What's the difference between versions? (i.e. why is 3dmark more expensive than 3dmark 11)

[Eleazaros]

I hit some problems with my computer - turns out the cooling system (water cooled) is toast so I need to replace it.

As part of figuring out what the hell was wrong, I ended up digging into performanace evaluation stuff and these tools came to light (among others AIDA65, Intel burn test...)

So I see different versions of the software here and I'm wondering what the differences are for evaluating my systems performance.

Note: I figure if I hvae to fix something that's wrong, I might as well make sure I have the tools to do it fully - I'm not an OC style person but being able to test a system out is rather valuable.

[ecidemon]

I dunno why it is so hard to stick to a naming scheme. It'll only get confusing down the line when changing it.

3dmark is the latest benchmark software from Futuremark

3dmark 11 was 2011 years version, Previously they were named after what year they were released with the exception of 3dmark Vantage a while back.

Heaven Benchmark is good also if you want an alternative which is available for free without limitations like 3dmark have.

You'll also want to download Evga Precision X or MSI Afterburner so you can monitor temperatures and clockrates in real time.

[Eleazaros]

Thank you for the reply. That helps quite a bit.

[Eleazaros]

I actuallyl went out and looked all the info up - visitng their website. It is confusing. The 3DMark page has 3DMark itself looking like an intro to 3 different products listed on the page and not a product in its own right (being a super set of the 3 different products listed).

Someone should teach them how to design a presentation so people can see this more readily.

[ecidemon]

I'm guessing you're refering to the 3 different tests in 3dmark.
This time around they made 3 very destinct test aimed for different hardware with the idea that you should then be able to compare graphical performance from a mobile device up to a an extreme gaming pc.
While fun, it's rather pointless really.

You can use the 3dmark demo to benchmark with but it's annoyingly long process because it forces you to watch the demo run as well and the actuall benchmark tests afterwards and you must sit through all three tests, mobile, laptop/mid and highend.
As such it's better to stick with 3dmark 11 (dx11) or 3dmark Vantage (dx10)

Vantage is good to have anyways if you overclock and want to test for stability, Anno 2070 is also good for stability testing graphics cards as you may pass stable in other games/benchmarks but these two may still fail so if you're good with these, then you're good.

Metro 2033 is also a very demaning game with built in benchmark function, and it's usually very cheap to buy on steam.

[Eleazaros]

Originally posted by ecidemon:

I'm guessing you're refering to the 3 different tests in 3dmark.
This time around they made 3 very destinct test aimed for different hardware with the idea that you should then be able to compare graphical performance from a mobile device up to a an extreme gaming pc.
While fun, it's rather pointless really.

You can use the 3dmark demo to benchmark with but it's annoyingly long process because it forces you to watch the demo run as well and the actuall benchmark tests afterwards and you must sit through all three tests, mobile, laptop/mid and highend.
As such it's better to stick with 3dmark 11 (dx11) or 3dmark Vantage (dx10)

Vantage is good to have anyways if you overclock and want to test for stability, Anno 2070 is also good for stability testing graphics cards as you may pass stable in other games/benchmarks but these two may still fail so if you're good with these, then you're good.

Metro 2033 is also a very demaning game with built in benchmark function, and it's usually very cheap to buy on steam.

Kind of - look at the page for yourself.

http://www.3dmark.com/

Ok, so you have an overview of "generic" 3dmark info. Then you have 2 "products" next to it - one saying "DX11" - implying DX 11 only. One saying "DX10" - implying DX 10 only.

Farther down on the page you find 3 benchmarking tools listed with links.

No where on that main page is a link to get the big package nor any info on the full package beyond the single button at the very top of the page saying "read more".

If you're shopping for "the tools", you expect to find the toolset vs a little orange button being the only link to the premium package.

That's poor layout work from a sales perspective and also can tend to confuse for which version/product is what. "OK, 3DMark 11 - that's the new one with the bigger version number, I guess that's the one I should get."

*snicker*

[ecidemon]

Yeah you're absolutley right, unless you're already familiar with all the different 3dmark versions over the years their page is very confusing. Was easier if they called it 3dmark 13.

It's the same in the graphics card market really. It'll be very confusing if you have not followed the progress over the years.

I've been using 3dmark since 3dmark '99 but this one i won't buy. Out of the 3 tests this time only one is relevant (flamestrike)

[Eleazaros]

Originally posted by ecidemon:

Yeah you're absolutley right, unless you're already familiar with all the different 3dmark versions over the years their page is very confusing. Was easier if they called it 3dmark 13.

It's the same in the graphics card market really. It'll be very confusing if you have not followed the progress over the years.

I've been using 3dmark since 3dmark '99 but this one i won't buy. Out of the 3 tests this time only one is relevant (flamestrike)

yeah - tell me about it. "learning process" - /facepalm as in having to learn a ton of different stuff again with version numbers all over hell and gone.

I picked up the full package and tried it out - system should be very solid but I had overheating problems a bit due to a failed CPU water cooler (replaced now) but I didn't even know where to look.

Running the tests... My CPU seems to be the bottleneck and I don't think it should be performing anywhere near as poorly as it does. (160-180 FPS on one set of tests - until the physics side when it drops to the 20's. an i7-960 Extreme shouldn't be performing that poorly - stressed or not.)

As such, I've a lot more researching to do to try and address this particular problem and these tests do help at least figure out what part of my system is causing me angst.

