Have you given it a whirl yourself? Define modern PC configurations...

386SX wrote:

Hi,

not having any modern/high/medium/low end pc configs, I'd like to ask how easily modern pc configurations can runs old "heavy" pc benchmarks like 3dmark2003/2005/2006/Crysis not necessary on a final result value basis but more on an your own personal/general feeling/cpu/gpu/%/bandwidth usage basis. Can modern cpu/gpu mostly render these 3D environments "without any efforts" or some old benchmarks still can kick modern architecture cpus/gpus/memories?

Thanks

the old 3dmark just runs very fast and the score becomes limited by CPU
Crysis is still somewhat challenging to modern CPUs because it's very heavy and only uses 2 cores/threads, but challenging in the sense of running 100% of the time at 60++

I think it's fair to say that CPUs progressed a lot less than GPUs, and that many of the old software don't use all those extra cores/threads, so it's normally the bottleneck

Since DX9/DX10 games programs can't use Tesselation, most GPUs can't be stressed "to max" on them.
Also, the sheer shader processing power of current (and even last gen GPUs) is WAY too much for any CPU under 5GHz clock to handle with old software such as 3DMark.
Side note : Best GPU utilisation you will see with 3DMark 03 😉

Of course getting ~99% across all tests is impossible.

As for Crysis :

^GPU usage was never at 100%.
If you are asking for renderiung errors - it worked fine for me.

agent_x007 wrote:

Since DX9/DX10 games programs can't use Tesselation, most GPUs can't be stressed "to max" on them. Also, the sheer shader proces […]
Show full quote

Since DX9/DX10 games programs can't use Tesselation, most GPUs can't be stressed "to max" on them.
Also, the sheer shader processing power of current (and even last gen GPUs) is WAY too much for any CPU under 5GHz clock to handle with old software such as 3DMark.
Side note : Best GPU utilisation you will see with 3DMark 03 😉

3DMark 03 mini.png

Of course getting ~99% across all tests is impossible.

As for Crysis :

Crysis 2560x1600 AAx8 mini.png

^GPU usage was never at 100%.
If you are asking for renderiung errors - it worked fine for me.

Thanks, interesting how 3dmark03 as said can't use most of the gpu while Crysis beside the high resolution can still quite push that high end config!

What about software renderer? Are there any benchmark/games that can still someway test modern cpu through a 3D software rendered enviroments, like a sw Quake2 at 4K?

386SX wrote:

Can modern cpu/gpu mostly render these 3D environments "without any efforts" or some old benchmarks still can kick modern architecture cpus/gpus/memories?

Yeah, these old benchmarks are a piece of cake for modern hardware. Even Ryzen's integrated graphics will run Crysis easily enough.

3DMark01 and 03 frame rates are downright ridiculous on modern hardware, often reaching into the thousands so long as you don't use Windows 10. 3DMark05 frame rates are much lower. Looking at GPU and CPU usage numbers during a 3D'05 run, it appears to be using just one CPU core. The GPU fan doesn't even ramp up.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Yeah, these old benchmarks are a piece of cake for modern hardware. Even Ryzen's integrated graphics will run Crysis easily enou […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote:

Can modern cpu/gpu mostly render these 3D environments "without any efforts" or some old benchmarks still can kick modern architecture cpus/gpus/memories?

Yeah, these old benchmarks are a piece of cake for modern hardware. Even Ryzen's integrated graphics will run Crysis easily enough.

3DMark01 and 03 frame rates are downright ridiculous on modern hardware, often reaching into the thousands so long as you don't use Windows 10. 3DMark05 frame rates are much lower. Looking at GPU and CPU usage numbers during a 3D'05 run, it appears to be using just one CPU core. The GPU fan doesn't even ramp up.

4.8-3D01-XP.PNG

4.6-3D03-W7.png

4.6-3D05-W7.png

Thanks! Impressive how 3dmark2005 is still that heavy to render in the second (great) benchmark. 130fps @ 1024x768 with such powerful machine! 😀

386SX wrote:

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Yeah, these old benchmarks are a piece of cake for modern hardware. Even Ryzen's integrated graphics will run Crysis easily enou […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote:

Can modern cpu/gpu mostly render these 3D environments "without any efforts" or some old benchmarks still can kick modern architecture cpus/gpus/memories?

Yeah, these old benchmarks are a piece of cake for modern hardware. Even Ryzen's integrated graphics will run Crysis easily enough.

3DMark01 and 03 frame rates are downright ridiculous on modern hardware, often reaching into the thousands so long as you don't use Windows 10. 3DMark05 frame rates are much lower. Looking at GPU and CPU usage numbers during a 3D'05 run, it appears to be using just one CPU core. The GPU fan doesn't even ramp up.

4.8-3D01-XP.PNG

4.6-3D03-W7.png

4.6-3D05-W7.png

Thanks! Impressive how 3dmark2005 is still that heavy to render in the second (great) benchmark. 130fps @ 1024x768 with such powerful machine! 😀

Yep, it's completely CPU-limited. It only uses a single thread (on a 12-threaded processor, CPU usage is is only ~8% during the benchmark), and probably only uses SSE. After all, this benchmark does run on P3/Athlon XP.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Yep, it's completely CPU-limited. It only uses a single thread (on a 12-threaded processor, CPU usage is is only ~8% during the benchmark), and probably only uses SSE. After all, this benchmark does run on P3/Athlon XP.

Does the heavier 3dmark06 suffer the same limitations?