3dmark 06

Computers, Gadgets and other Cool Shit

Moderator: Demon Hunters

User avatar
Gnomerman
Posts: 1814

3dmark 06

Post#1 » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:48 pm

yeah its only a benchmark... aka situationally useful at best.

but what does your rig get?

1280x1024 resolution. whatever the settings are on the basic install you get for free from the futuremark website

my pc scores around 4600

the rig i build for my brother is about 12700 (i have yet to do it with the newer drivers though)

link is (this will cripple a decent graphics card)
http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark06/download/

once computer hardware hits 10k with a futurmark 3dmark, they come out with a new version, 3dmark vantage is out. i haven't run it yet, but im excited to.

note, vantage requires vista, becuase it requires dx10 (i've heard its possible to run dx10 in xp, but thats more work than is worth imo
Image


There is more to life than pew pew you know, like staying out of the fire so you can live to pew pew another day

User avatar
Arlan
Posts: 541

Post#2 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:54 pm

Downloading it now...going to be a while though.

User avatar
100
Lealla
Class Leader
Posts: 3797
Contact:

Post#3 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:29 am

3110 3DMarks. Not unexpected.
Image
Image

User avatar
Arlan
Posts: 541

Post#4 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:07 pm

Not bad, I got a 10809 running @1680x1050. I guess that's decent considering that with the exception of my video card, this is a 2 year old system.

The fastest system crushes mine though:

Core i7 965 @4GHz
Radeon 4870 X2

Scores a 35253, might be time for an upgrade when next year's financial aid comes :D

User avatar
Arlan
Posts: 541

Post#5 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:09 pm

Lealla wrote:3110 3DMarks. Not unexpected.


How the hell do you raid? You must not break 10 fps :P

User avatar
ryeku
Posts: 523
Contact:

Post#6 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:56 am

320 @ 1280x800 on my laptop
??? @ 1680x1050 on my new one(will update when graphic card comes)
Thievery is not what other's make of it, but what you get from it.
-Ryeku

User avatar
100
Lealla
Class Leader
Posts: 3797
Contact:

Post#7 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:10 am

Arlan wrote:
Lealla wrote:3110 3DMarks. Not unexpected.


How the hell do you raid? You must not break 10 fps :P

I consider 10 FPS to be fantastic in boss fights. On some, I'm lucky if I get 5. Basically I turn my spell details down to the next-to-lowest mark and pray.

The same system was great in vanilla WoW, and acceptable in BC. It's all the new graphical whizzbangery in LK that's bringing it to its knees.
Image

Image

User avatar
Gnomerman
Posts: 1814

Post#8 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:39 am

graphics wisbangery? umm, you mean poorly optimized code. the rig i built up, as described in other places, gets a higher framerate in (pick the latest game here) than wow. wow is not well optimized for multiple CPU cores, however, it doesn't max out 1 core on the phenom II@2.8. the 4870 1 gig gpu stomps face though. in azeroth, settings maxed with v sinc off, i was seeing framerates over 250. I turn off the shading, because it looks like crap. mind you, im playing completely maxed, minus shading. @1280x1024 resolution. in the resolution section everything is maxxed, including 8x filtering in the colors bar.

in raid, on a boss fight with heavy aoe, it drops down to about 20-25 fps. (which is where my old system was in bc). Im going to try raiding with questhelper, to see the performance impact.

for a game that doesn't have HDR lighting, 16xAA and 16x AF, 20-25 fps in the most demanding situations, is pathetic imo, considering the hardware. i'll boot up ANY game on the market today, same win xp pro, same dx 9.0c and @1280x1024 40+ frames would be the norm.

for people who say wow isn't a demanding game, have never stepped into a raid, or been to dalaran (30 fps), or much less played the game with wotlk. on the old rig, i was getting about 10 fps, with everything turned to minimum, except the spell detail was at 50%.

in a raid, fps isn't as important as consistancy. if it stays at 10 fps, it is more playable than a system that fluctruates between 20 and 5 fps.

a side note, other than being poorly optimized code, i think that there may be a latency induced fps lag. if you are using an onboard network connection, as most people do, it requres cpu load to process the network traffic. coupled with windows, and the way that windows is optimized to do networking, (not the same type of network traffic that gaming likes) stepping into a dalaran, or 25 man hurts performance. I am interested to try one of the killer NIC cards to see how it helps wow. 3 months ago you could grab one for 100 bucks, now they are closer to 200 (rip off). from what i've seen they were designed mainly for wow, and help wow amazingly, on any system.

when i find 100 bucks on the side of the road, i'll inform you guys on how that works.

however, with a quad core cpu, network traffic cpu overhead isn't the issue. (even with a dual core cpu it shouldn't be an issue)


moral of that rant, blizzard really needs to optimize their code imo. that imo, is the one downfall of letting users do whatever they want to the ui, is it is not cpu optimized, idk how efficient lua is, nor any code for that matter.
Image





There is more to life than pew pew you know, like staying out of the fire so you can live to pew pew another day

User avatar
100
Lealla
Class Leader
Posts: 3797
Contact:

Post#9 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:17 am

Yeah, it's not the frame rate per se as it is the fact that it will suddenly jump around between 4 - 10 fps depending on what's going on. I honestly think my CPU is bottlenecking things the most.

With respect to addons, it's been said that Blizzard's Lua implementation is actually quite efficient, but you will of course have issues with poorly optimized addon code. That and "kitchen sink" ones like xPerl.

Unfortunately, I'm just not in a financial position to buy a new computer now, for various reasons. The situation may resolve itself by next year... I hope.
Image

Image

Kendalh
Demon Hunter
Posts: 738

Post#10 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:26 am

Only way to optimize the code is to make WoW2.

User avatar
Brulan
Posts: 1643
Contact:

Post#11 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:40 am

WTB WoW2 . Oh god WTB WoW2. Or World of Diablo. I'd be happy with either.
No.

User avatar
Gnomerman
Posts: 1814

Post#12 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:18 am

it really would be better with them to come out with wow 2 rather than annother xpac. even if it literally was wow 2, they could still have characters transfer, they could still have the old world places in game, and they technically could have wow1 support so you could still play it only in the wow one world. if those are the issues that are keeping blizz from making a new wow. wod would befine, i wouldn't mind starting over, however, it makes the achievements worth nothing if they come out with wod and end wow. if that doesn't upset millions of people, idk what will.
Image





There is more to life than pew pew you know, like staying out of the fire so you can live to pew pew another day

70
Ecnailla
Posts: 3624

Post#13 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:18 pm

7668 3DMarks
1280x1024


My cpu didnt seem to do too great.... 1598.
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6300 1865 MHz

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT

2048 MB

User avatar
Brulan
Posts: 1643
Contact:

Post#14 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:41 pm

It "makes" achievements worth nothing? They already are worth nothing, except a couple mounts and some titles.
No.

User avatar
100
Lealla
Class Leader
Posts: 3797
Contact:

Post#15 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:45 pm

There is really no need for WoW 2. What would they do with it? Remake Azeroth? Make us all level from 1-60 and raid Molten Core again? Ridiculous.

Blizz will take WoW and go with it as long as they can. They've already said so. There's no reason why graphics and game engine rebuilds couldn't be part of this process.
Image

Image

Return to “Technical Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest