FM_Jarnis
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by FM_Jarnis
-
-
Well that's a neat trick.
Wonder if having a 1440p monitor will give a (minor) score boost since there isn't any processing power lost to scaling it down?
...and so it was, benchmarkers everywhere shed a tear that they'd have to upgrade their benching monitors too.
Same "trick" is being used (in a slightly different way, but in general same idea) on 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 11 already. Vantage extreme preset works just fine on a smaller monitor, for example.
I guess in theory if you are squeezing out those last points for WR, it might matter.
In "normal" benchmarking the difference is not meaningful.
-
Well not sure a lot of people will be able to run the extreme preset
Note that the resolution is not a problem if you have smaller monitor. It runs fine no matter your actual monitor native resolution. I'm only talking about internal rendering resolution before scaling to your monitor native res...
-
Obviously, it is too late for this cycle of 3DMark, but if FM could make a benchmark that is truly 100% GPU, even 5 years after release*, that would be awesome
Based on how GPUs advance and CPUs advance, CPUs are "always" the bottleneck. To get a better 3DMark score, I need a better CPU much more than I need a better GPU. IMO, that's a bit wrong 
multi-GPU scaling is way off as well, especially at the top-end*I appreciate it is very difficult to guess how to code to make something future-proof
I want to see the system where 3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme is CPU limited...
Even five years from now. Even with Quad GPUs. Sorry that I can't give more details yet but I'll just drop a little bit here as a starter; 2560x1440.
The only obviously broken multi-GPU scaling bit with 3DMark 11 is the case of Quad Crossfire (driver issue). Granted, you need to use Extreme preset (it is there for that exact reason).
-
It will be interesting to see how the community feels about the new 3DMark.
@Jarnis: since you are releasing new DX9, DX10 and DX11 benchmarks, does that mean you will discontinue the existing DX9/10/11 benchmarks?
No, not at this time.
(granted, 03/05/06 will eventually be phased out as they are XP era benchmarks but not anytime soon. It will pretty much be based on the usage statistics. 06 is still very popular - even if it is bit of a CPU mark these days)
-
Don't bother... Do what you want @Futurmark. Let's call it 12 in here
Is there a RC to download?
Still some work to be done.... but soon-ish
-
lets call it 3DMark12 on hwbot
I actually suggest;
3DMark: Ice Storm
3DMark: Cloud Gate
3DMark: Fire Strike
..as all those have multiple tests, each comparable to what 3DMark 11 contained. It really is three-in-one and if you go look at score on 3dmark.com after a complete run, you get three separate overall scores (and each of these have their own graphics / physics scores etc.).
-
There is a logic behind this - basically we'll have
3DMark for Windows
3DMark for Windows RT
3DMark for Android
3DMark for IOS
(and potentially others...stay tuned!) so tossing additional numbers there would have made them somewhat long.
Also remember that the desktop version is basically three 3DMarks in one and the scores will be named with the scene name (so "3DMark Ice Storm score" etc.)
-
Some new info up on 3DMark.
http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark
http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/new-3dmark-will-compare-windows-android-and-ios-devices
So, who's up for some iToy overclocking?
(the teaser is aimed to promote the cross-platform nature - there will be a desktop version and it is the one with all the tests, more on that in the coming weeks as we gear towards launch...)
-
Not sure what the discussion really is about. The result is invalid. Yes, you can do all kinds of things that will give you "big numbers" but if the result, as shown on 3dmark.com, doesn't validate, it is fairly meaningless. There is a lot you can run & submit with 3.54 SystemInfo that will not fly with 4.12...
We'll get far more strict with the SI version (and benchmark version) as soon as the new installers are finally out.
Good point on the version number on the result screen. I'll see if we can do something about it for this next patch... and as for the next 3DMark result screen, oh it will have [redacted] and [redacted]
Now if you have similar cheat score, submitted with v1.03 and SI 4.12 and 3DMark.com doesn't complain (no anomaly box), I'd be interested to see a link.
-
Just a little note; We've overhauled the 3dmark.com result search with additional options and greatly improved performance. I know the old search was fairly terrible so consider this a heads up that it should now be considerably more useful and perhaps worth a second look
As usual, with tons of new code there may be issues - let us know if you see it break in some hilarious way...
-
Those benchmarks are effectively obsolete with today's hardware; they are little more than CPU tests at this point. Use 3DMark Vantage or 3DMark 11.
-
Still a memory hog a la 4.9?
In what scenario would the current memory usage matter in any way? Yes, it spawns a bunch of parallel processes to speed up the scan. I guess it is possible to force it to do sequential (single process, single thread) scan through FMSIDIAG.exe debug options but that way the system scan will take quite a bit longer...
