. Get it now if you wanna find out if your PC is up to the task or if you just want to see some bleeding edge demos!
I have a 768MB Ram Athlon 19+ prcessor running at 1.614 MHz (so Im told by 3dmark)
nVidia 256 MB 6600
SoundBlaster Audigy 1
and it doesn't come close to cutting the mustard - sadly.
IPete2.
PS Avon - I'd like to hear your results sometime but it is 576MB download!!!!
The tests crawl on every pc, i only got as high as 18fps on a couple of scenes.
3800 3dmark2006 points.
Mmm, I have a 64bit AMD 3200 with 1.5GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon x800 XL.
I think I will give it a miss.
puki - ha ha ha I think you'll see some good styuff on that kinda rig.
IPete2.
LOL.. I didn't even get a frame a second on my IBM T42.. :p
I thought it was kind of a cop out... same scenes as the '05 version. :(
Just ignore it, it's only a penis size tester for PC n00bs anyway.
@Kanati - Oh I didnt see 2005 last one I had was with Nature and dragons and 4x4s
@ENAY - Dont be a rude dude - this is cool stuff - and Mustang is one of benchmark team - er I think. - oh and to insinuate that I am a 'noob' is insulting lol.
IPete2.
exact same score as johndevoy, might be because i have the exact same config :)
First time I've ever bothered to download a 3dMark proggy.
Anyhow, I got freaking slaughtered in the CPU test, 0.2 FPS, got 1748 "3dMarks" in the end result...which I guess is a low number.
(AMD64 3200+ w/ 256mb GF6800 GT)
But man, those graphic demos are freaking gorgeous....cant wait until the hardware catches up with the software that doesn't require a fortune to purchase...., the fact my GF6800 GT cant keep a steady 5+ FPS across all the graphic tests tells me that even the latest hardware on the market wont be able to cope a steady fps either...
Btw, is there supposed to be any sound with the actual tests, because I'm hearing none here on my setup, though there is sound with the demo.
Would love to try-out them Feature tests one day, but I really cant justify purchasing a bench-marking utility on my current budget, no matter how pretty the 3dMark06 Basic-package tests look.
Just ignore it, it's only a penis size tester for PC n00bs anyway.
I'm sure some ppl think that way - I think it's useful tool for testers. And of course ppl who have year old cards that perform badly think it's useless.... but 3DMark is forward looking app, it has to be valid at least a year. Yet we have even now results over 10K. The gap between mid-range and hi-end just keeps getting wider and have to make it heavy enough for the OC'd SLI GF7800GTX's.
and Mustang is one of benchmark team - er I think.
Yup, although I was more like support role in this one... I was busy with several other projects we did (like 3DMark®Mobile06) and have in progress.
I thought it was kind of a cop out... same scenes as the '05 version. :(
Some ways, maybe... but check the comparison shots and explanation what has changed under the hood technically:
http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark06/?comparison
I got freaking slaughtered in the CPU test, 0.2 FPS,
CPU test is is *fixed frame* based, so FPS number is not the FPS number your used to. Check the help files for more comprehensive explanation.
Btw, is there supposed to be any sound with the actual tests, because I'm hearing none here on my setup, though there is sound with the demo.
No sound in the tests - they test GFX-cards, not audio. Having sounds there might (and would) cause problems and alter the test results depending what sound card you have. Demo is for "total experience", it has sounds and extended scenes.
PS Avon - I'd like to hear your results sometime but it is 576MB download!!!!
I like 3DMark, and purchased the 2001SE edition because it helped me find the most stable set of drivers for my card at the time.
As to this edition, I don't have the bandwidth to spare to download it, unfortunately. However, as you've already got it, I'll let you burn it to CD and post it to me if you insist! ;)
> this is cool stuff
Yeah, nice pics and all. But what games actually have gfx this good on any platform? It just makes you think your PC is really old before it's time, when actually it's not.
I could make or render something really awesome and cause my machine to grind to a halt.
It's pointless programs like these which harm game dev, pushing hardware forward before it's even needed.
