Futuremark developing 3DMark DirectX 11 version

http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stori...tx_11_logo.jpg

"Over the past twelve and a half years, Futuremark Corporation has undoubtedly proven itself a premium provider of benchmarking solutions for high-performance and extreme performance systems, not only targeting the demands of enthusiast communities like XtremeSystems, but also serving the demands of system builders, OEMs, professionals, and the republic of gamers worldwide..."

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16288/1/

This should include tessellation that would be wicked...

XtremeSystems wooot

News. "Ooh, Futuremark WILL do DX 11 Benchmark *drool*".

Yawn.

ive lost my faith in them, they use to have beautiful graphics, for a performance hit sure. but since 06 they graphics look like crap, and it runs like crap.

the dx11 benchmark better let us know what dx11 is all about. i want it to be like watching a movie

Hope it's coming soon, Vantage is getting a bit old.

Is this another balanced and fair benchmark in the TWIMTBP program? If it is, it's just another product i'll skip, just like Vantage which I haven't so much as downloaded. Seriously, how can anyone make a popular industry benchmark that doesn't even follow industry standards and expect it to succeed. That hurt futuremark's reputation badly, and they probably won't recover from a second stunt like that. I bet Shattered Horizon will experience medioric success, due in part to it's reputation of being nv sponsored. I've no idea if it is, but it seems pretty likely.

Hopefully they actually make a fair benchmark and not use something like PhysX to boost Nvidia cards scores. That was just plain annoying.

I await to see what exactly they do with this one too. As with many others, I never used Vantage.

My vantage was just a blip, and now they can keep on getting better, I am to young to have used pre 06, but I use it a lot for testing, my free vantage key has never been used

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Is this another balanced and fair benchmark in the TWIMTBP program? If it is, it's just another product i'll skip, just like Vantage which I haven't so much as downloaded. Seriously, how can anyone make a popular industry benchmark that doesn't even follow industry standards and expect it to succeed. That hurt futuremark's reputation badly, and they probably won't recover from a second stunt like that. I bet Shattered Horizon will experience medioric success, due in part to it's reputation of being nv sponsored. I've no idea if it is, but it seems pretty likely.

---

Vantage is fair tbh.
The HD5870 which is better than the GTX 285 outperforms it in all presets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vit^pr0n

Hopefully they actually make a fair benchmark and not use something like PhysX to boost Nvidia cards scores. That was just plain annoying.

---

THE OFFICIAL SCORES ARE WITHOUT PhysX, so you're wrong about PhysX making it unfair and boosting nVIDIA's scores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vit^pr0n

Hopefully they actually make a fair benchmark and not use something like PhysX to boost Nvidia cards scores. That was just plain annoying.

---

That was just plain unfortunate ;) FM were developing Vantage before nVidia toko over Aegia. FM had already added in PhysX. Not FMs fault.

the whole physx thing was just a misshap. notice most of their advertisements seemed to be from sapphire, an ATI brand. their goal was to measure cpu performance, and hopefully its better than just being used to calculate physics, since thats not really the only thing a cpu does in games. if anything the mistake they really made was basing cpu score only on physics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Vantage is fair tbh.
The HD5870 which is better than the GTX 285 outperforms it in all presets.

---

Maybe, but pre Vantage was a MUCH fairer, hardware agnostic approach to measuring performance IMO. There simply MUST MUST MUST be a NEUTRAL party to measure performance and features in the graphics industry, just like SPEC is in the cpu server industry. Just look at the cpu consumer sector; there is utter chaos, and no standard really in measuring performance and features, or in mobile for measure performance and especially battery life. It's a hodge podge of benchmark utilities slapped together to benefit whichever side of the vendor fence the reviewer falls on. And people are still using SuperPi to gauge a cpu's performance? My god that useless thing uses legacy code from the 90's!

So yeah, unless the graphics industry wants to go down that road, the defacto standard for measuring hardware performance, futuremark, better be neutral. Not to take away from Uningine though, because that seems to be a pretty successful piece of software at measuring dx11 capabilities. And obviously futuremark stood up and noticed, as prove by this press release.

you can slag of futuremark for all the things you want here, and granted the Physix debacle was an issue, but lest we forget that Futuremark have given us not one but 4 of the de facto standards, in gaming benchmarks 3Dmark01/03/05/06, that to this day we use to compare rigs and quantify results.

did i use vantage? no i thought it was garbage

would i use futuremark products again, based on past software? hell yeah.

i also personaly think that they have priced there products farely over the years, considering they have had such hold so much of this market.

i cant wait for the DX11 version

I use all of their benchmarks.

Good to see Direct X11 benchmark coming.

