Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested
by Josh Venning on January 18, 2006 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
3DMark06
3DMark is a program that has been around for a while now and Futuremark has just released the newest edition. 3DMark06 has some new features, but it's essentially the same reliable tool that it has been in the past. The benchmarking demos have been updated graphically and look very impressive, and interestingly, there is a playable game included in the program this time around.
This version of 3DMark adds some graphical enhancements to the three demos from 3DMark05, and adds a new demo of an impressively rendered arctic outpost. The other three demos are: "proxycon", a futuristic shoot-out scene; "firefly", a night scene depicting two fireflies in a forest; and "canyonflight", which shows an airship (very reminiscent of the one in The Mummy Returns) encountering a huge sea serpent.
The images above are comparisons between 3DMark05 and 3DMark06, and show the improved SM 2.0, HDR and SM 3.0 enhancements to the demos. The High Dynamic Range additions are particularly impressive, and the new shadow effects in each of the demos look very nice as well.
Of course, Futuremark does a great deal of research when deciding how to implement a feature. Unfortunately, no one can predict what all other game developers will end up doing (let alone the way in which they will go about doing it). The HDR implementation, for example, is based on a ground-up approach with full FP16 render targets. This allows them to render reflections and refraction of HDR light sources with bloom, lens flare, and all those great HDR effects that we've come to know and love. Tone-mapping is applied at the end as a post processing step to render the floating point HDR framebuffer data out to an integer display. While all of this is fine, there are some issues with the approach. First, unless some form of supersample AA is used, only ATI's hardware can perform multisample FSAA on an FP16 render target. For this reason, many game developers have opted to avoid such an approach. Also, while both NVIDIA and ATI hardware can do floating point blends, only NVIDIA hardware can perform hardware filtering on floating point render targets.
On top of that, one of the most effective real world HDR implementations that we've seen so far has relied on a dynamic exposure rather than floating point precision (Valve's Source HDR). There is some overhead involved, but the effect is quite good, while allowing full filtering and FSAA on all hardware without the need for custom shader programs to reinvent the wheel. Arguably, 3DMark06 might show a picture of performance on current hardware after game developers no longer care about making all the features work across the board on this generation of GPU, but this is a bit of a stretch and its likely that much more will have changed by that point.
The game that is included is another addition to 3DMark06, but is so poor that it almost couldn't be called an actual game. It is basically a robot shooter game set in a rocky landscape, which admittedly is well-rendered, where you have to shoot little flying robots that zip around and are frustratingly hard to hit. The movement and controls are incredibly frustrating and the game is so boring and confusing that it doesn't really warrant any playing time at all, and it seems that it was only included as some kind of afterthought or proof of concept.
One thing that we want to touch on is the fact that there is some controversy over 3DMark, specifically whether or not it is best suited for testing performance between different types of graphics cards. We at Anandtech don't typically use 3DMark in our graphics card performance tests because we feel that it is not the best measure of real-world performance. While it does give an accurate depiction of the capabilities of a given card, it stresses the cards in ways that no games really do right now, in an attempt to predict what future games may implement. Because of the fact that video cards are ultimately for playing games, it can be argued that a consumer would have a much better idea of what card to buy for their gaming setup by seeing game benchmark results over 3DMark's results. This is our philosophy, and for comparing graphics hardware, we will rely on real world tests over synthetic benchmarks.
However, all this aside, 3DMark06 is a remarkable program in its own right. Feature analysis, stress testing, and image quality comparisons are all useful applications of 3DMark06. For quite some time, we have used 3DMark in system level tests as well. But that's enough on the software. Let's look at the kind of performance that we see with it.
3DMark is a program that has been around for a while now and Futuremark has just released the newest edition. 3DMark06 has some new features, but it's essentially the same reliable tool that it has been in the past. The benchmarking demos have been updated graphically and look very impressive, and interestingly, there is a playable game included in the program this time around.
This version of 3DMark adds some graphical enhancements to the three demos from 3DMark05, and adds a new demo of an impressively rendered arctic outpost. The other three demos are: "proxycon", a futuristic shoot-out scene; "firefly", a night scene depicting two fireflies in a forest; and "canyonflight", which shows an airship (very reminiscent of the one in The Mummy Returns) encountering a huge sea serpent.
The images above are comparisons between 3DMark05 and 3DMark06, and show the improved SM 2.0, HDR and SM 3.0 enhancements to the demos. The High Dynamic Range additions are particularly impressive, and the new shadow effects in each of the demos look very nice as well.
