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
neogodless - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
The future is here...I think the generation of games reflected by the 3DMark predictions should be benchmarked side-by-side the various flavors of 3DMark to see how much validity their predictions held.
i.e. Benchmark 3DMark05 or 3DMark03 against current games, 3DMark2001SE against games from 2? years ago... that sort of thing.
Or has this been done by someone?
Wellsoul2 - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
The CPU part seems to be a total joke.I saw very little difference between my XP2800 and Opteron 148.
Pretty much negligible, where in games I saw 10FPS.
MrSmurf - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
What a horribly, boring benchmark. I paid for 2k5 but not this one. The last two CPU tests should be measured in seconds per frame instead of frames per second.I nearly fell asleep when it was running on my X800PRO... I'm not even going to bother with my SM3.0 machines... boring + more tests = no thanks.
stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
I got a nice 1418 score which means "everything was really, really slow!" on an X800XL.Never mind though, I suppose at the rate the cards are coming along this might work decently in a couple of years time. They have to raise the bar somehow and I think this is probably quite a good benchmark but the hardware it's intended for barely exists yet.
alcalde - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
It took hours to download via bittorrent, and when I finally ran it, my impression was "Same as last year's, but slower".My (non-aggressively) overclocked AMD 3800+ X2 and 800 GTO2 got 2204 3DMarks, without performing the HDR/SM3.0 tests. I must say it was quite disturbing to have plunked down money I've been saving for years in Nov. to build a new machine to replace my antique PC, only to see a benchmark running like a slideshow once again by January. :-) And I'd just run the F.E.A.R. demo on it last night, too....
nv40 - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
There are several outcome from PCDVD @ TWNhttp://forum.pcdvd.com.tw/showthread.php?t=582913">http://forum.pcdvd.com.tw/showthread.php?t=582913
Dual core CPU score almost double in comparison to single core
Opteron 2.9G dual core score 2200, Opteron 2.9G single score 1110, a 1.99x increase
Furthermore, Intel score abnormally high to AMD, may due to hyperthreading
P4 3.0G HT (prescott) score 900 while as Athlon 64 2.5G also result in 900(san diego)
Additionally, old K7 also score desociated with real gaming,
K7 2.2G score 725 which is higher than K8 1.8G at 660, but we know it never happen in real world..
So, 3D mark 05 make everything out of reality, but 3D mark 06 still have "unreal" CPU score.
shabby - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
Ya the cpu test was pretty pointless, i think i got like 5 frames per minute!Btw i scored 900 with a gf6800nu.
Souka - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
Took 12min to download via my T3Tossed onto my laptop..T42 Pentium M 1.7ghz and Radeon 9800 w/64mb 0-1fps...stopped it after 5 min
tossed onto my desktop.. Pentium 4HT @2.8 and GF4 AGP 6800 w/128....0-1fps...stopped it after 5 min
Wow...what a piece. Yeah, its the demo, but still.
e4te - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
The cup test is capped at 2 fps I'm pretty sure.e4te - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link
hehe cpu