3DMark2006 released

[Meshugger]

There be mirrors!

 

Minimum System Recommendations

 

 

Intel

Edited January 18, 2006 by Meshugger

[Pidesco]

Isn't 3DMark only used by people that just want to say they have bigger Richards than everyone else?

Edited January 18, 2006 by Soulseeker

[Meshugger]

Isn't 3DMark only used by people that just want to say they have bigger Richards than everyone else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Somehow, i have the hunch that your computer doesn't match the minimum recommendations

[Pidesco]

Well, my machine barely even ran 3DMark 2003, much less this one, so yes. But my point is that the program is a bit useless when you can use actual games to see if your computer runs whatever you want to play. Why would someone pay 20 bucks for something which is basically a tech demo?

[Meshugger]

Well, my machine barely even ran 3DMark 2003, much less this one, so yes. But my point is that the program is a bit useless when you can use actual games to see if your computer runs whatever you want to play. Why would someone pay 20 bucks for something which is basically a tech demo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The basic package is free. I'm not aware of anyone paying for the advanced version except for reviewers and developers, who want to test the hardware/potential scenario.

[Felix]

3DMark is a big waste of MBs in your Harddrive if you ask me.

Its supposed to see how your computer goes with the upcoming graphics right?

Well 3DMark05 Graphics werent even seen, let alone 2006.

The only thing that was remotely close was 3DMark03.

 

And yes I have the Minium requirments.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I agree that 3Dmark and any such program are a waste of time because they do not measure performance in a game enviroment. Your systems performance with the latest games is what matters.

[angshuman]

While 3DMark does have its flaws, I do not completely agree with the System Performance argument. Graphics is by far the limiting factor that determines performance in most games today. 3DMark05 in particular was considered to be slightly flawed because it was a little too vertex-intensive and was therefore not completely representative of all modern games.

 

While it is true that a lot of people use 3DMark as a willy-waving tool, serious willy wavers will actually use a combination of real game benchmarks to show the sheer power of the graphics chip they designed... no, wait, the graphics chip that they bought with Daddy's cash.

 

I like 3DMark because it's pretty. (w00t) But my favorite was 3DMark2000, it had a very nice demo with great music. They are getting progressively worse each generation (haven't tried this one out yet).

 

Edit: My apologies Kaftan, I had misread your post somewhat, I thought you were advocating stressing the full-system instead of focusing on the graphics subsystem.

Edited January 18, 2006 by angshuman

[Pidesco]

Serious willy wavers? There's something you don't see everyday.

[Haitoku]

From my experience, all these benchmark applications are just for those who feel the need to boast about their superior machines in internet forums.

 

Benchmarks have nothing to do with how actual games perform, thus are useless.

[angshuman]

Serious willy wavers? There's something you don't see everyday.

Wait till I post my scores in this very thread... :ph34r:

[angshuman]

Just ran it.

 

For those of you who are wasting precious bandwidth downloading this, here's my advice... don't bother. The free version is almost exactly the same as 3DMark05, only everything has a little more detail. There is only 1 new test. Plus, they upped the default resolution (which you can't change in the free version) to 1280x1024 in order to bring about the customary reduction in benchmark score that happens with every new 3DMark generation. Pathetic.

 

FWIW I got a score of 3702.

[Meshugger]

I just ran it. I got a most impressive score of 629.