Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested
by Josh Venning on January 18, 2006 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Introduction
Here at Anandtech, performance testing is an important aspect in how we review our hardware. When we are looking at graphics cards, game benchmarks give us a good idea of a card's performance capabilities. We are always interested in new ways to test graphics hardware, and while we often use game benchmarks, there are other tools out there that can be useful for testing computer hardware. One of these programs is 3DMark, a popular benchmarking tool developed by Futuremark, and today marks the release of their latest version of this program, 3DMark06.
There is a kind of interconnectivity between hardware and software wherein each tends to affect and be affected by the other, specifically regarding gaming technology advancements. There are times where certain games or software come about, which test the limits or surpass the capabilities of the graphics hardware at that time. Currently though, we are seeing the opposite situation, where incredibly powerful graphics cards and gaming setups (i.e. SLI, Crossfire) surpass the system requirements of even the most demanding games with the highest settings enabled.
While perhaps frustrating for some people, scenarios like these are are generally good news for the end user, as it creates opportunities for major advancements to occur in the technology of games or game hardware. Right now, the hardware that is available is prompting advancements in game development, and we can't easily predict what types of games we might see in the near or semi-near future. Tools like 3DMark are useful because they give us the ability to test hardware in very different and precise ways that current games cannot.
That being said, 3DMark is essentially a benchmarking tool, and there are limits to its usefulness. We'll talk more about this and run some benchmarks across several graphics boards to give us an idea of how this program stresses our cards. We'll also be talking about some new features in this edition of 3DMark, which look impressive, particularly the High Dynamic Range and Shader Model 3.0 additions.
Here at Anandtech, performance testing is an important aspect in how we review our hardware. When we are looking at graphics cards, game benchmarks give us a good idea of a card's performance capabilities. We are always interested in new ways to test graphics hardware, and while we often use game benchmarks, there are other tools out there that can be useful for testing computer hardware. One of these programs is 3DMark, a popular benchmarking tool developed by Futuremark, and today marks the release of their latest version of this program, 3DMark06.
There is a kind of interconnectivity between hardware and software wherein each tends to affect and be affected by the other, specifically regarding gaming technology advancements. There are times where certain games or software come about, which test the limits or surpass the capabilities of the graphics hardware at that time. Currently though, we are seeing the opposite situation, where incredibly powerful graphics cards and gaming setups (i.e. SLI, Crossfire) surpass the system requirements of even the most demanding games with the highest settings enabled.
While perhaps frustrating for some people, scenarios like these are are generally good news for the end user, as it creates opportunities for major advancements to occur in the technology of games or game hardware. Right now, the hardware that is available is prompting advancements in game development, and we can't easily predict what types of games we might see in the near or semi-near future. Tools like 3DMark are useful because they give us the ability to test hardware in very different and precise ways that current games cannot.
That being said, 3DMark is essentially a benchmarking tool, and there are limits to its usefulness. We'll talk more about this and run some benchmarks across several graphics boards to give us an idea of how this program stresses our cards. We'll also be talking about some new features in this edition of 3DMark, which look impressive, particularly the High Dynamic Range and Shader Model 3.0 additions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."wtf?
stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."Ah, but on the other hand, "There are likely many other uses for this program which we can't mention here".
In any case, this is way more interesting than your average graphics benchmark review.
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
In case you think I'm making that up, its at the end of Page 3. Methinks Josh needs Elimidate more than 3DMark06Orbs - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
LOL! I love Elimidate, although Elimidate would not provide a deep, meaningful connection, but more shallow beauty (admitedly, whoring themselves in public and bitching at each other at an ever increasing volume). Good times.peldor - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
"Right now, the hardware that is available is prompting advancements in game development, and we can't easily predict what types of games we might see in the near or semi-near future."You mean we won't have more WW2 shooters, with the occassional relief Zombie Mutant Alien? But now everything will have Bright Lights and Dark Shadows! Because that seems extremely likely to me. Game developers rarely chase new game types, and it's not really the hardware that motivates them AFAICT.
KingofL337 - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Whats the relation ship of these cards. Which is ahigher performance part?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
X800 Pro = 12 pipelines at 475 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.X800 GTO = 12 pipelines at 400 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.
However, many people have had success in unlocking and/or overclocking GTO cards. If you can get 16 pipelines at 475 MHz, for example, it would be 33% faster on the core than the Pro. If you just overclock to 475 MHz and don't unlock the pipelines, you've got an X850 Pro. (R480 core vs. R420 core, I think? It doesn't make much difference, though.)
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Let the driver "optimizations" begin!PeteRoy - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
No Intel vs AMD?ViRGE - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
3dMark is and always has been primarily a GPU-oriented benchmark, Intel vs. AMD wouldn't tell us much if the GPU is the bottleneck(and if it isn't, all it would tell us is that AMD outperformed Intel like they tend to do in these kinds of tests).