When it is avaible, could someone "frap" this and post in on Youtube (or some other video site)?
Printable View
When it is avaible, could someone "frap" this and post in on Youtube (or some other video site)?
Available...
http://shop.futuremark.com/shop/
AAANNNDD, FM site is down
MajorGeeks has mirrors up.
Quick preview ( review shall be online in 1 hour or so ):
3D Mark Vantage Run Video [ copy / save as ]
And some charts:
http://www.benchzone.com/Charts/3D_Mark_Vantage
GamersHell is up..
http://www.gamershell.com/download_25130.shtml
Downloading now, bought Basic version, 7 min left.
All the download links:
http://www.futuremark.com/download/3.../?from=counter
The video looks good :up: !
How big is the Basic file size?
450mg
Purchased! :)
Now I need to finish work and try it out! 3 hours remaining ...:p:
Oh good. I can DL at work and burn it on a disk!! :)
trial = only 1 run
:down:
Funny, 3Dmark is THE standard benchmark and it's using all the newest technologies, yet I still think Crysis is alot nicer.
(except for the scale and cloth simulation)
UNFORTUNATELY YOUR KEY IS NOT VALID
Yes, it is, but it ain't working! :mad:
/Off to try a fifth time then...
wha?Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
"only 1 run" like in "start 3dmark, run 1 bench, close 3dmark, start again, run 1 bench again... etc." or like in "install 3dmark, run it once, uninstall it because it's useless now" :confused: :eek:
lol i can not even run a benchmark due to the fact that i get a BSOD when it starts checking for system information. I really do hate Nvidia, their drivers really piss me off.
This might help...Quote:
Originally Posted by korda
Quote:
Q: If I enter my key (Trial, Basic, Advanced or Professional) when prompted, I get an error saying that the key is not valid. I am sure that it is 100% correct. What should I do?
A: This is a known issue in 3DMark Vantage 1.0.0. Please re-type the key and it should work correctly.
Q: I get an error when I start 3DMark Vantage 1.0.0 which says "Error occured in DLL. Error type: std::exception Error message: boost::filesystem::create_directory". Is something wrong with my system?
A: This is a known issue in 3DMark Vantage 1.0.0. The error only appears randomly on the first run of 3DMark Vantage. You can ignore the error as it doesn't affect your benchmark results.
Q: I ran 3DMark Vantage and got a score of P1020. What does "P" stand for?
A: In 3DMark Vantage you get a letter with each 3DMark score. E = Entry preset, P = Performance preset, H = High preset and X = Extreme preset. This was done to differentiate the presets.
Q: I purchased the Advanced Edition to benchmark my graphics card Anti-Aliasing performance. When I enable Anti-Aliasing in the settings, I get 0 3DMarks. Is it a driver issue or did I something wrong?
A: 3DMark Vantage outputs 3DMark scores only if you have selected a preset (entry, performance, high or extreme). If you select any settings outside the pre-defined presets, your preset is "custom" and no 3DMark score will be shown. You can use the graphics score to see the performance impact of Anti-Aliasing, or any other optional settings.
Q: I submitted a result to the ORB, but it says that my graphics driver is not approved by Futuremark. How can I get an approved driver?
A: At the time of launch, we haven't approved any drivers for 3DMark Vantage. This will be done as soon as official WHQL drivers will be publicly available from IHV's.
Q: My monitor doesn't support the performance preset 1280x1024 resolution, and thus I can't get a 3DMark score. What can I do?
A: You can purchase the Advanced Edition ($19.95) which enables you to select different presets which may suite your monitor better.
Install once, run once, no more runs @ RaZz!
