Now I've got a question for you all; one of the requests I've seen was for us to include Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness in our benchmarking suite. Controversy aside, I'd like to know if you all are actually concerned with the performance of TRAOD or if it is more of a "hey the game says it's DX9 and there's controversy surrounding the benchmark" kind of thing. Personally, I think the game looks like a DX7 title (even using PS2.0 shaders) and the only place that has given it a good review is Maxim Magazine (go figure). With this new benchmarking suite I wanted to focus on games that people actually played or care about (Aquamark3 is the exception), and I'd rather include another game that people are going to play if TRAOD isn't something you have installed on your system.
So let me know; I want honest opinions here, do you own the game? Do you care about how it runs? Should we include it (and why)? We already own a copy of the game (given to us by NVIDIA actually, there's one for the conspiracy theorists) so running the benchmark is no big deal. It's an issue of time more than anything else, if you guys would like to see it we'll include it but if you think something else is more important we'll do that.
We want to include FIFA in our benchmarking suite but we're going to wait for the new version of the game to be released (due out at the end of this month I beleive). The new version of FIFA will be based on EA's Eagle engine which is a DX9 engine, so we figure it makes sense to wait for that.
Derek is working on benchmarking Tron 2 as well as some other new titles we have, while I snagged a Radeon 9800 Pro and a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra from the lab last night to play around with at the house. I'll be focusing on gameplay experience with the two cards/drivers and will be looking for any visual artifacts or other random issues during gameplay. We're working hard at this and we are shooting for a quick turnaround on Part II (hopefully very early next week if I can have my way), but I'll keep you posted.
After I hand Part II off to Derek completely I'm going to begin work on the new version of Windows XP Media Center Edition. If there's anything you'd like to see/know about for inclusion in this forthcoming review, let me know.
For now it's time to heat up some leftovers for lunch (made nacho cheese turkey burgers and hushpuppies last night, or I could heat up the enchiladas from two nights ago...hmm...decisions). Enjoy your Friday and have a great weekend, I'll be around here all weekend working so you'll definitely hear from me.
Take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous - Sunday, October 5, 2003 - link
Battlefield 1942, yeah.And please, please PLEASE PLEASE include a Ti4200. A big portion of the market owns these things. You can leave out the 9500 Pro, the Ti4600, the Ti500, whatever, but the Ti4200... =(
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
OT: How about a TV Tuner card roundup review? Take all of the stand-alone TV Tuner cards available at NewEgg.com, and comparison test. Including the ATI TV Wonder Pro, MSI TV@nywhere Master, Leadtek, etc. Maybe include 3rd-party software, such as DScaler, ShowShifter, PowerVCR, etc.Also, compatability with Windows Media Center Edition.
Thanks!
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
#46Are people able to realize what the shadermark score means, in your opinion?
i don't think so.
Luagsch - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
i guess for a lot of people the tomb raider game is interesting cause it's a dx9 game and uses ps2.0 stuff. we have come to a point in time where all the old games run at speeds that it's almost rediculous benchmarking them (i still enjoy the comparison though:) ). quake 3 at 400 or 250 fps? who cares? if i buy a card now for 400$ i'm interested in future game-performance and that means dx9-performance with shader stuff.sure older games are interesting from an iq point of view. that's why i'm really looking forward to part 2. if a company sacrifices iq so that a game runs at 234 fps instead of 145, well wth?
i think mainstream cards are bought for current games and a little bit of future-proof. high-end cards on the other hand... (just my 2 cents)
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
I don't care what it's based on. It's not a real game. It's synthetic. If you take a position that "only games" should be used, then Aquamark should not be used.Again, my position is that games AND synthetic tests should be used. And ShaderMark 2.0 is IMO the most robust synthetic DX9 benchmark to date.
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
#44Aquamark3 is based on a real game: Aquanox 2
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
# 43,So then remove AquaMark. Aslo, stop the Unreal Tournament Flyby demos...they aren't game situations and are just as synthetic.
The best reviews have combinations of synthethic and game tests.
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
#41.Good call! shadermark is a very nice game.
Let's remove real games for putting on shadermark.
Are you a moron or what?
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
Why not testing old games up to 2048x1536?Who get a 400$ card without having a decent monitor?
Anonymous - Saturday, October 4, 2003 - link
shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark.. shadermark..we getting yet Anand?