More tools and more fun IMO.

imo, new 3dmark is Unigine:Heaven, has everything (dx9,10,11 & tessellation,opengl) and scales with crossfire and sli.

i think what they need to do is have more smaller "games" with a variety of intense effects. sure one company might win by 10-20% in one feature, but they cant win them all unless they truly are flat out better, in which case they should.

and whatever they do, up the textures and polygons, vantage looked so 1999. sure it might have had 3D water, but the worst character models of this millennium. when i get home tonight i want to reinstall 03 and 05 and up them to 1920x1200 4xaa 16xaf and see how good the quality really is.

the water looked like cloth and it didnt interact with the solids it touched. The spray is a circular layer and doesnt interact with the water surface.

Crap water effects.

I hope they make this one free...
Sure I have licenses for vantage, but know what? When there is an entry fee, its not 100% open competition no more...

Only guys in benchmark scene who 100% honestly with hand on their heart likes this is the ones that is working for some coperation.... Rest dispites it (most just havnt got the guts to admit, because they are afraid of sponsors reaction towards this)

2001 was great. 03 was OK but slipping. Since then 3DMark is just crap. I'll play Crysis if i want eye candy.

Vantage is much more of a 3D Mark at current times as it actually measures gpu performance and not CPU Mark06, CPU Mark 05. It may not have the coolness of it's predecessors but it is doing a good job of measuring gpu performance as it was designed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LardArse

Vantage is much more of a 3D Mark at current times as it actually measures gpu performance and not CPU Mark06, CPU Mark 05. It may not have the coolness of it's predecessors but it is doing a good job of measuring gpu performance as it was designed to.

---

Well spoken :up:

This is also what seems to be so great with Unigines benchmarks, there you measure GPU performance and the CPU seems to have a very little impact on anything really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M.Beier

I hope they make this one free...
Sure I have licenses for vantage, but know what? When there is an entry fee, its not 100% open competition no more...

Only guys in benchmark scene who 100% honestly with hand on their heart likes this is the ones that is working for some coperation.... Rest dispites it (most just havnt got the guts to admit, because they are afraid of sponsors reaction towards this)

---

i agree
this is the most important consideration for general community

Im confused... people run benchmarks for the pretty graphics? it thought the purpose was.. uh... benchmarking :shrug:

3dmark06/05 and 03 look better than Vantage :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Im confused... people run benchmarks for the pretty graphics? it thought the purpose was.. uh... benchmarking :shrug:

---

+1 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M.Beier

I hope they make this one free...
Sure I have licenses for vantage, but know what? When there is an entry fee, its not 100% open competition no more...

Only guys in benchmark scene who 100% honestly with hand on their heart likes this is the ones that is working for some coperation.... Rest dispites it (most just havnt got the guts to admit, because they are afraid of sponsors reaction towards this)

---

They can't make it free though, that's what makes it professional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Maybe, but pre Vantage was a MUCH fairer, hardware agnostic approach to measuring performance IMO. There simply MUST MUST MUST be a NEUTRAL party to measure performance and features in the graphics industry, just like SPEC is in the cpu server industry. Just look at the cpu consumer sector; there is utter chaos, and no standard really in measuring performance and features, or in mobile for measure performance and especially battery life. It's a hodge podge of benchmark utilities slapped together to benefit whichever side of the vendor fence the reviewer falls on. And people are still using SuperPi to gauge a cpu's performance? My god that useless thing uses legacy code from the 90's!

---

As a programmer who has some serious interest at writing (CPU) benchmarks, I can only say that code A with compiler X on platform Y will just be faster on vendor Z CPU. This without ANY bias towards CPU vendor. A good example would be when I wrote sorting benchmarks; mt Celeron M @ 1.6 GHz was WAY faster at Bubble sort, Insertion sort and Selection sort than my brothers A64(Windsor) @ 2.4 GHz. Quicksort was actually slower on my Celeron. I bet that you would blame me for being Intel biased with the code, but no. Just generic C with GCC 4.2.0(Mingw for Windows, A64).

Though, I didn't check the compiler generated code to verify that the code was exact same(E.g. no SSE2 optimizations).

What I mean, is that two pieces of code can run with BIG performance differences, the benchmark author isn't biased when writing such code, IF the code between CPU vendors is identical. However, if in real world the executables are vendor-optimized, should the benchmarks be too?

Though, I'd agree with the statement that there should be some kind of a standard of CPU benchmarking. But what kind of? It will be somewhat biased(according to people) to either CPU vendor due to the nature of CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

2001 was great. 03 was OK but slipping. Since then 3DMark is just crap. I'll play Crysis if i want eye candy.

---

Honestly, what the F***?!

good, i dont want people to like it, it gives me more hwbot points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

As a programmer who has some serious interest at writing (CPU) benchmarks, I can only say that code A with compiler X on platform Y will just be faster on vendor Z CPU. This without ANY bias towards CPU vendor. A good example would be when I wrote sorting benchmarks; mt Celeron M @ 1.6 GHz was WAY faster at Bubble sort, Insertion sort and Selection sort than my brothers A64(Windsor) @ 2.4 GHz. Quicksort was actually slower on my Celeron. I bet that you would blame me for being Intel biased with the code, but no. Just generic C with GCC 4.2.0(Mingw for Windows, A64).