All you get is people posting their specs, pretty much bragging who's PC is the best.
I mean, who gives a flying @#$£ ? I don't :)
I got a score of 2006. I had about 6 fps in the non-cpu demos. IN the cpu ones, i have about 0.3 fps. It's utterly stupid and beyond me why they'd include SUCH a demanding test for the CPU? Why even show us any pictures instead of just a black screen? And it sux you cant skip some tests in the free version. Other than that, it's impressive. I was most impressed by HDR and soft shadows in the zeppelin scene. The shadows are also amazing, as well as scattering of some sort, on the snow scene.
You guys should know that this is made to test and twist the newest hardware until 2007. That means no commercial config should be able to go past the 25 fps mark this year. Tho it's frustrating to be unable to see the eye candy, it's a valid point ... to some extent.
my config 6800gt 256, 1gb ram, p4 2.8 ghz
ENAy, how is pushing hardware forward bad? You can still use the old hardware if you want to, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. You just have more options with newer GPUs. I don't see anything wrong with new generation GPUs having chips for calculating physics on their own. Did you like HL2 physics if you played it? Well i did, and i'd want them to improve. I used to feel a bit like you when i had an outdated card, but i admitted to myself its just to make myself feel better. Hahaha, in fact, some geeks look at their PCs like middle aged men look at their cars...
It's good that they have low fps because in order for the test to be valid no GPU must break the barrier of say 75 fps. To make sure that doesnt happen this year, until they release 3dmark 07, they must make these huge requirements. If a GPU did come out that broke the barrier and went above 75fps for example, the benchmark would loose its validity in a way. However, i do agree we should be given options to reduce certain things to make it go higher fps just to see the eye candy, but it would be hardly as nice if we did that.
It's utterly stupid and beyond me why they'd include SUCH a demanding test for the CPU? Why even show us any pictures instead of just a black screen?
Ahem - RTFM if I may kindly suggest... FPS does NOT mean FPS like every peep seem to understand - it's FIXED FRAME FPS, which is totally different. And CPU like GPU tests have to be heavy because people have already so fast HW and 3DMark has to test something at least a year from now... it would suck as a benchmark if everybody would get 1000 fps in gfx tests, right?
The 3DMark06 CPU tests consist of a game scene with a maze of canyons, and 87 fast-moving game units ("bots", speeder bikes and hovering tanks). The speeders attempt to navigate to a goal position at a castle at the other end of the canyon system, all the while avoiding the defending tanks, and collisions with other speeders. The tanks attempt to hunt down the speeders, and shoot them.
The game scene yields three types of load in the CPU tests: game logic, physics and path finding AI. The game logic, including the graphics engine operation, runs in a single main thread that also drives the other two tasks. The physics simulation runs in a single separate thread, and is synched with the main thread at each physics step. The pathfinding AI runs in a number of worker threads (the number of threads is scaled with available processors), and is synched with the main thread at set intervals, generally some multiple of the physics step interval. The path finding algorithm used is D* Lite (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Sven.Koenig/) and the physics are using the AGEIA PhysX library (http://www.ageia.com).
The CPU tests are run in fixed frame rate (2fps) to make a more equal CPU load for all systems. The resolution is locked to 640x480 and the tests use no dynamic shadows to decrease the graphics performance influence on the result.
Test 1:
Higher path finding task complexity
Tighter AI synchronization intervals
Duration 40 frames
Shader Profile 2_0
Test 2:
Lower path finding task complexity
Laxer AI synchronization intervals
Duration 60 frames
Shader Profile 2_0
Both CPU tests are forward looking, since CPU technology is clearly is moving towards either virtual or physical dual core technology. The CPU tests are mainly designed for dual systems, either with an on-chip solution or with two separate CPUs, but are an excellent CPU test for single core processors as well. Professional reviewers can disable the other CPU or the other core of a virtual or physical dual core system, and compare the results.
And it sux you cant skip some tests in the free version.