-
Thanks for the headsup
Please will you let us know the final date for people to upload .3dr files with the current system info version?
I don't know yet but I can say that it won't happen for at least 30 days. Most likely timeframe is something like 6-10 weeks from now.
And after that you can of course still upload them - they just won't be accepted to HoF any more.
-
Updated FM SystemInfo, 4.11 is now available. Updated CPUID and added some additional anti-tampering stuff. This will roll out in full updated installers in the coming weeks assuming no immediate issues crop up with it.
http://www.futuremark.com/downloads/Futuremark_SystemInfo_v4110_installer.exe
Expect Futuremark Hall of Fame to require this version in a few weeks.
-
No, it's an issue with the exporter.dll in Vantage that does the saving to the result file. It is already patched but the patch waiting for release after Windows 8 RTM validation tests are done...
As a workaround, if you have a result like this, send it as attachment to info [at] futuremark.com and specify your 3DMark.com account name and we'll get it added there.
-
Do you plan to include any GPGPU test, for example OpenCL? If so, will you include it in the scoring formula?
Sorry, we haven't announced exact tests that will be included yet (and the main reason is that they are not all 100% firmly locked in yet). 3DMark 11 has one (partially) based on DirectCompute (combined test) and it does influence overall score there.
-
First video showcasing the upcoming 3DMark is out now in glorious 1080p. This is a slightly more polished version of the same scene that was shown on MSI stand at Computex 2012.
YouTube:
Official PR: http://www.futuremark.com/pressroom/pressreleases/60924/
HELSINKI, FINLAND – June 21, 2012 – Futuremark® today released its first trailer for the next version of 3DMark®. Designed for measuring the gaming performance of everything from tablets and notebooks to high-end desktop gaming systems, the next 3DMark for Windows will be the world's first unified graphics benchmark allowing testing of DirectX 9, DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 capable hardware through the DirectX 11 API. Expected to be released after the launch of Windows 8, this new 3DMark will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. The new trailer provides a preview of the DirectX 11 test and is now available online and in high definition for the first time at http://www.3dmark.com
FAQ - the new 3DMark trailer
Q: Wasn't this called "3DMark for Windows 8"?
A: Yes, when we first announced this new benchmark it had the working title of 3DMark for Windows 8. Now that we are further along in development we are happy to confirm that the benchmark will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. We are now referring to it as 3DMark for Windows, or simply the next 3DMark, though these are also working titles.
Q: So it isn't just for Windows 8?
A: Correct. While we aim for it to be the comprehensive gamer's benchmark for systems running Windows 8, it will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista.
Q: The tech demo video shows DirectX 11 graphics. What happened to DirectX 11.1?
A: We may include DirectX 11.1 features in the benchmark if they prove relevant for measuring graphics performance, but the tech demo shown in the trailer is based on DirectX 11 features.
Q: So how will this highly complex test run on DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 hardware, as mentioned in the press release?
A: The demo shown in the video is part of the DirectX 11 level test. There will be other tests and scenes to measure the performance of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 capable hardware.
Q: Wouldn't that imply that part of the benchmark could run on Windows XP?
A: No. The new 3DMark will use the DirectX 11 API, but that API can be used to target older hardware as well. If you want the technical details, you can look at Microsoft's documentation pertaining to Direct3D feature levels:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
Q: So DirectX 11 API and Vista or later operating system will be required but part of the benchmark could be run on very old graphics cards, something like GeForce 7900 GT for example?
A: We have not yet finalized the minimum hardware requirements but, in general, you are correct. Even DirectX 9 and 10 level hardware will be able to get a benchmark score.
Q: The press release states that this 3DMark will be able to benchmark everything from tablets to high end desktops. So it will be compatible with the new Microsoft Surface tablets and will it also run on Windows RT (on ARM-based tablets)?
A: The new 3DMark supports both x86 and ARM-based architectures and can be used in both the Metro UI and 'classic' Windows environments. Since Microsoft have not released full technical specs for their new Surface tablets we are not able to comment further on how 3DMark can be used on those devices.
-
[OT]
Hey Jarnis, just wanted to know if Kaarlonen works with you guyz???? If a celebrity was working alongside me I could not have stopped myself from blushing whole day, lol........
[/OT]
Used to but he moved to being a full-time rock star a couple of years ago.
Fun fact: He coded the framework and content system for yougamers.com and futuremark.com sites which is still in use today
-
We know that 03 suddenly claims drivers not approved and we're in progress of fixing that. Technically driver approval no longer applies for 03 and 05.