-----
Alternative download link for the video ( RapidShare if you prefer :p: )
--- Trying to remotely upload 3D Mark Vantage v100 Free Edition to RapidShare now ---
yep , you can only use it 1 time , you have to buy at least the basic edition to run it againQuote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
regardsQuote:
Please note that the 3DMark Vantage Trial version will only allow you to run the benchmark once, and will only display the overall benchmark score. To enjoy unlimited benchmark runs and the full range of features 3DMark Vantage can offer, acquire a full license from futuremark website
If it is only one run for the trial then that isnt fair :(
the Basic edition is only $6.95 = £3.50.
I'll wait a while before getting it though.
If you reinstall the trial version, can it be run again?
Is this worth it? Exactly what are the real world improvements. I want end-user input, I can read manufactures's info.
Read a review ( hint hint, software reviews section @ homepage :p: )
Ah crap, I didn't see this thread.
Our review is here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=186009
We tested about every DX10 card and a tons of CPUs + Screenshots + Video of the graphic tests.
the Jmax-hardware's review : http://www.jmax-hardware.com/index.p...=693&Itemid=41
my result
9800GX2 @ 700/1750/1000
forceware 174.174
C2D E8400 @ 4Ghz
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5186/2k7sm5.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3269/detakx9.jpg
What "real world" improvements are you looking for? Its a benchmark program for DX10...thats it.
They had a nice discount/upgrade price for 3D Mark 06 users. :)
can't wait to run this
They do? I bought 06... how do I get that discount????Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinvented
Got it in an email..
Quote:
Dear Futuremark Customer:
We have released our latest 3DMark® Benchmark: 3DMark® Vantage for Windows Vista™. As a current 3DMark06 user, we would like to let you know you may purchase the upgrade version of 3DMark Vantage for a discounted price of $15 (download version): take advantage of your discount here.
3DMark® Vantage delivers a modern gaming performance benchmark to measure native DirectX 10 and multi-core CPU performance with large amounts of physics, AI and graphics on PC’s running Microsoft® Windows Vista®. 3DMark Vantage shows the user where their gaming system performs at its peak or doesn’t have the horsepower, and how to get the most performance possible out of their hardware for today’s and tomorrow’s games. 3DMark Vantage is easy enough for even the most casual enthusiast to use yet supports in-depth, professional industry grade testing. 3DMark® Vantage is the premium benchmark for evaluating the latest generation of gaming hardware!
Comprehensive Result Analyzer
3DMark Vantage's comprehensive online Result Analyzer tool provides an invaluable insight into the factual gaming performance of your computer. The Online ResultBrowser (ORB) is designed and developed specially for 3DMark Vantage Advanced and Professional Edition users. In addition to the normal result search & compare functionalities you get unlimited project storage, advanced search options and much more. The Pro ORB extends 3DMark Vantage to the extreme!
3DMark Vantage Advanced Features
Full Support of Microsoft®Direct3D_10 ,SM4.0* Advanced Post Processing effects
GPU Simulated Physics
Heavily Multi-Threaded AI/Physics Workloads
Support for PPU Hardware Acceleration
4 Preset Test Settings up to Extreme
More tools, options and settings than ever before
Approved for private and non-commercial Use Only
Click here to take advantage of your discount!
Happy Benchmarking!
Futuremark
Get the "Advanced Upgrade" and save a few bucks. I did. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
http://shop.futuremark.com/shop/prod...=3dmarkvantage
The discount is only $5, and you have to have the registration number handy for your '06 purchase.
This 3dmark is really nothing special... the graphic is outdated, looks worse than many PC games currently on the market... for me it looks even worse than 3dmark05... I expected a lot more... huge disappointment...
i tryed run again the Trial version and no problem !
edit: already run 3 times the Trial version !
so that means you can run the times you want !
..
haha so true :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaKLeZ
That's great news :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
yes but only 1 SubmitQuote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
Tom's Hardware has a write-up on Vantage here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...tage,1919.html
Hey guys ( 'n' girls :p: ),
I'd like to let you know that I've just published the article/review of 3D Mark Vantage.
I believe it's a good read for both gamers/"average joe" users & overclockers ( addicted or not, extreme or not :D ).
