I'm Tired of 3DMark Scores Shaming Me Into Buying a New Video Card

T

tfbit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Messages
1,115
I have yet to meet a current game that my 6800 GT OC can't render at a reasonable framerate at 1152x864. I have enjoyed every game I have installed including COD2. Why must the most recent version of 3DMark make me feel like dog poop? I have probably upgraded graphic cards twice just to see increased benchmark scores with no real increased satisfaction in current games. I'm tired buying new cards, at bleeding edge prices just to satisfy my need to have a reputable benchmark score. Anyone else?
 
Well i agree with you that buying a new video card everytime is dumb. But if you have the money go for it. Like me this is my 3rd video card. ATi 7000, VisionTek 9600, and HIS X850XT i changed a video card from about 3 years 9600 to X850 was from AGP to PCI-E. I have 3dmark 05 and just changed to 06 just to see what has changed but i really don't care what 3dmarks says. I think my X850 can hold me on for a while. Im hoping 4-5 years till i get outta college.Then i can build a new comp maybe with an 17800 Ultra/GTX. :D
 
...And the wheel keeps turning...

If 3DMark 06 gave you a score of 50,000, who would feel the pressure to upgrade? That's the marketing side of it. All they need to do is update the software to support tests for new features (HDR, SM 3.0) and leave it at that.

It really doesn't matter though. a 'good' 3DMark score isn't always 10K, and you should not feel pressure to aspire to that point. My 3DMark score was slashed in half and then some (7699 to 3791). But I can still play any game I want :)
 
I'm just tired of the new 3DMark-Upgrade Card cycle. I've bought into it before but I'm not buying into it now. As far as I'm concerned graphic cards are just about reaching the point of "Who cares?" as defined by the acceptable resolution and feature level that I play games at.
 
But it would be pretty cool to have the scores get progressivly bigger over the years. Then you can say "hey man, you remember when 1000 was awsome?" And now we would be at like 10000 and it would feel linear. Then you could still run the older cards and get a similar score as you move up through the program versions. It would make quanitfying the cards much easier.
 
Honestly the only game that has made me want to upgrade is F.E.A.R., yet that was an 8-10 hour game.

I always end up going back to CS / CS: S so there is zero reason for me to upgrade my 6800 GT besides super AA modes.

When I was a little younger I would run out and buy a new video card ASAP, now that I am out of college and have a "real" job and could afford it I have no real desire to get a new video card.

I would rather invest or just put the money into my audio system, a good pair of headphones will still be good a year from now.
 
:eek: :confused:


Why do you let it bother you? If looking at scores on an online forum bothers you that much, then don't look at them. Are you that easily swayed?

Your current setup is good, and your video card is fairly current. So stop worrying about it and enjoy your games. They are meant to be fun! :D :p
 
3DMark is just for fun, most times OCing Fun.
I agree it can be hard some times when you know you should be getting a higher score, makes you want to do what it takes.

In the past 2 weeks I ran 3DMark05 and got a 4000+ score, said BS to that; put in a new fan in my case, OCed my CPU and GPU (9 or 10 times now) and have spent more time OCing and testing then I have playing games... LOL :D
 
I don't even look at 3DMark anymore. I look at FPS results from in game timedemo's and such at different resoluitions. At that, I only make decisions on high res and high FSAA results, since that is what I am into.

I usually upgrade every two years or so, not because of 3dmark, but because I like to be able to set the latest games to reasonably high detail settings and thats about how it has worked out for me.

3DMark...what ever
 
i would have to bet if it wasnt for benchmarks like 3dmark pc hardware probably wouldnt sell as good as it does

about the only thing i can think of doing to my pc is upgrading to a 4400 x2 and possibly buying 2GB's of ram and selling of my 1GB set
 
Good thread!

I agree with post #2. I am running a x850pro and I love it in real gaming (bf2, fear, cod2, quake 2 etc) all run very well (even on higher settings), but for some reason 3dmark keep on trying to make my rig look impotant.
 
3D Mark is pretty much a marketing ploy for graphics companies. they make you feel inferior to people with SLI 7800GTX 512 cards.

But don't be bothered by it. Until playing your favorite games becomes unenjoyable due to poor graphics, or you're into upgrading every two or three years, don't just upgrade because you good a "low" score in 3D Mark.

It's just a benchmark. It doesn't express the fun you can still milk out of a game on a 6800GS. For all you know, you could be having more fun playing those games than people with "faster" cards.

It's the old "I am rubber, you are glue". Just don't pay attention to what the media and the market tells you - make your own decisions.
 
This version of 3Dmark is shaming people into buying a new CPU if anything. Video cards don't have nearly the same impact on final score. It's crazy that you can score 2x the FPS in the video tests but the difference between having dual core or single core cpu makes such a huge difference

I.E. a single card vs sli setup of the same card only makes a 700 point difference (but 2 x FPS in the video tests) while a single core vs dual core CPU makes a 1200+ point difference ( .50fps vs .30 fps in the cpu test...)

