Early in December 2012, I posted a short article about the Fire Strike trailer for the next 3DMark with the note that the full release was promised before the end of 2012. Insert the obligatory “the best laid plans” quote or something similar, but the story as usual is that there have been some additional delays. Futuremark sent out an email today explaining the reason for the delays, and notably absent this time around are any firm release dates other than, “sooner rather than later.” Here’s the pertinent information from Futuremark’s President, Oliver Baltuch:

We work with many of the world's leading technology companies when creating our benchmarks. We work closely with the engineers and technicians at AMD, Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA and many other companies, benefiting from their insights and expertise. We work with our Benchmark Development Program partners from start to finish, from the initial specification document to the final software release. BPD members receive every development build and have access to source code to see how the benchmark functions.

We believe that this open process of close cooperation with industry experts is the only way to create accurate and impartial benchmarks that measure performance fairly. Having high-level access to the industry's leaders also ensures that our benchmarks are not only relevant for today's hardware, but remain relevant year after year.

If there is a downside, it's that it takes time to gather and resolve the feedback from so many partners, and that is where we find ourselves today. I hope this helps you understand why I cannot confirm a launch date right now. Simply put, 3DMark will be ready when it's ready, which we expect will be sooner rather than later. What is certain is that the new 3DMark will be our best benchmark yet and well worth waiting for. You can find out more from our website: www.futuremark.com/3dmark

One of the interesting points is that with all the partners Futuremark has, hopefully we won’t see any completely shameful optimizations for one smartphone platform. That’s potentially part of the reason for the delays, but the other big reason is likely the support of multiple platforms—getting everything approved on three different mobile OSes for their app stores could be a bottleneck, not to mention making sure everything works properly.

Something else we haven’t mentioned before is that the new 3DMark will run at an internal resolution now and scale to your screen resolution, so regardless of your screen resolution (e.g. on a laptop, tablet, or smartphone), the same amount of computation will be done and scores will be comparable. It’s a nice feature for benchmarking, though the final results end up being more a way of doing “true” comparisons between graphics hardware than a good indication of whether device X will run game Y at a reasonable frame rate—the latter is often more a question of whether the developer takes time to optimize for a platform than the core hardware.

Besides the 3DMark delays, I met with Oliver at CES to discuss what’s happening and where they see their benchmarks headed in the near future. Obviously 3DMark and PCMark will both continue to see updates, but the devices people use for everyday computing are in flux. With 3DMark going cross-platform, it will be interesting to see if PCMark follows suit—we could certainly use some additional benchmarks for testing tablets and laptops. A good standardized and open way of testing other elements of performance—storage, WiFi, memory bandwidth, etc.—could also be useful in helping to improve less immediately obvious aspects of a device. eMMC storage for instance hasn’t exactly been the speediest way of doing things. On the other hand, seeing which hardware is fastest doesn’t always matter as much as determining (often subjectively) which platform is actually best.

Anyway, while Futuremark hasn’t committed to a firm release date, 3DMark “Next” is likely to hit some time in the next month or two. How it will stack up against other benchmarks when it lands remains to be seen.

POST A COMMENT

15 Comments

View All Comments

  • ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - link

    Have you heard whether Futuremark intends to do anything with OpenGL ES 3.0? In terms of 3DMark showing off and testing the latest and greatest in graphics, it really should be at the forefront of OpenGL ES 3.0 adoption. Any change that Cloud Gate, the DirectX 10 benchmark, will eventually be ported to OpenGL ES 3.0 and mobile? PowerVR Rogue and ARM Midgard, perhaps Adreno 330 too, are all DX10+ compliant so they support geometry shaders even though OpenGL ES 3.0 doesn't mandate them. So if Cloud Gate does use geometry shaders Futuremark can just require the OES3.0 extension be present.

    In terms of optimizations for smartphone platforms, do we have a sense of whether mobile GPU drivers are overly optimizing specifically for benchmarks like GLBenchmark and soon 3DMark such that they aren't a good reflection of general game performance? Without the easy ability to swap drivers or GPUs it'd probably be hard to catch.
    Reply
  • red_dog007 - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    As far as 3DMark supporting OpenGL ES3.0, that is sadly an official negative from Futuremark. The specs were finalized too late or something a long those lines for them to include it.

    Would be nice if GLBenchmark would release 3.0 to the public!
    Reply
  • karasaj - Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - link

    This reminds me of Blizzard's fantastic "Soon ™" timeframe :) Reply
  • Luminair - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    Like Blizzard, 3dmark came to this policy after john carmack's famous "done when its done" line. Romantic, but failing to deliver is a consequence of being bad at business. Reply
  • rs2 - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    No, it's a consequence of putting quality first and not being willing to publish buggy software for the sake of meeting a deadline. Reply
  • silverblue - Monday, January 28, 2013 - link

    Certainly better than Mark Rein's infamous "two weeks" as regards the UT2003 demo. Reply
  • zsero - Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - link

    Jarred, Geeks3D has gone multi-platform recently. Check out GpuTest and GLSL Hacker (just came out a few days ago):
    http://www.geeks3d.com/20121113/gputest-0-2-0-cros...
    http://www.geeks3d.com/glslhacker/

    Maybe you can make a 3 platform video gaming comparison one day? Things are getting more and more interesting now that Valve has confirmed the Steambox!
    Reply
  • cityuser - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    each time when futuremark delay it's 3dmark, we suspect that nVidia was involved.

    maybe futuremark work with nVidia to descale the performance of AMD card again.
    Reply
  • powerarmour - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    Well, there is always Catzilla in the mean time! Reply
  • CharonPDX - Thursday, January 24, 2013 - link

    ESPECIALLY on mobile.

    Yeah, it's nice to know that a Nexus 10 can render 1920x1080 faster than an iPad 3, but since the iPad 3 has a lower native resolution than the Nexus 10, it might be faster at native. And for games on mobile, that's all that matters.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now