An even more updated Test Suite

In Part 1 we introduced our new test suite; this edition brings some refinements and four additions, but (believe it or not) it is still not complete. It isn't our goal to simply throw numbers into space and see what happens, so we are really focusing on honing our benchmarks to make them as robust and accurate as possible. As such, we have had to forgo a few additions that we really wanted to make, and we've had to drop one of the titles we had included in Part 1. This is how the new suite looks as things stand for this article:

Aquamark3

C&C Generals: Zero Hour

EVE: The Second Genesis

F1 Challenge '99-'02

Final Fantasy XI

GunMetal

Halo

Homeworld 2

Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Neverwinter Nights: Shadow of Undrendtide

SimCity 4

Splinter Cell

Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness

Tron 2.0

Unreal Tournament 2003

Warcraft III: Frozen Throne

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

X2: The Threat

Our previous Flight Simulator benchmark just didn't push the game far enough, and we are hard at work trying to find a benchmark that better reflects gameplay and is completely repeatable. We have really appreciated your feedback, and we ask that you continue to suggest games for possible inclusion in the suite. Just so you'll know what we already have slated to make it in "When their done" (to borrow from 3DRealms), these games will be added either as we finalize a benchmarking procedure for them or as they are released:

Doom3

MS Flight Simulator 2004

Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII

Halflife 2

FIFA Soccer 2004

We wanted to include Battlefield in this review unfortunately we were still unable to come up with a repeatable test to include. We have looked at other tests on the net and would rather use something a bit more scientific if possible but it's going to take some more time. If anyone from the Battlefield community has any suggestions on how to reliably benchmark the game, we're all ears.

 

As we received some criticism that the CPU we used in Part 1 wasn't fast enough, we upgraded our testbed for Part 2; the test system we used is as follows:

AMD Athlon64 FX51

1GB DDR400 (2x512MB)

nForce3 motherboard

With all of that out of the way, it's time to get to the benchmarks…

Index Aquamark3 IQ
Comments Locked

117 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    yea I agree with what #3 said..hardly any commentary on the IQ... and If I'm not mistaken, aren't the new cats going to be out tomorrow???? If so, you might as well do the whole thing over again...
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    #3, go away you fanboy. There was absolutely no IQ difference between the CAT 3.7 and 52.14 drivers.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    i'm sure intel will be happy to hear that you 'upgraded' your prescott to an FX.
  • dvinnen - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    errr, a lot of the piture links aren't wrking, like teh halo iq one and TR:AoD
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    Um...

    Why was there nothing noting the difference between nVidia and ATI's in the IQ section? nVidia looks absolutely horrid compared to the ATI.
  • AgaBooga - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    I saw more opinions in this article leaning towards Nvidia, especially around the Tomb Raider benchmarks. More specifically, starting with the page regarding compilers. I liked this articles, but there could have been less opinionated viewpoints on this. Also, it might be better if we get names of authors with what they typed, so we know who typed what, because some of this sure didn't sound like something Mr. Shimpi has written in the past...
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    i'm still reading..............

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now