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:
Printable View
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: