cytat z tego samego zrodla:
So overall what must one think of 3DMark 2006? Well certainly it is a good show case for HDR and SM3, and in that way has some nice eye candy. It also will certainly becoming a tool of bragging rights as thousands submit scores hoping for the top spot. Overall the importance as a serious benchmark when evaluating a graphics card or CPU has to come into question. Clearly the results here do not reflect real world gaming benchmark when comparing AMD to Intel, but they do seem more accurate when comparing Nvidia to ATI. While we would never expect the 840 D to outperform the FX60 in gaming it is usual for the 7800GT to beat the X1800XL. So we have sort of a split decision. 3DMark 2006 is certainly good for eye candy, but we would not recommend one use it as the main reason for choosing hardware. We always must recommend real world application performance numbers to synthetic tests any day of the week.
nie radze opierac jakichkolwiek tez, teorii itp na 3dsmarku.. zbyt kuszaca jest perspektywa optymizacji, sciemnizacji i krętyzacji - nie moga sie jej oprzec i producenci procow i tworcy 3dsmarka.. zbyt latwo wmowic milionom fanboy'ow cokolwiek sie chce tym narzedziem
a co do intela i amd.. w zestawie ktory podales na gorze, dales amd pamieci za 1000 zeta a intelowi za duzo, duzo mniej - jakis byl tego powod? poza podbiciem sztucznie ceny zestawu amd?
przyjme dowolny zestaw a64 w prezencie
