3DMark06 is out

[THunDA]

Personally I think that the basic version only allows you to do 1280x1024 is poor planning on FT's side. At least 1024x768 is pretty standard on all displays and 99% can display them at 70hz or above.

 

plus most ppl did thier old benches at 1024x768 as well and for a comparison it would be best to keep it at that res so you can do a scale of performance..

True.. I agree with you ..

 

I dont mind running it at the higher res.. It just stinks when it comes to comparing scores because some are changing it..

[finagle69]

refresh rate has no bearing on perf whatsoever.

[Confined]

OH NOES!!!

 

Is my computer teh sux0rz???!?!?! :eek:

 

[jcarno]

heres one......6372

[Guest Milkshake]

heres one......6372

 

Wow how did you manage that? Is that with sli?

[Sorrento]

Ok... FYI.. IF YOU HAVE THE REGISTERED VERSION YOU CAN SELECT 1024x768

 

Do not think or assume that I did not know this..

 

when I stated they are all at 1024x768... that means THEY ARE RUN at 1024x768. and I quote:

 

 

 

Sheesh

Ohh sorry I didn't meant to sound like that or to reply to you alone, I meant to tell everyone in the discussion that resolution was no longer 1024 x 768 like previous Futuremark tests... but I didn't like to write too much so I used the "FYI" abreviation just to save time and space.

 

Back to the resolution subject I don't think you understand the issue well yet, since changing the resolution will only acomplish one thing: have a completely diferent result than 99% of the other users, that taking into acount that the free version users will always be more than the registered ones.

 

To have a good results database using 1280 x 1024 will have to be used, there is no alternative I can think of. Yeah you can reduce it manually and see your score get higher... but I believe it would acomplish little doing such a thing, since the only diference other than greater resolution between 06 and 05 is a small amount of textures.

 

Please forgive me for using a tone of language that was not needed in this discussion... however I would like you to do the same type of apology to me for the use of similar language in your responce. Knowing when I make a mistake isn't the same thing as accepting your sarcasm and passive agression Cythrawl. I hope this time I was clear enough for you to understand me.

 

Thanks for the attention.

[Confined]

OH NOES!!!

 

Is my computer teh sux0rz???!?!?! :eek:

 

No seriously...why do i have such a crappy score?

 

I'm cool for quoting myself :drool:

[jcarno]

Yea........SLI...........sig updated.

[Kawasaki 1]

nope and 1024x768 is my max res. http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/attachment...tachmentid=3408

 

but i would like to see some more scores :nod: :nod:

 

Sweet tv, that looks like my setup kinda. My lcd tv is black though and the rest of my system is also.

[TheGeekMistress]

No seriously...why do i have such a crappy score?

 

I'm cool for quoting myself :drool:

have you tried tweaking your drivers for max performance? try running your ram's ALPHA timings tighter? overclock your cpu? overclock your gpu/vid mem? use ATI Tray tools to tighten your vid cards mem timings?

 

TGM

[kimahri626]

Board is working great techno. working my way up as far as oc'ing goes.

[NEOAethyr]

refresh rate has no bearing on perf whatsoever.

 

Actually...

It does.

Gaming performance, and benching 3d and 2d wise, wil go up to some extent, not by alot but there's an increase with higher refresh rates.

On the other hand, if you're doing mem benches and such, socres will be lower with higher refreshs, at least with sandra...

 

Sandra shoudl'nt be trusted though, I've been able to control it to where it's about the same each run without any probs.

But I've recently seen where the scores on sandra's mem bench have changed over 100megs per run, on a p4 2ghz.

Not my rig though but still.

 

I've never benched the diff in refresh rates in everest though.

 

In any case, 3d wise and 2d wise, higher refresh rates is better like I said before.

Why?

Because sometimes, say about a 1/4 of the time you're rendering somthing, the card can actually render more then what the monitor can refresh.

It's allways held back by this, like I said about a 1/4 of the time depending on the proggy.

This is'nt vsync...

 

Have you ever heard of render ahead?

I means it can render more then what the monitor can display.

Sometimes resulting in a sort of lag, input wise.

 

Generally a refresh rate of around 100-140hz is pretty decent.

Speed wise yes, but not just that.

Smoothness, I mean, many more frames are actually drawn.

Plus it's easier on the eyes too.

 

Briteness can differ with the higher refresh rates given the monitor used....

 

 

Anyways whatever though, it's not a huge deal no.

The majority of people are stuck at 60hz in both d3d and ogl anyways.

Even if they setup a higher refresh from the display cpl.

That does'nt make a diffrence on actuall full screen gaming.

You have to make a custom monitor driver, that specifies a min refresh rate, and have that check box that's called "hide modes that this monitor cannot display" checked.

 

 

Something of this nature is more like someone's windows on there personal rig really though.

It may make a diffrence, or it may not.

Some tweak windows, some don't, but there is a diffrence, even if it's minor in some areas .