Yup - full über-version for free would have been so much better :P
ENAy, how is pushing hardware forward bad? You can still use the old hardware if you want to, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. You just have more options with newer GPUs. I don't see anything wrong with new generation GPUs having chips for calculating physics on their own. Did you like HL2 physics if you played it? Well i did, and i'd want them to improve. I used to feel a bit like you when i had an outdated card, but i admitted to myself its just to make myself feel better. Hahaha, in fact, some geeks look at their PCs like middle aged men look at their cars...
It's good that they have low fps because in order for the test to be valid no GPU must break the barrier of say 75 fps. To make sure that doesnt happen this year, until they release 3dmark 07, they must make these huge requirements. If a GPU did come out that broke the barrier and went above 75fps for example, the benchmark would loose its validity in a way. However, i do agree we should be given options to reduce certain things to make it go higher fps just to see the eye candy, but it would be hardly as nice if we did that.
Agree 100% you said here... newest 3DMark is NOT really meant for testing something like 6 months old 3D-cards, it's meant for THE top of today and anything coming after this day... we always recommend using older 3DMark for testing older generation cards.
Well Mustang - I think all praise to you guys - it simply reminds us of where we want to be...not where we are.
For me even though I can't run the demos properly with my old pc - I think they are FABSTASTIC - and Yaa boo sucks to anyone who doesnt agree, for whatever reason:
;)
IPete2.
stanger... I certainly appreciate the extra stuff that's in this version. It brought my machine to it's knees. But I did see the extra detail in the scenes. I was just looking forward to some new "oooh. ahhhhh." scenes.
Though I did like the snow thing. :)
Kanati
I'm sure some ppl think that way - I think it's useful tool for testers.
And one can certainly understand how some people might think that way since some high-performance computer companies market their stuff as having so-and-so many 3DMarks.
While I can certainly see how nVidia engineers can use it as a tool, most people DO infact use it as a stick for measuring ePenises, and trying to argue to the contrary seems rather ignorant.
And sure it'll be great when games start looking this good. Ofcourse by then there won't be much game left, but I suppose you really can't have your cake and eat it.
This is just the perfect evidence as to why the games industry has turned out like this. :(
I don't see why 3dmark represents the games industry falling... Surely the companies who code the games, the programmers, are the ones to blame here. Just because you have better graphics, isn't an excuse not to have good gameplay. That arguement is confusing...
Surely the companies who code the games, the programmers, are the ones to blame here.
Actually no. I believe the main blame is on marketing types. Once you've blamed them, blame designers next. Now should a game have ethical and factual marketing, a decent and interesting design, then you can start blaming the people who've created the game.
3DMark is just often used for things it wasn't designed to do. It's not particularly FutureMarks fault either - they have to make a living too, and where would all those ex-demo scene people go if it wasn't for companies like FutureMark? Making another Tomb Raider, Hitman or Total Overdose? No thanks - I'll take another 3DMark any day.
Heheh, I can't even be bothered to argue or make a defence, there's no hope for ya, that's all I can say. :)
> ex-demo scene people go if it wasn't for
> companies like FutureMark?
Yeah but if I recall demo scene people were there to make awesome demos that pushed a system to its limits. I can remember some outstanding demos on systems such as the Amiga, which pushed the boundaries of the Amiga whether it be gfx, music or both.
I don't see how making something thet runs incredibly sluggish on modern systems is impressive in the slightest.
No hope for who exactly? I wouldn't buy a game that has great graphics and nothing in the way of gameplay.
@ Flameduck
Yeah, i see where your coming from there :o)
Enay, you say you "don't care", but here you are, posting your hatred. hehe.
Why are you so angry?
- Yes, the games industry is stagnant right now. Blame is put on the focus on graphics over everything else. I agree with this.
-Think about this: what will happen after we reach this goal of perfect photorealism? Think! The focus will shift to other areas.
Developers will then begin to use what we learned on the road to photorealism to push graphics in other, more artistically-free directions.
Tools for generating detailed art will become easier and more intuitive to use; strain on the developers will subside while efficiency goes up.
After the photorealism fad wanes, you, Enay, will have
complete artistic control over your creations, easy, intuitive
tools to create them, and an audience with the hardware
to run them.
Why on earth are you complaining?
-Think about this: what will happen after we reach this goal of perfect photorealism? Think! The focus will shift to other areas.
What makes you think we will ever reach even close to perfect photorealism? And even if we do, the price for providing photorealistic content would be prohibitive.
Tools for generating detailed art will become easier and more intuitive to use; strain on the developers will subside while efficiency goes up.
So your argument is that as complexity goes up, the tools required will become easier to use? I can see quite a few flaws in that assumption.
Actually... I don't think he means that AS it INCREASES, the tools will get easier to use. But that once realism is achieved, there's nowhere else to go, so development will turn to tools and making them easier to use.
I'm not sure about this, the last 3DMark was a massive download for about two minutes of demo footage that ran so slowly it was very hard to tell what was going on.
There was of course loads of other content I downloaded but I couldn't see it without registering and I couldn't see the point in registering the product just to use it 2-3 times a year with a product that has a shelf life of max 2 years. Not that I don't appreciate great computer art (I'm a long time member of digiatalblaphemy), just I'm not a reviewer or a hardware junkie.
I usually have decent hardware i.e. enough to run any current game comfortably and if I have a problem with performance I usually upgrade. However Futuremark is so far ahead of what I actually need IMHO it's lost it's relevance, certainly to the man on the street.
Is this one in any way different from the last one, apart from being more demanding ? Will I see anything different?
Darkheart
The thing is, don't buy it, download it or use it then :o) It's completely your choice :o) I don't think my poor computer would do very well with 3dmark :o)
So your argument is that as complexity goes up, the tools required will become easier to use? I can see quite a few flaws in that assumption
Alright, consider this:
Can you write a directX 7 3d engine with Assembly? Sure, but it would take insurmountable effort.
Nowadays, we have higher-level tools such as c++, B3d, etc.
In other words, the level of complexity we are able to acheive has gone up, but the tools have become easier to use.
I see no reason for this trend to stop anytime soon.
What makes you think we will ever reach even close to perfect photorealism?
At the rate we are getting there, I can't believe you are even saying that. ;)
We'll get there. Probably soon too, at this rate.
(I'm only considering the visual side of things. Animation, AI, refined interactivity - those will all take much longer to achieve.)
What makes you think we will ever reach even close to perfect photorealism?
I should also mention that this goal of perfect photorealism (like everything in life) isn't a solid line.
"Hitting that goal" will mean nothing more than us hitting a threshold in visual quality at which most
people won't be able to tell whether something is real or Digital AND/OR developers feel they are
able to express themselves with few enough restrictions. (Nintendo is already at this stage!)
Whether we hit "perfect" photorealism is irrelevent (The event will probably not even get much media attention).
The day visuals are "good enough" to fool anyone - that's the day "the goal has been reached". That day is soon.
My humble opinion.
However Futuremark is so far ahead of what I actually need IMHO it's lost it's relevance, certainly to the man on the street.
Nah... thing is that Mark was released just days ago so of course it's "heavy" for 95% of the systems out there, yet there are scores over 10000 already. And some peeps are even submitting scores from systems that has 2+2 processors... crazy.
Once the next generation of cards come to market they will be much faster than GF7800GTX for example and of course new cards will lower the price of old ones... so six months from now even the "man on the street" can have fast card in his brand new comp with reasonable price tag on it - and run 3DMark somekind of (almost reasonable) framerate. Progress is stunnigly fast these days.
But yes, the gap is widening between "entry level" LE/SE crap compared to HyperTurboEXTcy SLICrossFires and we have to make our product load mainly for the high-end... and I guess that people using Blitz are not most HC OC'rs so not many here have a system capable of running it - even I have at home measly ATI 9600XT... and I sure wouldn't dream of trying to run 3DMark06 on that. :)
3d mark shows what should be in the next generation of graphics cards.
Oh, come on, is no one going to challenge my argument? I can sure find some holes in it!
I'm not (anytime in the short- to medium-term at least) going to have a system that can run any of these graphical tour-de-forces to any watchable degree, much like many others.
