It seems like our little article about RyderMark got a lot of attention over at Futuremark and they've even written an official response to the article. It seems like they're happy to see another benchmark appearing and then goes on to talking about the engines used in 3DMark, due to the fact that I mentioned that Futuremark also claims to use a "real" game engine. Well, it seems like they think products such as the Ice Storm Fighters Demo from Intel is a commercially available game based on their engine, which I have to disagree with, since it has limited appeal to anyone that doesn't own a Quad Core CPU.
Now I wasn't bashing Futuremark in this article and I think they got the wrong impression here, I was merely stating the fact that benchmark applications like these are rarely based on a "real" game engine. I didn't say there was anything wrong with having their own engine, as it should hopefully allow anyone with a brand spanking new graphics card to push it as hard as possible with the limits of the technologies that where known at the time of the release of the benchmark. RyderMark has some interesting features as I mentioned in the article, but I also said that I don't think it will replace 3DMark or any of the games that sites use to test graphics cards with.
I'm also not so sure about the claim of 3DMark06 being fully multi threaded, if it is it doesn't seem to make much of a difference to any scores, especially in the CPU test, but I guess that might have something to do with the way this benchmark is coded. Not all multi threaded applications take full advantage of all the cores available to them, part of this depends on how CPU hungry the application in question is, but RyderMark seems to be both GPU and CPU hungry.
We appreciate the work that goes into producing any benchmark, as they all make our lives easier when we're testing products, but in this instance I don't think Futuremark has anything to worry about and we're looking forward to the DirectX 10 instalment of 3DMark, which is hopefully not too far away.
You can read the full reply from FutureMark here