Futuremark releases 3DMark06

User Comments: 23

1. January 18, 2006 6:56 PM
   swker98 said:
   post yor score
   Reply
2. January 18, 2006 7:46 PM
   crossfire851 said:
   IN 3DMark03 I got 15,272 points. I've yet to know what I'll get there. Hope I can get it soon :-D
   Reply
3. January 18, 2006 8:03 PM
   gamingmage said:
   Wow, I've never really owned any 3DMark, but I have tried them. I get low scores for some reason. Hopefully I can buy this one this year.
   Reply
4. January 18, 2006 8:22 PM
   Eleventeen said:
   I've been waiting for the next release of 3DMark. Good thing it's finally here. Now I have to wait about a week for it to download (Dialup). Oh well, It's worth it.
   Reply
5. January 18, 2006 9:55 PM
   Kaleid said:
   Disappointing release. It's basically contains 05 with somewhat upgraded scenes plus new very boring CPU tests that never reaches above 0.5 fps or so and rather nice SM3.0 tests (especially like the snowy one).Btw, you can actually run the test with a 128MB graphiccard although the minimum requirement says the double.My score with AMD64 @ 2376Mhz, 1GB RAM, 6800LE (12pipes o/c to 360/840):1367[url]http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm0
   =1918[/url]
   Reply
6. January 18, 2006 10:48 PM
   cyrax said:
   I think when my my card saw the loading screen , it completely freaked and fainted. Pretty but still a bling test.
   Reply
7. January 18, 2006 11:37 PM
   MonkeyMan said:
   Oh yes, this is a must have. To test your video card's, as well as PC's performance, you've got to have this new upgrade. Basically, its just to show off your system specs, by how many marks you receive.
   Reply
8. January 19, 2006 12:09 AM
   nathanskywalker said:
   Huh, my cousin ran something like that...don't know if it was that exact program, but it was meant to score your compy. And he did not get all that high of a score, even thought he has an X-8oo. Till i actually get my new machine, and a new video card...ok actually a videocard period(that's not 10 years old), i'm not going to even bother with that.
   Reply
9. January 19, 2006 12:24 AM
   otmakus said:
   Hmm, I wonder what will my GeForce MX 4000's score be. Then again, maybe I don't want to know...
   Reply
10. January 19, 2006 1:38 AM
    exscind said:
    3DMark06 is a beefy .exe installer, 576MB beefy to be exact. The demos in there were the same as 3DMark05 if I recall, haven't run the 2005 version in so long that I'm jumbling the different versions of Futuremark's products. But the lighting effects and shaders have definitely improved. Synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark06 is just for bragging rights though; it doesn't nearly compensate for the complexities that a real game's effects have on the overall system. 3DMark06 also needs 1.4GB of space to install, which is significantly more than the 620MB needed for 3DMark05. It practically takes up as much space as a full-blown game!
    Reply
11. January 19, 2006 6:13 AM
    AeonXX said:
    I must say, I'm disappointed in this new release of 3DMark. Like Kaleid mentioned, it's basically 3DMark05 with a couple of new tricks. The greatest difference in this release is the extension of CPU tests, with some minor nods to new graphical effects on the same scripted events. If you have seen 3DMark05, this will look very familiar to you. In 3DMark05, I consistently scored between 3,000 and 3,200 points. In 3DMark06, I only attained a score of 1,205 points. I'm running it at the default settings with the following system specs: Processor: AMD 64 3200+Video Card: PNY 128 MB 6600 GT Memory: 1 GB (2x512 MB) PQI Turbo DDR 400 (PC3200)In closing, if you're getting poor performance in 3DMark or any PC game in general, don't overlook the power supply. I recently replaced my 400 watt PSU with a 500 watt PSU from a different manufacturer, and my frame rate nearly doubled in Battlefield 2!
    Reply
12. January 19, 2006 7:23 AM
    asphix said:
    I'm not too impressed by it either. Its a lot of re-hash with HDR lighting and other direct x 9 based shaders in full gear. It still looks really pretty though, and its a good showcase for how much a difference well programmed DX9 shaders can make.I'm learning that HDR can make or break a game. On some of my x360 games a lot of the time the HDR effects are implemented at the completely wrong times resulting in myself being blinded and unable to see my enemy. I realize this is the point of HDR, but when your in a jet pack in PD:Z and you cant see anything further than 10 feet away it sort of kills the fun. It makes the job of a level designer all the more important.