I was wondering what the possibility is of someone (Futuremark themselves, perhaps?) producing a nice clear .avi or whatnot of the demo so that us lesser-folk can at least share in the wonder that is the digital art on show? No benchmarking or anything, just video of the pretty pretties.
I had a look around briefly, but couldn't find anything around apart from a couple of 'sneak previews'. Any thoughts?
Drew, you mean this?:
The day visuals are "good enough" to fool anyone - that's the day "the goal has been reached". That day is soon.
Getting things LOOK photorealistic just makes things worse:
http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=52937&hl=uncanny%20valleySo there, You've been punk'd-- er, challenged. :)
I was wondering what the possibility is of someone (Futuremark themselves, perhaps?) producing a nice clear .avi or whatnot of the demo so that us lesser-folk can at least share in the wonder that is the digital art on show? No benchmarking or anything, just video of the pretty pretties.
We have made for internal use such videos with full audio... I think they were HD/DivX rezz even at best.
But some users have also been busy making videos, I can try to dig up few links once I get to work... users can't dump the frames from the demo, so making a perfect video out of that is something only we can do.
It doesn't have to be good - just.... indicative, I suppose.
I don't mind not being able to run it, but not being able to *see* it just means I'm missing out on an annual geek-culture phenomenon. And more so every year.
I don't like the new measurements in 3dmark06.
Use_Tests(3dmark05 +add lights +add decor items)
If SM2.0b_found= true then set score.test4=0 and score.test5=0
If amdx2_found= then cpu_score=cpu_score*2
For me this *is* no longer a real benchmark.
Just a platform for hardware sellers and main sponsors.
Also the demo version is so crippled why use it anyway.
This inane topic is still going on?
> For me this no longer a real benchmark.
Finally someone talking some sense. (Apart from the typo) Well done :)
...just thought I'd mention this whole video thing again in case anyone thought I'd lost interest. :o)
3DMark06_DEMOXViD640X480.avi, 339mb, demo from start to end credits (wo-hoo, my name is in that :)):
http://files.filefront.com/3DMark06avi/;4642697;;/fileinfo.html
I have not tested this link / video myself, so...
Enay, have you read my first post? Or are you just ignoring it?
;)
You Sir are worthy of every envious look I've ever received when bragging that I even frequent the same forum as you. :o)
Thankyou.
> Enay, have you read my first post?
> Or are you just ignoring it?
I am sorry to say that since upgrading to Enay@#!*2006 patch 280106 I am incompatible with old postings.
Hehe, fair enough.
[edit]
Oh, by the way, Mustang. The uncanny valley will indeed be a problem for rendering humans in games, but how many games (interesting games) have plain old realistic people walking around? If your character design is creative, you could theoretically avoid the uncanny valley. (maybe)
Also, the uncanny valley only applies to human or human-like things. Mountains, lakes, cars, cats (most of a game's visuals) will not suffer from this problem.
With my computer below I got 2002 3DMarks.
=/
Oh, by the way, Mustang. The uncanny valley will indeed be a problem for rendering humans in games, but how many games (interesting games) have plain old realistic people walking around? If your character design is creative, you could theoretically avoid the uncanny valley. (maybe)
Also, the uncanny valley only applies to human or human-like things. Mountains, lakes, cars, cats (most of a game's visuals) will not suffer from this problem.
True, this is a problem with humanlike chraracters (and animals IMO!) mostly... the closer they look like real humans, the closer they'd have match other real things like expressing subtle emotions and sub-animations etc.
Cars, lakes etc don't have these so you can make them enough realistic almost today without breaking the illusion of "real".
3DMark06_DEMOXViD640X480.avi, 339mb, demo from start to end credits (wo-hoo, my name is in that :)):
files.filefront.com/3DMark06avi/;4642697;;/fileinfo.html
I have not tested this link / video myself, so...
Anyone managed to download this yet? I've had five goes at it (with and without a download manager) and after crawling along at a snail's pace (even on broadband) it keeps bombing out about halfway through, and then requires 'authentication' to resume.
Isn't it always the way? ;o\