Let me quote some stuff from the review:
Quote:
Finally! Two years and some months upon the release of 3D Mark06 ( back in January 2006 ) FutureMark is proud to announce the release of their latest installment of the 3D Mark Series today.
How's it called, 3D Mark08 ? Nope, it's name is Vantage, 3D Mark Vantage ( no, I'm not a James Bond fan )
Wait a second. You're talking about something called 3D Mark blah blah, that's good to know, but... what's the purpose/usage of this program ?
FutureMark's 3D Mark Series are synthetic benchmarks, applications that stress the capabilities of your system's graphics card to measure its performance and give you a score that you can use to compare your graphics card & system's performance in gaming with your friends and a big database of user submitted results on FutureMark's online comparison service called ORB ( Online Result Browser ).
Everytime a new 3D Mark is being released there are hundreds of users downloading the trial version to check the "breathtaking" graphics and their high end systems brought down to their knees, attaining low framerates and low 3D Mark scores. That's 3D Mark's purpose, to push the users systems to the limits. When FutureMark released 3D Mark06 the very best computers were scoring 5000 to 7000 and the benchmark was running like a slideshow. Everytime 3D Mark was there to "show us" the graphics revolution and what the new hardware features could bring us.
As for the users, there are two kinds of users:
The "average" PC users or gamers who will run 3D Mark Vantage once or maybe twice, and benchmarkers, people who like ( or should I say love ) running benchmarks and overclocking & tweaking their systems to reach the highest scores in various benchmarks, including the benchmarks of the 3D Mark Series. Along with those benchmarkers, there are some crazy people, the so-called "Extreme Overclockers" who compete on various benchmarks hunting the top scores using extreme cooling techniques and high voltages and various software & hardware tweaks & modifications to overclock their systems to the "absolute" max.
The "Extreme Overclockers" enjoy overclocking & tweaking their hardware and running 3D Mark and other benchmarks as a "hobby", they don't care if the scores are reflected in real-life gaming.
On the other side there are normal people who'd like to use a simple program as a judgment factor to compare graphics cards & PCs performance in gaming, and they don't like 3D Mark once they realise that the scores do not reflect the real-life gaming performance of the cards/systems compared.
Hopefully the brand new 3D Mark Vantage will solve these issues, and satisfy both the gamers looking for something as a performance index/indicator and the benchmarkers.
We'll find out soon in this review, but let me start by saying that... with 3D Mark Vantage FutureMark made a big step ahead.
Read the full review, hereQuote:
Obviously the higher the stress the benchmark puts on the CPU, the better it will scale, and the "Entry" preset is surely the most CPU raw power hog in 3D Mark Vantage because it's using a low resolution ( 1024x768 ) and NoAA NoAF and low graphics quality & effects, which make it highly CPU dependent.
This is reflected in the total score figures as you can see.
Our scored nearly got doubled when we switched from using 1 CPU Core to 2 CPU Cores!
Switching from 2 Cores to 3 Cores gave us ~25% higher total score, and from 3 Cores to 4 Cores gave us ~14% higher score.
The gains in "Performance" preset are lower, but still significant to those who're participating in the overclocking rankings on the net.
At "High" we gained 600pts from 1 Core to 2 Cores, and then about 200pts for each extra Core, still good for the overclocking rankings ( but a 8 core system would be a overkill ).
At the "Extreme" preset the gains are marginal, not worth mentioning IMO.
Nice review...!! Though you should learn how to get rid of " ( ) ". Its either another sentence, or it doesnt belong. You have way too many parenthesis though. my old professors woudl have pwned me if I turned that in. Good thing it wasnt for that guy!!
This 3DMark still a pile of crap when it comes to testing the impact of SLi, Tri-SLi, and Quad-SLi?
