Futuremark: of Benchmarks and Gaming
by Jarred Walton on January 30, 2008 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Software
Enter the Futuremark Games Studio
Why is it that the ideal review needs to look at performance in a large variety of applications/games? It is precisely because it is difficult (if not impossible) to predict performance without such a broad selection of performance results. If we run performance benchmarks on a dozen applications and a component comes out ahead of its competition in all 12 tests, it's reasonably safe to state that this component is going to be faster in the majority of applications. This is currently the case with Intel's Core 2 pitted against AMD's Athlon X2 — and now Phenom — processors. More often, we encounter situations where some applications perform better on one architecture and the remainder are faster on the competition. Depending on the margins of victory, and even more importantly depending on how individual users plan to use their systems, which component is "better" is a matter of perspective.
 |
 |
If Futuremark Games Studio (FGS) can remain true to their roots and release games that include useful benchmarking tools, even better. It's not that difficult to include benchmarking tools with a game that will provide a very accurate overview of performance, but too few developers take the time to do so. Of course, there's a difference between benchmarking a good game and benchmarking junk. Before FGS can become relevant, they need to prove they can actually make games. We'll have to hold off on leveling a verdict in that area for a while. Regardless, getting more titles from more developers is never a bad thing, and if the games have good graphics and they use the graphics engines from the 3DMark utilities, ORB results take one large step away from being purely synthetic.
We're optimistic about what Futuremark Games Studio will be able to do in the gaming market, and with the resources of Futuremark behind them we will hopefully get to see creative new designs rather than cookie-cutter clones pushed out by corporate think-tanks. What we don't know (yet - we're trying to get more details and will update this article if/when they become available) is what sort of games they're planning to release, when they're planning to release them, and whether they'll be PC-exclusive or multi-platform. Given that the press release mentions "new IP", the door is wide open.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
View All Comments
perzy - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
A question for Anandtech:Why dont you say the truth: ATI/AMD cards s**k at OpenGL compared to Nvidia. ATI/AMD has an edge in DirectX instead.
It not just speed but IQ also in OpenGL.
I have found out this the hard way, through my wallet(had to buy a nvidia card because my ATIcard was so bad in UT99) and no thanks to any hardware site.
Are you so firmly corrupted that you cant print that?
Honestly I dont understand. I'm probably an idiot.
MrKaz - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
Living in a rock lately?The ATI/AMD has now surpassed the Nvidia team in OpenGL.
Some thought would be impossible.
http://www.3dprofessor.org/Current%20Reviews.htm">http://www.3dprofessor.org/Current%20Reviews.htm
Also the ATI/AMD has made major steps in Linux that I have doubts that Nvidia is still the leader there too.
The problem is that websites like this one don’t update the tests/results, so everyone still thinks Nvidia is the ultimate king.
Hey AMD kicked Intel balls for 6 years and lots of people saw Intel products has the “better” during that time without any "knowledge".
I bet people like you still things ATI Opengl drivers still suck based on 1999 tests. Nice way to go out and live 2008.
greylica - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
Open device drivers is the most important step to ensure a new openGL market will rise again. AMD still didn't give a totally free device driver, but the manual of certain cards to developers, as far as I know.I am waiting to see, but the results of the V8600 are impressive.
But the Consumer Radeon still s**ks a lot in OpenGL device drivers in Windows and in Linux. I am a Blender/Linux user.
Most of Nvidia cards ( even if it's not a quadro card ) is very good in OpenGL/Linux environment.
In the past I have problems with device drivers "optimized" for games in directX, and in the past there was an card that simply doesn't have the OpenGL client device drivers too.
On the other hand, the mayor problem of AMD/ATI is advertising here in Brazil. Intel is on some channels once a week. I ask:
Where is AMD products ?
Proteusza - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
UT99? You mean 9 years ago, when 3D was still quite new? Um... Do you know how long 9 years is in computing? Please dont tell me you still dont buy ATI because of that!Also remember that, at the time, Glide was huge. So UT probably didnt run very well on anything except 3dfx cards. have a look at modern benchmarks with games like Quake IV and Doom 3. As far as I remember, there isnt much of a difference.
Another thing - how many modern games use OpenGL? I can only think of the 2 examples above.
teldar - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
That and as far as IQ, is that supposed to mean AI? AI is based on other game code other than visual, and the GPU doesn't have anything to do with AI. That's all CPU based. So how is it AMD's fault if there was something wrong with the AI on your computer?T
chrnochime - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
I think he meant I[/B}mage Q[/B}uality.crimson117 - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
wonder if that will fix the bolding...
crimson117 - Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - link
maybe two will do it?