Several companies team up to bring 3DMark to Android

Several major tech companies are joining together to help promote Android as a platform for games as the open-source mobile OS has languished behind iOS in this regard for quite some time.

Acer, Intel, Qualcomm and SingTel-Optus are all joining Futuremark's "Benchmark Development Program". The joining of these companies with Futuremark should lead to the development of 3DMark for Android in the near future. There are already a couple of tools for benchmarking phones, but Futuremark and its associates might be doing a little more.

Intel's entry into this development is quite rapid for a company behind only one phone; the Orange-exclusive San Diego. It could hint that they're keen to work on more devices, or they just want 3DMark on Android.

At present Microsoft, NVIDIA, Samsung and AMD are all part of the same Benchmark Development Program, yet only one of those companies produces Android handsets. Since this is a benchmark that has existed for years on PCs, this may have influenced their decision, for they're all major computer hardware vendors.

Futuremark developed both 3DMark and PCMark in the past, and these have become common tests, so they know their benchmarking well.

3DMark should be coming to Android later this year, where it will measure your performance with graphics rendering, physics tests, and the abilities of your CPU, and it'll be relying on OpenGL ES2.0. According to Valve, OpenGL has proved faster than DirectX in their recent testing of Left 4 Dead 2 on Linux. According to Valve, OpenGL is faster than DirectX (forum discussion here).

More benchmarking options aren't always needed, but with Futuremark's history we'd expect this to be a good one, if not the dominant test for Android devices.

Source: ZDNet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook's lawsuit settlement gets questioned by judge

Next Story

Sales of HTC One disappointing

13 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

thenetavenger, you do realise that games actually run slower under Direct3D 10/11 than 9c right? Go try CIV V, or Crysis 2. You'll get lower framerates because 10/11 is more demanding on the hardware.

simplezz said,
thenetavenger, you do realise that games actually run slower under Direct3D 10/11 than 9c right? Go try CIV V, or Crysis 2. You'll get lower framerates because 10/11 is more demanding on the hardware.

No, they really don't. What you're noticing here is that those games are taking advantage of unique DX11 features that are placing more demand on the graphics hardware.

A better comparison would be games like World of Warcraft, because those games simply use the DX11 API but don't use any DX11 features, and they gain anything from 15FPS upwards depending on hardware.

As for the article, the benchmark is good news, but OpenGL ES 2.0 is not going to be able to compete with the full DirectX3D implementation that WP8 is providing, nor DirectX11.1 that Windows 8 Tablets is offering. (Even OpenGL 4.x can't touch DirectX 11 in performance.)

According to Valve, OpenGL has proved faster than DirectX

Wow, are they going for the gold of lies or what?

Here is the stuff they are leaving out, and why it matters.

1) There are NO OpenGL Benchmarks for Windows 7 provided, why?
*** This would show two possible outcomes that they do not want out there.

2) They are using DirectX 9c, versus a NEWER version of OpenGL.
*** To be accurate and avoid the 'overhead' they describe that DOES exist in DX9c, they would need to recode the Windows 7 version for DX10 or DX11 to even the playing field. They are using the unified shader code variation of OpenGL, on a unified shader based GPU, and running DirectX 9c from nearly 10 years ago that has NO CONCEPT of unified shaders.

3) They do NOT describe the 'optimizations' they added, just reducing texture quality or dropping a post processing effect would result in a massive FPS increase that being their engine, only they would know they are doing to skew the results.

4) This is their marketing attempt to make Linux and OpenGL popular in the minds of gamers, so that they can shove their product down their throats.


In the real world, at best OpenGL benchmarks 20% slower than the equivalent DirectX version. (Google/Bing it, seriously.)

Windows 7 running OpenGL also benchmarks 10-20% faster than Linux across the board. (Again Google/Bing it.)


DirectX10 and DirectX11 have low level optimizations that are a marked increase in performance over DirectX9c, but unless they are fully implemented in the engine, are not realized. This is why strapping DX10/11 effects on a DX9 graphics engine was slower instead of faster, where using a native DX10/11 engine would be faster than the DX9 engine even with the additional effects and processing.


This issue is so complex that for Valve to try to run this and GET AWAY WITH IT, because people like the Verge and Neowin will NOT ask the hard questions.


