This whole 3Dmarks thing causes me to wonder about several things.
I've read a large number of people saying just what pHaestus did about the latest 3Dmark "03", "...was bunk". And for much the same reason as pHaestus gave. How can the 3D03 marks give a Nvidia card that scored quite closely with a Ati card in "01" only a score 30% of the Ati card when it was in the 90% range before? Given the fact that many people do use this benchmark as a major determining factor when buying a card, how could you not be upset if you were in nVidia's situation? I think nVidia was right to claim right off that the newest marks was BS. They have now, seems to me, to have shot themselves in the foot by altering their product to run the Marks. Tends to discredit what they started out saying.
The whole thing is a cluster ****.
Deciding on a card now, for me, is going to be based on what I read in forums regarding user experiance with them. Not based on speed, but on dependablity & other side issues. Why be concerned with the speed anymore? The frame rates, run by all the now leading cards, are above move rates.
Perhaps that last part is why these companys are trying so hard to make sure they look good running these benches. They themselves relize that it's getting harder to tell the differances in the cards just by reguler users day to day use.
All rather twisted and strange to watch.
|