Of course, Futuremark does a great deal of research when deciding how to implement a feature. Unfortunately, no one can predict what all other game developers will end up doing (let alone the way in which they will go about doing it). The HDR implementation, for example, is based on a ground-up approach with full FP16 render targets. This allows them to render reflections and refraction of HDR light sources with bloom, lens flare, and all those great HDR effects that we've come to know and love. Tone-mapping is applied at the end as a post processing step to render the floating point HDR framebuffer data out to an integer display. While all of this is fine, there are some issues with the approach. First, unless some form of supersample AA is used, only ATI's hardware can perform multisample FSAA on an FP16 render target. For this reason, many game developers have opted to avoid such an approach. Also, while both NVIDIA and ATI hardware can do floating point blends, only NVIDIA hardware can perform hardware filtering on floating point render targets.
On top of that, one of the most effective real world HDR implementations that we've seen so far has relied on a dynamic exposure rather than floating point precision (Valve's Source HDR). There is some overhead involved, but the effect is quite good, while allowing full filtering and FSAA on all hardware without the need for custom shader programs to reinvent the wheel. Arguably, 3DMark06 might show a picture of performance on current hardware after game developers no longer care about making all the features work across the board on this generation of GPU, but this is a bit of a stretch and its likely that much more will have changed by that point.
The game that is included is another addition to 3DMark06, but is so poor that it almost couldn't be called an actual game. It is basically a robot shooter game set in a rocky landscape, which admittedly is well-rendered, where you have to shoot little flying robots that zip around and are frustratingly hard to hit. The movement and controls are incredibly frustrating and the game is so boring and confusing that it doesn't really warrant any playing time at all, and it seems that it was only included as some kind of afterthought or proof of concept.
One thing that we want to touch on is the fact that there is some controversy over 3DMark, specifically whether or not it is best suited for testing performance between different types of graphics cards. We at Anandtech don't typically use 3DMark in our graphics card performance tests because we feel that it is not the best measure of real-world performance. While it does give an accurate depiction of the capabilities of a given card, it stresses the cards in ways that no games really do right now, in an attempt to predict what future games may implement. Because of the fact that video cards are ultimately for playing games, it can be argued that a consumer would have a much better idea of what card to buy for their gaming setup by seeing game benchmark results over 3DMark's results. This is our philosophy, and for comparing graphics hardware, we will rely on real world tests over synthetic benchmarks.
However, all this aside, 3DMark06 is a remarkable program in its own right. Feature analysis, stress testing, and image quality comparisons are all useful applications of 3DMark06. For quite some time, we have used 3DMark in system level tests as well. But that's enough on the software. Let's look at the kind of performance that we see with it.
45 Comments
View All Comments
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."wtf?
stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
Quote: "But at the end of our testing, we are mostly left with shallow beauty rather than a deep, meaningful connection."Ah, but on the other hand, "There are likely many other uses for this program which we can't mention here".
In any case, this is way more interesting than your average graphics benchmark review.
Mant - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
In case you think I'm making that up, its at the end of Page 3. Methinks Josh needs Elimidate more than 3DMark06Orbs - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
LOL! I love Elimidate, although Elimidate would not provide a deep, meaningful connection, but more shallow beauty (admitedly, whoring themselves in public and bitching at each other at an ever increasing volume). Good times.peldor - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
"Right now, the hardware that is available is prompting advancements in game development, and we can't easily predict what types of games we might see in the near or semi-near future."You mean we won't have more WW2 shooters, with the occassional relief Zombie Mutant Alien? But now everything will have Bright Lights and Dark Shadows! Because that seems extremely likely to me. Game developers rarely chase new game types, and it's not really the hardware that motivates them AFAICT.
KingofL337 - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Whats the relation ship of these cards. Which is ahigher performance part?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
X800 Pro = 12 pipelines at 475 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.X800 GTO = 12 pipelines at 400 MHz and 980 MHz GDDR3 RAM.
However, many people have had success in unlocking and/or overclocking GTO cards. If you can get 16 pipelines at 475 MHz, for example, it would be 33% faster on the core than the Pro. If you just overclock to 475 MHz and don't unlock the pipelines, you've got an X850 Pro. (R480 core vs. R420 core, I think? It doesn't make much difference, though.)
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Let the driver "optimizations" begin!PeteRoy - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
No Intel vs AMD?ViRGE - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
3dMark is and always has been primarily a GPU-oriented benchmark, Intel vs. AMD wouldn't tell us much if the GPU is the bottleneck(and if it isn't, all it would tell us is that AMD outperformed Intel like they tend to do in these kinds of tests).