[ecidemon]

don't expect too much out of the physics test as it's running on cpu only.
In the cloudgate physics test i get 23.9 fps, this is at default Performance setting as im only using the demo.

In the Flamestrike physics test i got 34.1 fps

I have an i7 2600k running at 4.5Ghz.

Keep in mind though, this release of 3dmark is new and it's ment to stress very high end computers so it wont become obsolete too soon. It's been basically the same story with each release.

[Eleazaros]

I noticed a few annoying things.

The 3DMark 11 basic version... It gives you a graph showing how your system compares to other systems of a similar layout.

The paid-for 3DMark - if you want to compare with someone running an OC, quad SLI liquid nitrogen cooled system - it'll let you but nothing close to a gaming rig that a normal gamer would use.

As such, it does offer a lot of different tests that generate fairly meaningless results for a non-benchmark professional or fanatical top-end game-rig OC type user.

It could offer some serious value to stock gamers but it just lacks the details to help understand what you get for results if you buy it. As such, I regret the purchase as a waste vs the value I did get from the free copy.

[UL_Jarnis]

The 3DMark 11 basic version... It gives you a graph showing how your system compares to other systems of a similar layout.

This feature is also coming for results from new 3DMark - it just requires a lot of backend work and we kinda ran short on time before the release so this specific bit was deferred for later addition. It is definitely coming.

[Eleazaros]

Originally posted by FM_Jarnis:

The 3DMark 11 basic version... It gives you a graph showing how your system compares to other systems of a similar layout.

This feature is also coming for results from new 3DMark - it just requires a lot of backend work and we kinda ran short on time before the release so this specific bit was deferred for later addition. It is definitely coming.

If that's the case - good deal.

It was rather disappointing to find that I had no values with wich to compare my system.

I look forward to seeing that.

[UL_James]

Thanks for the feedback on our webpages. You are right, the front page of 3dmark.com is a bit of a mess. We are in process of moving all the content to our main futuremark.com site, where hopefully our product line up should make more sense to you: http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark/all

There are several reasons why the new version is simply called 3DMark, and not 3DMark 2013 or some other name.

The new 3DMark is the first cross-platform version and is the first to include different tests for different levels of hardware, from mobile devices to high-end PCs. Instead of trying to create a name that would work across all platforms and devices, we decided to keep the product name as 3DMark, and focus on naming the tests instead.

For example, it doesn't matter whether you are running 3DMark on Windows, Android, iOS or Windows RT, you can compare Ice Storm scores across all platforms and devices because it is the same test.

You can think of 3DMark as the container for specific benchmark tests. So far, we have Ice Storm, Cloud Gate, Fire Strike and Fire Strike Extreme. We'll soon be adding Ice Storm Extreme to the Windows Edition, (it's already in the Android Edition), and we will be adding even more tests over time instead of releasing a completely new standalone version. We'll be using the same approach for Android, iOS and elsewhere - updating the apps with new tests, instead of releasing new apps.

To answer the questions from the original post:

3DMark is the latest version, released February 2013, and is recommended for most modern hardware. 3DMark 11's Entry preset can still be useful for testing low-end DirectX 11 hardware. Older editions, such as 3DMark 11, 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark06, can be useful if you want to compare your results against the scores from a hardware review. Legacy versions, such as 3DMark05 and older, are now irrelevant as pure benchmarks for modern hardware, but are still used in some OC competitions. All versions of 3DMark have a Basic Edition you can try for free: http://www.futuremark.com/support/downloads

3DMark is $24.99, which is $5 more expensive than 3DMark 11. It includes more tests, interactive hardware monitoring performance graphs and is better suited to modern hardware. By the way, this is the first price increase for 3DMark in over 10 years!

[Eleazaros]

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't to worried about the price - honestly a couple burger's less in my diet - ok, so I didn't cut them out but still... *snicker*

It wasn't a major expense item compared to the couple grand I'd tossed into my computer trying to make sure it performs decently when I'm gaming. This tends to be more a concern for those of us who don't run monster systems - is it doing well enough compared to other systems like mine or are there things I can look at to enhance gaming performance?

This value for me is from finding out how well it operates compared to similar configured systems. That is a stumbling point and I understand it's on the slate to make sure that info is available to us non-monster system types in the not too distant future.

With the ability to compare with how others do with the tests, it will add a good value to run occasionally just to see if it's still running well enough or if I have too much "junk" build-up in background processes/services time-slicing my CPU performance down, could I use an upgraded card, etc. - all without trying to base it upon this or that new game which may have glitches specific to my setup that aren't known/fixed yet.

That is why I didn't find it too hard to spend the money (and why my question on which to buy) -- the lack of that comparison ability did bother me but, again I understand it is being addressed.

Again, thank you for your reply.

[Sirius104]

Sorry to revive an old topic but I remember when 3DMark used to be really cool back around 2001 or so, with the classic Max Payne test and other really epic ones for the next few years. People back then, when getting a newer video card which was quite good, would excitedly download the current 3DMark of the time and check out the latest awesome 3D scenes hopefully at over 10fps :P
But then something happened around the mid-2000's and 3DMark went to crap after that. Somehow the latest iterations just didnt seem as intriguing, the demo scenes not as cool, and also yes the versions became strange and multi-faceted, now along with various other hardware benchmarks they do. I still wish it was back like in the old days, a new totally epic version of just 3DMark would come out once every year or two, to test your latest beast video card if you could afford it. But it simply doesnt feel that way anymore. As with all once great things, they lose their prominence over time.