3DMark 2006

[Koroush Ghazi]

AMD Zone have a comparision article for 3DMark, and come to a similar conclusion to that which I ranted about earlier on the front page:

3DMark 2006 is certainly good for eye candy, but we would not recommend one use it as the main reason for choosing hardware. We always must recommend real world application performance numbers to synthetic tests any day of the week.

Among other things it appears to have 'Intel Optimizations' which give illogical results in the CPU test.

[SortYa]

I read a review on Guru3d.com of 3DMark2006 and sadly they said it was really good. From the review...

Don't you just love what the new updated '06 has become?

*sigh*. I agree with you Koroush in that its pretty disappointing, even as a benchmark tool as opposed to real world game performance.

I usually agree with most of the reviews done on Guru3d.com done by the admin there, Hillbert, but not this one

[tharawdeal]

Hm, I'm new to the benchmarking scene, so... I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. My PC is not top of the line by any standard, but it still did a good job with FEAR, CoD2, etc., even before I reformatted and optimized. I could never play with all the eye-candy maxed out, but it looked great and ran fine. I don't know how my pre-optimization score would have compared to my current setup, but here are my scores, for what they are worth:

3DMark Score: 1994
SM2.0 Score: 1072
CPU Score: 762

It was pretty much a slideshow the whole time--I think the max FPS I got was in the "Return to Proxycon" scene, topping out at a whopping 15 and mostly in the single-digits thereafter The CPU test was disgusting, but from what I gather it was pretty bad all around. I found one other person with the same CPU/Graphics card and beat him by 23 points overall. Of course, I did have .5 gig more RAM than he did.

[WarDragon]

Burr, that sucked. My results are horrible, lol.

3DMark Score: 2583
SM2.0 Score: 1091
HDR/SM3.0 Score: 988
CPU Score: 997

I got that on a:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU @ 2.55 GHz
Motherboard: EPoX 9NPA+ Ultra
RAM: GeIL Value 1GB(2x512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM @ 275 MHz [2.5 8-4-4]
Graphics: eVGA GeForce 6800 GS [Core: 479 MHz Memory: 1.05 GHz]
Hard Drive: Maxtor DiamondMax 10 200GB w/16MB Buffer

[Volacide]

It just occured to me how rare it is to see anyone showcasing an Intel CPU in their signature anywhere.

[WarDragon]

Originally Posted by Volacide

It just occured to me how rare it is to see anyone showcasing an Intel CPU in their signature anywhere.

Haha, that's because we all know better, lol.

[fo0t]

It just occured to me how rare it is to see anyone showcasing an Intel CPU in their signature anywhere.

There is nothing wrong with intel's. I'm perfectly content with my Pentium D. Might just be me but I think I made the right choice.

[Koroush Ghazi]

At the moment most people are choosing AMD because of its generally better performance in gaming, but please let's not turn this into a fanboyish affair.

[Volacide]

Just interesting that Futuremark would optimize for Intel and not AMD where the Gaming market clearly puts all their money.

[bisby]

eh, where the gaming sector is putting their money right NOW... maybe 2006 should be amd optimized... but its hard to switch around who you are going to optimize with all the time, they probably have a contract or something... and with the 65nm stuff getting ready for actually making something of itself, mayhaps intel can still make a comeback... amd isnt even to 65nm and intel already is prepped for 45nm... at this rate they can put their memory controller onchip too and still have more room than AMD..... just imagine that