Don't think so Natalia ;)
LMFAO it looks like a old cartoon :rofl: :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl: :rofl:
I will somewhat agree. The first thing that came to mind was a game called "No One Lives Forever". lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TheHardCase
Just ran it... 31xx points.
And I ask myself... why so low? It didn't show me anything mind bending. Crysis could do ok on my setup on medium and it would be 2 better looking than this.
I'm sorry, but I've actually spent more time waiting for the bloody thing to load the tests than on the benchmark itself. 2 game tests, 2 cpu tests (if I'm wrong about the counting, I'm sorry, but it was just all so quick I didn't even have time to count the tests) and poof? That's it?
Jane Nash is just awfully ugly. Lots of bloom and blur to try and cover up the bad textures and modelling, but they're not fooling anyone.
The second test was a little better, but still... the asteroids looked like crap (quite literally) and the lighting seemed really, really wierd. But once again, they tried to compensate with extra HDR and bloom and all those photo non-realistic crap.
And although at least the little ships looked good from a distance, when you saw them up close... the textures were on the same level as the rest of the textures in Vantage. Sewer level that is.
Don't even get me started on the whole registration thing... needing a key to run free, trial software... I swear if I get even one unsolicited e-mail from Futuremark I will take them to court (yeah, I unchecked those 2 thingies) and sue them for spamming me after already letting me down with their product.
So basically, to wrap up my little "review".... what Futuremark managed to achieve here is a pretty interface for launching a bad benchmark. Congratulations! It only took you 2 bloody years. I think you guys need to find the people who quit or were fired after the launch of 3dmark 2005 and get them back on the team. And fire the others.
... Ageia physics my arse!
:ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: I agree 100%, I thought it was just funny how bad it looks :rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallardo
2-3 years old games look and perform alot better than this poo
Just tried it out myself 11k...graphics are meh..definitely not the same effect as running 3dmark06 for the first time. Still experimenting seems like a decent benchmark with all the different tests just not sure this is worth the 15 bucks it cost me LOL I guess after awhile you don't watch the benchmark anyway just click run and look at your score at the end but it really seems like they didn't spend much time at all on this benchmark seems more like they just de optimized code to make it run worse as graphics like this in real games net me 100-200 FPS versus the 35 or so I get in this program.
Also another strange thing CPU score acounts for over 1/2 of my total 3dmark score, i thought this was supposed to be a graphics benchmark?
I guess it will flesh out over time haven't played with it enough but so far this just seems like a benchmark to cater to the LN2 crowd running CPU's at insane clocks for short amounts of time which is fine if it's explained that is what it is before you click the buy button but it's not and I kind of feel a bit ripped off right now. At least it was only 15 bucks and n ot 50 or somethiing like a new game would cost me LOL
My advice, save your money and just use the Crysis benchmark unless benchiing is your greatest enjoyment and you want evry benchmark in existence to play with in which case 15 bucks is really not alot to spend to play this "benchmark"
Cheers
Ya still trying to figure out why this Jane Nash bench is only netting me 12-18fps with graphics that are so yesterday. The new calico looks pretty sweet, cept for the fuzzy asteriods.
Why? Why? Oh why did I buy this :banana::banana::banana::banana:?
Because you want to enlarge your E-penis by getting higher scores? :p:
The water in Jane Nash is done really well. The action is ok. The guys shooting at Jane are absolutely pathetic. Looks like graphics from the late 90s. Too much HDR on Jane for my tastes.
New Calico is really sweet, I love it, especially when the planet gets bombed.
The CPU tests are meh, about the same as my opinion of the cpu tests in 06.
New Calico should look really sweet at Extreme Preset, unfortunately my 8800GT delivers an absolute slideshow at those settings.
New page added.
Page 11 - Results: CPU Scalling in Graphics Tests ( All presets tested )
@Scimitar:
In deed, New Calico is awesome at Extreme ;)
And can also be a nice wallpaper :p:
3DMark Vantage is absolute crap!