This is the most insane thing I have seen to make 'news' sites in a long long time, and for it to get published and repeated without questioning Valve is a mistake. They could easily be exposed for lying if the right tech site has the nerve to challenge them.

OpenGL is faster then DirectX on Linux, really? am surprised they even got DirectX to work on Linux.

And if they mean Windows system with DirectX vs a Linux system with OpenGL. Then they have done a really poor job at using DirectX.

I do wonder how 3dmark will perform on Android. But in all fairness, they should release it for iOS, BBM and WP7/8 aswell for a proper comparison.
these benchmarks are useless without comparisons

Shadowzz said,
OpenGL is faster then DirectX on Linux, really? am surprised they even got DirectX to work on Linux.

And if they mean Windows system with DirectX vs a Linux system with OpenGL. Then they have done a really poor job at using DirectX.

I do wonder how 3dmark will perform on Android. But in all fairness, they should release it for iOS, BBM and WP7/8 aswell for a proper comparison.
these benchmarks are useless without comparisons

OpenGL is faster on linux when compared to DirectX on windows, OpenGL on windows compared to DirectX on windows is the comparision I'd like to see, since its the same platform

neufuse said,

OpenGL is faster on linux when compared to DirectX on windows

No. OpenGL is faster on Linux than DX9 on Windows, it's not hard to beat something that's a decade old. Interesting that there doesn't appear to be any OpenGL to DX11 comparisons!

Shadowzz said,
OpenGL is faster then DirectX on Linux, really? am surprised they even got DirectX to work on Linux.

Your jibes won't deflect the truth I'm afraid.

Shadowzz said,

And if they mean Windows system with DirectX vs a Linux system with OpenGL. Then they have done a really poor job at using DirectX.

Actually, both Doom3 and L4D2 both run faster on Linux's OpenGL implementation than on Windows' Direct3D. So no, this isn't the only game. If you follow the blog you'd see that once a game/engine is fully optimised for OpenGL, the batch processing is approximately 14% faster than Direct3D.

neufuse said,

OpenGL on windows compared to DirectX on windows is the comparision I'd like to see, since its the same platform

From Valve's post:

"Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration."

simplezz said,

Actually, both Doom3 and L4D2 both run faster on Linux's OpenGL implementation than on Windows' Direct3D. So no, this isn't the only game. If you follow the blog you'd see that once a game/engine is fully optimised for OpenGL, the batch processing is approximately 14% faster than Direct3D.

WHOA! Doom3 uses Direct3d? Since when?

simplezz said,

Your jibes won't deflect the truth I'm afraid.

Actually, both Doom3 and L4D2 both run faster on Linux's OpenGL implementation than on Windows' Direct3D. So no, this isn't the only game. If you follow the blog you'd see that once a game/engine is fully optimised for OpenGL, the batch processing is approximately 14% faster than Direct3D.

Version of OpenGL that understands unified shaders, versus DirectX 9c from 2003 that has NO UNDERSTANDING of unified shaders.

Do you see how they might be tweaking the numbers to show what they want to support their claims about Linux and OpenGL that are just not true?

Also without direct access to the code, just flipping the MOD or LOD can change the numbers significantly, and the world would never know. This is the problem of a creator trying to prove THEIR OWN POINT.

funkydude said,

No. OpenGL is faster on Linux than DX9 on Windows, it's not hard to beat something that's a decade old. Interesting that there doesn't appear to be any OpenGL to DX11 comparisons!


oh its vs DX9, i must've missed that my mistake
simplezz said,

Your jibes won't deflect the truth I'm afraid.

Actually, both Doom3 and L4D2 both run faster on Linux's OpenGL implementation than on Windows' Direct3D. So no, this isn't the only game. If you follow the blog you'd see that once a game/engine is fully optimised for OpenGL, the batch processing is approximately 14% faster than Direct3D.


Yeah the first line was more of a joke
But considering its vs DX9, why should they be proud of that? its like 'look ubuntu is faster then Windows XP'... who cares?

go optimize it on Win7 with latest DirectX and we'll see

This is just one sided, hooray current gen linux is faster then a decade old windows! Hooray!

I think there is a little confusion in this article...

"Intel's entry into this development is quite rapid for a company behind only one phone; the ZTE Blade."

ZTE made the ZTE blade not Intel. Intel's Android phone is the Orange San Diego which is I think you are confusing with the Orange San Francisco which was Orange's name for the ZTE Blade.