Beyond that, if you get submission failures, contact FM and list the "Problem ID" that is shown and we'll investigate. You can use the GetSatisfaction system (at http://support.futuremark.com) or just email to info [at] futuremark.com
-
We know that 03 suddenly claims drivers not approved and we're in progress of fixing that. Technically driver approval no longer applies for 03 and 05.
Beyond that, if you get submission failures, contact FM and list the "Problem ID" that is shown and we'll investigate. You can use the GetSatisfaction system (at http://support.futuremark.com) or just email to info [at] futuremark.com
-
Note that this was a very early build showing just a small part of one scene. Much more unfinished than the builds used for early 3DMark 11 showings / videos.
But yeah, it's coming...
-
Yep. I work for Futuremark. Officially I'm responsible for QA of our benchmarks and I also run the YouGamers site and spend quite a bit of time on doing tech support on FM forums and on our support system (GetSatisfaction)
The info [at] futuremark.com email address goes to me. If it makes you feel better, you can also email me at jarno.kokko [at] futuremark.com - I usually just offer the info email address because it is not person-specific. Just in case someone runs across the message say, five years from now and at that point perhaps someone else is handling such emails. At that point the info address would still go to the right person while the direct email might bounce.
-
We've investigated this "cheat" and duplicated it in-house. Effectively if you delete 3DMark 11 from the Lucid MVP application list, that causes the Lucid MVP API to just tell SystemInfo that "no, HyperFormance is not defined to be on for this executable" (which is technically true - it isn't listed) but at that point the global switch for HyperFormance takes priority. This is different from "it is on the list and set as HyperFormance off" in which case it overrides the global switch for that executable.
We'll fix this later this week on 3dmark.com. Practical effect will be that no result that has HyperFormance global switch "on" will be accepted - even if App-specific switch for 3DMark 11 would be effectively disabling it. We'll have to discuss with Lucidlogix if we can further refine the detection later (would require update to SI and probably update to Lucidlogix software as well)
As for the "3DMark 100% accurate" thing, we strive for a simple goal on this; 3DMark is designed to produce accurate benchmark results from any system that is configured as the user wants (flagging results that are not comparable because the configuration settings affect things - like LucidMVP and ATI/AMD Tessellation slider). 3DMark also includes enough encryption and server side validation to prevent casual score file tampering. However, it isn't hardened against deliberate attempts to game the score by modifying the OS or doing custom driver level (or hardware level) hacks. So if your goal is to produce a meaningless score on purpose and you are willing to go far enough to do so, we can't prevent it. However, you shouldn't be able to get such scores by accident through normal use.
And just FYI: Futuremark is willing to investigate any cases where you think a score uploaded to 3dmark.com is tampered/invalid but 3dmark.com sees the file as valid. We can't automatically catch every single one but we are happy to investigate potential cases and improve our validation routines. Send any requests/information on such cases to info [at] futuremark.com
-
3DMark.com Lucid MVP detection is not even designed to be 100% foolproof. It is designed to catch cases where the user simply is using settings that shouldn't be used for getting proper comparable scores. I can immediately think a couple of ways to fool it, mostly due to the fact that the detection is tied to SI scan which is done before the actual benchmark run starts. Now if you have figured out some novel way, feel free to send email to info [at] futuremark.com with the details and we'll take a look.
In a more general sense, the only way to truly prevent active cheating "on purpose" is either by installing some Punkbuster-grade background bit that snoops everything, or by doing estimate comparison ("score is too good to be true").
The third score stands out like a sore thumb on the "too good to be true" scale but at the moment we haven't implemented automated flagging based on that, mostly because CPU/GPU clock frequency detection isn't an exact science (especially with new hardware) and it is a key bit in making such determination.
On a sidenote, we are considering adding further checks during the actual benchmark for some specific bits for the upcoming 3DMark but in the end it all boils down to "if you are determined to cheat in a benchmark, there is no practical way to prevent it".
As for PCMark05, we've given up on trying to detect "tweaks" on it long time ago. PCMark benchmarks are designed to benchmark Windows functionality in action and Windows offers bazillion different ways to modify how the operating system works when it is used for common tasks, without any easy way to see what is being done.
As for Lucid MVP itself, I'm still baffled why people don't seem to get it; It only inflates the numbers, it doesn't actually give any real benefits beyond a slight improvement in responsiveness (time it takes for the visuals to react to user inputs - as the the frames shown are rendered "later" than normal) and the reason you see bigger FPS numbers and bigger 3DMark numbers is because MVP effectively skips rendering calls while responding instantly "okay, rendered that, give next frame" and those non-rendered (partial) frames are given full credit in FPS counter and benchmark scores.
3DMark - Some new info
in Benchmark software
Posted
Less. Far less than normal variance between runs. But again, if you are trying to get 5 points more or something, it might matter.