These graphics are ridiculous, Half Life 2 has got better textures! Just a whole bunch of bloom and motion blur trying to cover up, that it just looks pants.
Maybe it's just the performance setting, but c'mon, even in the trial they should at least run it at full glory. I'm not even going to pay for it.
2-3 year old games look better, heck I'd say it looks on par with '05.
I don't even see why it should be running this slow, it's absolutely laughable.
You tried turning off the performance setting maybe?
The scores are looking fine with single cards scoring around 8k. When 3d mark 06 came out, the latest cards were scoring 6k+.
The little extra performance this time around may also be due to the better CPUs we have.
And how much do I need to pay to adjust those settings. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
hmmmm i can't remember any 7800gtx's scoring 6k. SLI probably but single 7800gtx in 06 and 6k?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
but i would say i like the different presets. but why is the only good looking test test2? test one is extremely disappointing.
Looks like this is where i quit benching altogether...i dont think i'll even be wasting the bandwidth on this.
In response to...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
Another funny thing I've noticed in this. At 9-10 fps New Calico ran pretty smooth. When the frame rate got to 15 fps I could actually see the refresh line.... you know.... when vsync is off and you get high frame rates you can see a line. Yeah... I saw that... at 15 fps. And for the few seconds it kept at 15 fps it was smooth as butter.
Is Futuremark playing the number game? Meaning FPS shown = (REAL FPS / 4) ?
There is at least one cpu dependent game today, EQ2.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
After running it a few times, my scores are horrible. Especially on performance setting. I don't really understand why CPU tests are important at all.
It's even holding back my scores a bit too, since it's not clocked high enough...creating a huge bottleneck for my 9800GX2's :(
Just a statement. I use 3dmark06 from time to time, but i dont think i'll ever bother with this Vantage crap, especially if they penalise you for NOT having a physx card!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
yup. 3dMark05 was the last decent test imo.
From Firingsquad's review I saw this pic:
http://firingsquad.com/media/hirez.a.../images/12.jpg
Uh, is it just me or does her leg seem a "little" off? I haven't tried it yet (and probably) won't, but can someone describe the scene here? Is she underwater (don't think so) or is there some sort of massive heat nearby (don't think so either)?
Or, much more likely, is it just a glitch? Thanks.
EDIT:
Anand kinda shows the same weird leg:
http://images.anandtech.com/gallerie...anenash-21.jpg
They have this to say about why it's not the best looking:
Though, if the physics are so high, why do her boots clip the boxes?Quote:
When you first view the scene, you might not feel as if it's better than the "best" first person shooters on the PC right now. Part of this is art direction, but a substantial difference is the cost of physics. Hierarchical rendering and game physics are best appreciated in motion and when the demo is only running in the single digit fps range for most PCs, it's easy to discount the test as being inefficient or not complex enough. In truth, we believe it'll be a good synthetic test going forward.
http://firingsquad.com/media/hirez.a.../images/18.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/gallerie...anenash-31.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/gallerie...anenash-32.jpg
Uh, those pics are *almost* NSFW so click depending on your location.
this prog is really dissapointing. I formatted my dualboot drive afterwards and slapped xp32 back on again. got all my :banana::banana::banana::banana: installed, backed it up and then ran 3d06. I'm as happy as can be...
3dmark06 was pretty messed up, im happy they finally made a new one.
the scores in this actually does correlate to gaming performance
Only two GPU tests and they want you to pay to run the benchmark more than once? The first test is terrible, the second is decent for two years ago, and the CPU tests are boring and stupid. I wouldn't use this benchmark even if it was free.
Ummmm what?Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
My X1900 XTX and Athlon X2 4400+ scored 6300 points in 3D mark 06.
I am pretty certain that 7800 GTX's could do so as well.
And currently the 8800 GTX and a decent CPU scrore 6000+ in vantage, so the point system is scaling just the same with current gen cards as DX9 cards with 3D mark 06?