I.E. #2 if you have a dual core cpu and like a 7800GT sli vs a single core cpu vs 7800GTX512 the former will score higher than the latter with this benchmark even though the video test scores are much higher.
 
go the easy way.. if the things you want to run are running fine.. why bother with benchmark programs.. If I can run all my applications, games, audio, video fine.. Im not going to worry about what the latest benchmark program says.. its just not worth it.
 
ATI Rage (8MB) at the age of 8. -> Geforce 2 MX 400 -> 9800 pro -> 7800GT. I don't have the money for numbers.
 
What I like about 3DMark, is to see what our existing video cards can do, graphics wise. To see what the game makers, could potentially do, when it comes to graphics.

When it comes to the graphics levels provided in 3DMark06, you won't see that in games for at least another year or two from now, at the very least. So the desire to have to get a new card for that level of graphics isn't really necessary yet.

I would say that if you've got a video card that only supports up to DirectX 8, then to move up to a Nvidia 6xxx or 7xxx, or ATI's equivent, which support DirectX 9, might be in order. If you can afford it, to go w/a mid-level card such as the 7800GT, or ATI equivalent, would be my recommendation. If not, then the 6800GS, on the low end, or ATI's equivalent. The XFX 6800GS XXX, more specifically for the low end. That should be enough of a card to last you for the next two years, at least.

When it comes to a single video card vs. SLI, when I tested, using 3DMark05, if I'm reading my numbers correctly :), I got a score of around 4946 w/one PNY 6800GS, and 10,016 when I tried two PNY 6800GS's in SLI mode. With a single XFX 7800GT, I got around 8,031, and 11,504 when I tried two XFX 7800GT's in SLI mode. While SLI is faster than a single video card, at least w/3DMark05, not all games support SLI yet, but that is changing. SLI is over a year old now, so the games are catching up now.

When it comes to price, a XFX 6800GS XXX is $200 for the low end, $300 for an XFX 7800GT for the mid-range, $500 for an XFX 7800GTX w/256 meg memory for the upper end, and $750 for a XFX 7800GTX w/512 meg memory for the very extreme.

As a note, I'm not bias towards any particular brand. I've owned both. Though ATI does provide much better driver support than Nvidia, in my opinion. When it comes to ATI, I just haven't been following them lately because they haven't had any Nvidia buster like their 9800Pro.
 
the way i see it, if your rig can score 2000 or more in 3dmark06, you shouldnt be ashamed of it :) .
 
3dmark scores only use for me has always been to see if my system/drivers are setup properly. The smart way to upgrade is to only do it when your not satisfied with the performance in a game you actually like. My 6800agp with socket A processor still can run the games i like without looking bad so im happy with that.
 
3DMark is a nifty little real-time visual rendering feast and nothing more. I buy new cards when games start getting sluggish (or when I've been enticed by clever vendor marketing).
 
I BUY A NEW GPraHix kard when IT KANT SCORE OVER BILLI0n IN 3dMark06.
 
Unfortunately, tools like 3DMark do have that effect. Gotta keep up with the Jones.

Like anything in life, there's always something better. House, car, boat, clothes. Living in the consumer culture that we do, we're programmed eveyday that we need more, and tools like 3DMark serve the consumer culture well.

The thing is, are you happy with what you have? If so why spend money just to "feel" like you have more, when in reality, what you have is fine? I guess America won't last long if we as a people really did think like that. Unfortunately, we are often made to feel inadaquate, so we spend, and then realize that what we had was just fine. Sans our money of course.

I admit I suffer from tech glutony from time to time. Every couple of years I like to put together a high end system. But that's the trick. With new stuff comming out everyday, its hard not to feel like I need it. Like with the X1900 coming out, gee, I want that! Makes me feel like my 512 GTX's are crap.

But a few early reviews later and then I realize, its 10% maybe 25% faster, and in the real world that ain't really noticeable anyway.

It would be nice to have it all. but for most of us, we have to make the best with what we've got!
 
peacetilence said:
This version of 3Dmark is shaming people into buying a new CPU if anything. Video cards don't have nearly the same impact on final score. It's crazy that you can score 2x the FPS in the video tests but the difference between having dual core or single core cpu makes such a huge difference

I.E. a single card vs sli setup of the same card only makes a 700 point difference (but 2 x FPS in the video tests) while a single core vs dual core CPU makes a 1200+ point difference ( .50fps vs .30 fps in the cpu test...)

I.E. #2 if you have a dual core cpu and like a 7800GT sli vs a single core cpu vs 7800GTX512 the former will score higher than the latter with this benchmark even though the video test scores are much higher.
Click to expand...

wrong. the 3 parts arent added linearly. Someone with a dual core gets double teh cpu score but only beats my total but like 400-700. Someone with sli beats me by 2-4k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top