imho the coolest benchmark made by madonions. If they recreated it today with dx10 and all the features i would actually pay for it, unlike vantage.
imho the coolest benchmark made by madonions. If they recreated it today with dx10 and all the features i would actually pay for it, unlike vantage.
Originally Posted by stevehat1
Well this is a little better than the first time I ran '01 back in '01, but not much
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9329492That's insane fella[thumbup]
Totally agree alex, the flexibility of '01 makes it so great especially being able to independantly run GT's yet still obtain your overall score. That opens it up to all kinds of system tweaking [thumbup]
WRT my comments on the previous page, im talking about extreme benchmarking with the lastest high end hardware. E.g. QX9770/9650/E8500 + GX2(s) / 3870X2(s).
Im not talking about most of you kids running your mum's E8200 + 8800GT system that she bought you for Xmas [xmastongue] all running on stock air.
01 scaled best compared to game performance and it looked awsome for its time, shame it got worse with every release, the name change from Mad Onion to FM didn't help.
That would be fantastic...
Also I still prefer the Nature scene in 2k1 to any other benchmark scene since, and it still looks good now IMHO.
Well, I'm of the opinion that the cubemapped lake in that nature test looks okay (that also uses per-pixel reflections IIRC), but other than that I feel the test looks very outdated at this point. It does use alpha textures to my recollection, so it's rather bandwidth dependent above all. But the jump from that test to 3DMark03's nature test just stupefies me to no end. Not even 3DMark05, 06, or Vantage quite conveyed the same jump in visuals to me.
But I agree that 01's nature test has a certain, well, style to it. I liked how the music flowed from the visuals well (and not the other way around), and how well the demo unto itself worked. The first time I saw it, I saw it running at around 64FPS on my very old Radeon 9500 Pro, which stunned me at that point. It didn't look naturally, so much as almost comic-like. The higher the frame-rates are, the faster the butterflies dance and the water rushes. But that aside, 3DMark2001SE did have a good abundance of tests that tested hardware in a number of ways, even if it didn't have CPU or sound tests (add physics tests to that now adays). But I like the other 3DMark's as well - just as much - if not more. I liked the commanding, ominous feel the colors and space backgrounds of 3DMark03 (Proxycon), 05, and 06 (Return to Proxycon), and Vantage (New Calico) gave, which followed the mood well in my eyes.
But a great way of comparing the evolution of 3DMark is to compare the very first demo of 99Max to, say, the Firefly Forest, Canyon Flight, Deep Freeze, and New Calico game tests. The jump is quite simply staggering.
Last edited by Wester547; 11-01-2010 at 10:28 AM.
Thats all well and good, but most benchers watch the FPS counter, not the (perhaps) pretty pictures. [thumbup]
Should be in my sig :-)
Need to get over 70K before I post again.
best all roundtestof a PC`shardware
always was and till now still is...................... i played Vantage just the once ( no thank you )
I actually prefer 3dmark2000 over all other bechmarks!I wish i could still link to my old 3dmark 2000 scores. But here is my oldest 3dmark score i have. Its from July 2001, 530 marks!!!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=1214280
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