Anybody run FRAPS as well? See if they are both acurate?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallardo
This is the single ugliest benchmark I think I've ever seen. Seriously, it looks terrible. Jane Nash is just a mockery of a 3D app. The character models are HORRID, the textures suck, and the water physics look look like what was in Wave Race 64 for the Nintendo 64 back in 1996 :slap:
New Calico looks pretty good overall but with static backgrounds it really looks rushed. Seriously, I'm really pissed I even spent $20 on this.
I'm seriously probably not even going to pursue high scores in this bench, as I honestly just don't like it. I mean what the hell was Futuremark thinking?! It took them 2+ years to release this load of garbage? I could understand if at least the thing LOOKED good, but as I said, it looks horrible.
I was really looking forward to another graphically awe inspiring treat as with all previous 3Dmark versions, but instead was slapped in the face with this rotten fish. It's like they said, "well HDR is all the next gen rage, so lets crank the HDR to ridiculous levels and make it a benchmark"..... Seriously, the more I look at it the more I find wrong with it. I'm almost tempted to write Futuremark and ask just exactly how may polygons the character models have in them because I'd be surprised if they have more than 50 polys each. The guards in Jane Nash have square arms and square legs for crying out loud! And the animation looks like a retarded chimp programmed it for them. :slapass:
I agree, wth is up with the graphics? Yes, its DX10 but it looks like garbage
Anyway, I scored P10701 on my setup
yes its a weird one looks a lot better if you run it at the entry level, also mwhats strange is the scores are all over the place , whereas with other 3dmarks at a certain level you can expect acertain score on this vantage we're seeing athlon systems beating an intel one whereas on all the other 3dmarks the intel system would be getting nearly double the score, i think basically it should get back to fps , quad cores are nice but as most of us know in 95% of games it doesn't get any more fps in a real game, must admit like craps (nice to see you craps long time by the way) i'm p****d off i spent 24 dollars paying for it maybe with the next gen cards things will be different but for now i must admit its a thumbs down :(
Thoroughly unimpressed. Even my wife said it looks like 2001 technology. Like Half life 1. I scored P4719 (single 8800GT not overclocked... system taken apart for case fab) and CPU score of 7358. GPU 4215.
:down: :down: :down: :down: :down:
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/04/...erformance.png
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/04/30/3dm06-3.png
Link
The software is not crap... it is not a game so GFX sucks do not equal to bad benchmark.
Look at the comparison, and you can see it sort today's card quite well, at least better than 3DM06:up:
Yes it is, it's supposed to be the absolute pinnacle in GFX, yet it looks like a 2003 game at best. The second test looks slightly better, but still not that impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by cookerjc
I beg to differ, the software is crap. This "benchmark" doesn't even heat up my GPUs as much as playing Crysis does. Not as much heat = not as much load = not as much load = not fully utilizing the GPUs. Granted it most likely is a driver issue for ATI at this point but that still does not dismiss the fact that this benchmark looks like garbage. The character models (guards) look like they are comprised of maybe 50 polygons, the textures look like trash and the animation is just horrid. How am I to even give them any credit when they penalize systems for NOT having a Physx card? Ageia is dead! Maybe someone should send Futuremark the memo......
I'm sorry, I very much enjoyed their previous benchmarks and this is honestly the first time I have had an issue with what they did, as I was an avid bencher but I can honestly say this one has pretty much turned me off to the whole idea. I can't care about a benchmark that looks worse than games from 3-4 years ago :rolleyes:
Gosh I hope Futuremark will read this thread! Maybe they'll get their "stuff" together for 3Dmark10?:shrug:
Anyone else getting some SERIOUS issues with this and the ATI HD3870X2 on the 8.4 driver?
Common issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Use the latest "3D Mark Vantage HotFix" drivers from AMD's site.
try the hotfix...
http://support.ati.com/ics/support/K...estionID=33840
i had to reboot twice after 8.4 uninstall in order to get hotfix to install, FYI.
