3DMark2006 is out.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-01-18 02:26pm

More of the same as far as 3DMark is concerned but on the plus side the graphics have gotten some serious shader upgrades. Plus the new demo(A shadow demo in the great frozen north.) is damn pretty effective in it's use of shadows.

Once agian the new 3DMark makes computers cry and mine pushed out a bare 4023 off my old 2005 Score of 7420.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-01-18 02:30pm

Whats your specs? I have it DLed but I'm afraid to run it with the EaW DL running, it might this machine up.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-01-18 06:31pm

Ace Pace wrote:Whats your specs? I have it DLed but I'm afraid to run it with the EaW DL running, it might this machine up.

AMD 3800
Geforce 7800 GTX OC about 10% above default values in Core/Mem.
2 Gig DDR400 Ram running at Cas 3
The rest is standard, an Asus board, two drives(Not RAID'd) running on Win XP with SP2.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-18 07:00pm

Is it still horrifically biased depending on which company paid them more in the past year?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-01-18 07:12pm

weemadando wrote:Is it still horrifically biased depending on which company paid them more in the past year?

The sites are testing that now but so far it seems Intel/AMD unbiased. ATI/Nvidia is still in question.

Besides they know better after 2003 that any program they release will be gone over line by line to dectect any more hanky panky.

Instant Sunrise · Post by **Instant Sunrise** » 2006-01-18 07:59pm

500 some odd megs for 3DMark 05 with HDR?

My system choked on 03 when I last ran it.

I'll pass on this. I like living in the illusion that I have a computer worth a damn.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-01-18 11:45pm

7096 3DMarks

SM2.0 Score - 3245

HDR/SM3.0 Score - 3094

CPU Score - 1783

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-01-19 06:42am

Jesus Christ, I barely scrapped in 2000 3D marks.

I'm running a Raedon x850XT and 2 gigs of DDR 400. All clocked normaly.

What kills my computer however is the lowely Athlon 64 3000, also clocked at the standard 1800 mhz rather then the 2000 I usualy have it on.

The CPU tests were just absurdly bad. I got 0 FPS on both. Never seen something chug like THAT before.

Weird. My card at 1280 X 1024 (my LCD's max and native resoloution) plays Battlefield 2, Far Cry, CS Source, HL2 and so on all absoloutly perfectly on maximum settings.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-01-19 06:47am

Chris OFarrell wrote:Weird. My card at 1280 X 1024 (my LCD's max and native resoloution) plays Battlefield 2, Far Cry, CS Source, HL2 and so on all absoloutly perfectly on maximum settings.

You answered your own question.

Those are all GPU bound games, the CPU isnt doing too much heavy lifting at that resolution

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-01-19 06:59am

ggs wrote:
Chris OFarrell wrote:Weird. My card at 1280 X 1024 (my LCD's max and native resoloution) plays Battlefield 2, Far Cry, CS Source, HL2 and so on all absoloutly perfectly on maximum settings.
You answered your own question.

Those are all GPU bound games, the CPU isnt doing too much heavy lifting at that resolution

I know

But frankly, I do like the way those games work, using the video card and leaving the CPU as free as possible. And it appears to be more and more the way game design is going.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-01-19 08:19am

Chris OFarrell wrote:
ggs wrote:
Chris OFarrell wrote:Weird. My card at 1280 X 1024 (my LCD's max and native resoloution) plays Battlefield 2, Far Cry, CS Source, HL2 and so on all absoloutly perfectly on maximum settings.
You answered your own question.

Those are all GPU bound games, the CPU isnt doing too much heavy lifting at that resolution
I know

But frankly, I do like the way those games work, using the video card and leaving the CPU as free as possible. And it appears to be more and more the way game design is going.

Wait, leaving the CPU having its time off is a good thing?

Now with games such as CS:S, BF2 and other such multiplayer games you can have some rational for that but Far Cry?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-01-19 10:15am

It allows the cpu to be used more extensivly for AI, physics and all the other stuff that is not graphics.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-01-19 10:21am

mmar wrote:It allows the cpu to be used more extensivly for AI, physics and all the other stuff that is not graphics.

I think your reading on this thread has been faulty. He's been saying he likes the CPU more idle while a graphics card works more.

If the CPU is having an easy time, it is NOT being used for AI, physics and etc.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-01-19 06:54pm

Ace Pace wrote:
mmar wrote:It allows the cpu to be used more extensivly for AI, physics and all the other stuff that is not graphics.
I think your reading on this thread has been faulty. He's been saying he likes the CPU more idle while a graphics card works more.

If the CPU is having an easy time, it is NOT being used for AI, physics and etc.

No, he was right. I was saying that having a GPU doing the *graphics work* is good because it leaves the CPU as free as possible for the other things a game needs, which more and more these days are demanding greater use of the CPU.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2006-01-21 04:40am

Waste of time this download was.

The frozen tundra demo looks a thousand times worse in motion than it does in still screenshots.

I scored about 1500 with my 6800 OC, a 12 pipe card.

Darth Quorthon · Post by **Darth Quorthon** » 2006-01-22 11:01pm

I got 4244 3DMarks at 1280x1024, and 5029 at 1024x768.

Time to start saving money for a new videocard to put in SLI with the one I have now.