    Reply
13. January 19, 2006 10:04 AM
    Cartz said:
    Well, I agree with most people that 3dMark06 is 3Dmark05 in nicer clothes, but I think the update is most definately a neccesity considering some of the changes that have gone down since 05s release.The new canyon flight is beautiful in comparison to the previous version, and the code in firefly forest has been optimized to take proper advantage of the latest video hardware...As well, the major change made is the new suite of CPU tests... These will take full advantage of the newest multicore CPUs, resulting in a more realistic representation of their abilities. (in 3dMark05 dual cores scored the same, or even a little less then equivilantly clocked single threaders)All in all, a welcome and needed update, as 3dmark05 wasn't exactly a telling benchmark. 06 does a lot to cover for the previous shortcomings...Gonna dl tonight and see how I do.
    Reply
14. January 19, 2006 12:12 PM
    mentaljedi said:
    I don't think i'd be able to run it heh heh. My computer is REALLY old. Like, Pentium 4 1.4 GHZ, 4 X 64 RD-RAM (I know), 32MB Geforce2. What more can i say to make you pity me?
    Reply
15. January 19, 2006 2:09 PM
    jassim said:
    MWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!I haven't used any of the 3dMark's till now, and my scores will be pretty much drastic.I have an Athlon XP 2000+ @ 1.67 GHz, 512 MB PC2100 RAM, and 128 MB Radeon 9000 Pro, most probably it might not run at all!
    Reply
16. January 19, 2006 7:08 PM
    Supra said:
    This years isnt even fun to watch, I managed a measly 1647 marks.System:Athlon XP 2600+(2.083Ghz), 1GB PC3200, 128MB GeForce 6800(16x6 pipes/shaders unlocked)BAH!!
    Reply
17. January 19, 2006 7:52 PM
    fury said:
    I too would have expected something more than just a prettier '05.However, you have to consider how long it takes to develop anything with this kind of attention to detail. We are hitting the limits of human developers in terms of what they can accomplish with the current game engine technology in the time they have available to do it.There are very few games with the kind of attention to detail as in 3dmark 05 and 06, and those that do stack up to the same standards as the latest 3dmarks took a very long time to develop.So, I can understand why they didn't make it any better than 05 than they did. I just don't get why it was so much bigger a download than 05. For the size of it, I was expecting something spectacular like the leap between 01 and 03, or between 03 and 05.Oh well, I suppose there's always 07 or 08 to look forward to.BTW, 4359[url]http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=27130[/
    rl]
    Reply
18. January 20, 2006 8:06 AM
    twlott said:
    I wasnt to upset with the results I think my system did pretty good.[url]http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=28592[
    rl]
    Reply
19. January 20, 2006 8:12 AM
    twlott said:
    Fury you put the wrong score. Yours is 3424 not 4359. You got the same score as I did.
    Reply
20. January 21, 2006 10:09 PM
    Kaleid said:
    [b]Originally posted by Supra:[/b][quote]This years isnt even fun to watch, I managed a measly 1647 marks.System:Athlon XP 2600+(2.083Ghz), 1GB PC3200, 128MB GeForce 6800(16x6 pipes/shaders unlocked)BAH!![/quote]Well, you got more than I did despite slower CPU.
    Reply
21. January 22, 2006 6:34 PM
    champmanfan said:
    This new benchmark is pretty good to look at with the new HDR levels and looks good on my GeForce 6800Ultra. I got 2,757 points here:[url]http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=47193[
    url]I hate the two CPU tests, because like previous posts have mentioned, it crawls along at 0.4fps and looks awful at that speed. I have noticed that people with dual-core PCs get a doubling of their final score and again with SLi cards. A GeForce GT PC in SLi (same specs) gets a score of 4,269 over my score of 2,757 - despite that fact that my card is superior The score at the top of the list is 11,404!! See here:[url]http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=57449[
    url]
    Reply
22. January 23, 2006 5:32 PM
    JMag034 said:
    This download is HUGE....it really stinks for all those X800 series users though because 6600GTs own them in 06
    Reply
23. January 24, 2006 3:24 PM
    sjps220 said:
    I ran this and my computer still hasn't forgiven me. I think I got around 1350 3dmarks.
    Reply

Recently commented stories