Even with the Hotfix....which isn't a hotfix but rather a beta driver. I have it running fine on a non-engineering sample X2 now....
It really makes me wonder if I should include this test in future reviews. IMO, it is even FURTHER from reality than 06 was. :(
And one thing that wasn't mentioned: What the heck happens around that corner from the 06 Proxycon test? I want Proxycon back!!! ;)
Have you never ran the demo? That goes way further then that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
If you are talking about this LINK then yes I have. But I still wanted to see it rendered in DX10. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Problem is powerplay..you'll get better scores using an editied profile or bioses(like visontek's) that set 3d speeds 24/7. Even then, stutter is so bad...in every app now tho, not just the few that had issues before...
still yet, i've yet to ahve two identical runs in s row...3d scores varying by 2500 points +/-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
I am seeing this too. With a stock X2 paired up with a Q6600 @ 3.5Ghz I get between 7700 - 9000 points overall. And here I was thinking the 100-200 point difference in 06 was huge...:shakes:
AFter reading this thread it look slike alot of Haters ....
I am happy .....as i didnt bother and now will not bother ever.
I only get 5886, mind you that is with everything at stock.
In my opinion this is perhaps the worst 3dmark of the series because the other 3dmark's seemed to have the jaw to the floor effect when they were first released,
I mean 3dmark03 looked pretty good back in 2003, likewise 06 doesn't look bad does it?
Yet for me, visually Vantage doesn't look that much more impressive than 06 (although from a technical point of view it is probably more advanced).
Does anyone else get "artifacts" in the CPU AI test?
(the first test with the planes)
I'm not even sure if they are artifacts, but I get weird random white squares on the water in the background.
No games exhibit any artifcating (Crysis and Bioshock and F.E.A.R) are all fine.
Is it a driver glitch or a problem with the benchmark or is some hardware component in my system failing?
Thanks
John
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Exactly my thoughts,
3Dmark06 was just a mere simple 3Dmark05 refresh, so not much to say about it. They had included some tests as Deep Freeze which I really loved it and those 2 bored CPU tests, apart from that they also added a heavy pixel consistency that made the image sharper than it was on the previous version.
Edit: This thread served its purpose.
Metroid.
Huh? I do not see anything in PCMark Vantage (I refuse to call it 3DMark)--except for the two runs of firefly forest, identical to the one from 3dMark06 and just one more firefly than 3DMark05 but this time in windowed mode. The second run is probably higher detail (I guess DX10 lighting), but I do not see the other gaming tests that are supposed to be running! For example, it says "Now Running: Gaming 3" and my cpu usage is at 100%, but it does not show anything on the screen. The firefly forest is the only thing that shows up (2 out of 4 tests total).
That was just the 64-bit version. Now, I'll try the 32-bit and see..
EDIT: OMG!!!!!! There is actually 3DMark Vantage, not just PCMark. I was confused for a while from one poster who said that we'll never see a 3Dmark vantage.
wow i cant believe how bad this looks.... whats with the animation on the first test.... she looks like she's holding a poo between her legs and trying to run at the same time...lolol
That isn't true at all. SuperPI utilizes 100% for single core machines. Then see temps after 32M run. Yeah, 60... Then try S&M and let it run for 2 hours and see temps, yeah, 85.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Both programs utilize the CPU by 100%, another one utilizes the parts of the CPU which make heat the most (FPU unit). Same goes for the GPUs.
As I understand it 100% usage means it's going as fast as it can for that application. Different apps require different kinds of calculations which means different areas of you card or processor are being utilized. Some areas at full utilization will get hotter.
I guess you could come to the conclusion that if the app isn't making your video card as hot as most games make it, then the app isn't doing a good job at simulating game performance as it isn't utilizing the same type of processing that the games do. Then you could say it's crap.