Though, I didn't check the compiler generated code to verify that the code was exact same(E.g. no SSE2 optimizations).

What I mean, is that two pieces of code can run with BIG performance differences, the benchmark author isn't biased when writing such code, IF the code between CPU vendors is identical. However, if in real world the executables are vendor-optimized, should the benchmarks be too?

Though, I'd agree with the statement that there should be some kind of a standard of CPU benchmarking. But what kind of? It will be somewhat biased(according to people) to either CPU vendor due to the nature of CPU.


Honestly, what the F***?!

---

3d rendering is quite a powerfull benchmark. Run a Mental Ray scene in max/maya for example and you will quickly see exactly what the difference is between different CPUs. It scales perfectly with as many cores/threads you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

News. "Ooh, Futuremark WILL do DX 11 Benchmark *drool*".

Yawn.

---

thats not news though... of course they are going for it...
the weird thing is that its not out yet... and there isnt even a date announced... :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Im confused... people run benchmarks for the pretty graphics? it thought the purpose was.. uh... benchmarking :shrug:

---

The point is that Vantage performs alot worse than 06, but has marginally better image quality (some say it's worse, but I don't think so).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Florinmocanu

3d rendering is quite a powerfull benchmark. Run a Mental Ray scene in max/maya for example and you will quickly see exactly what the difference is between different CPUs. It scales perfectly with as many cores/threads you have.

---

If you want to be cheap you can run POV-Ray 3.7x beta and get similar results. It scales very well as well. It's just harder to make a scene for, so you'll need to find one online unless you want to import from something else or get down and dirty with SDL. :)

It had better be more impressive than that Jane Nash sorry excuse for a dx10 test....

they call themselves Futuremark due to how their benchmarks are to predict how Future games will work on hardware.

if a game was built on one of futuremarks engines (like the first demo for example) who in their right mind would play it. they have a few new features shown off, that eat up every resource your PC has, while the things that matter (eye candy) are nonexistent.

its one thing to do a synthetic test to measure a particular speed something can be handled. its another to say this is what games will look like, then show off crap.

if benchmarks are so important, skip the gpu and cpu tests, and go right to the little bonus synthetic tests they have that no one cares to post results on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

they call themselves Futuremark due to how their benchmarks are to predict how Future games will work on hardware.

if a game was built on one of futuremarks engines (like the first demo for example) who in their right mind would play it. they have a few new features shown off, that eat up every resource your PC has, while the things that matter (eye candy) are nonexistent.

its one thing to do a synthetic test to measure a particular speed something can be handled. its another to say this is what games will look like, then show off crap.

if benchmarks are so important, skip the gpu and cpu tests, and go right to the little bonus synthetic tests they have that no one cares to post results on.

---

I'm curious to hear your answer to the following questions:

1) When 3D Mark2001SE was released, were the graphics in that bench way better than in any game of that period ?

2) The same questions stands for 3D Mark03 & 3D Mark05 as well.

3) Yes, the textures in the Jane Nash test in Vantage are ridiculously cr*ppy, but the earth & meteorites in the second test are very good.
However the benchmark in the Extreme Preset behaves very very similar to todays games, which makes it the best 3D Mark in terms of video card comparison that can be translated to gaming performance in normal games as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

I'm curious to hear your answer to the following questions:

1) When 3D Mark2001SE was released, were the graphics in that bench way better than in any game of that period ?

2) The same questions stands for 3D Mark03 & 3D Mark05 as well.

3) Yes, the textures in the Jane Nash test in Vantage are ridiculously cr*ppy, but the earth & meteorites in the second test are very good.
However the benchmark in the Extreme Preset behaves very very similar to todays games, which makes it the best 3D Mark in terms of video card comparison that can be translated to gaming performance in normal games as well.

---

i got into pc overclocking around the time of 01SE so i really dont know what it was like compared games when it first came out.

however 03/05 looked incredible when i first saw them. the trees in 05's "nature" scene still look good. (go spend some time on their forum, their motto is to build something that represents the future of gaming)

and im going to disagree with the meteorites, i see nothing special, and it looked like they were placed in a perfect array, so every few seconds you could see right through all of them like there were on a checker board. there was ZERO "wow" effect when vantage came out, not once was i wondering when games will look as good as the benchmark.

the point is, why create a few very taxing effects that do not show anything relative to actual games (like the water in jane nash that i hope never makes it into any retail game). however, super high res textures is something gamers care about. look what happened with oblivion and crysis, people built addon packs to make very good games look even crisper. just because futuremark can build a benchmark that gets 5fps, does not make it good at showing off the future of games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

thats not news though... of course they are going for it...
the weird thing is that its not out yet... and there isnt even a date announced... :/

---

No surprise here. They were waiting for Fermi and got burned. Sleep with a dog.. get fleas!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by franzius

No surprise here. They were waiting for Fermi and got burned. Sleep with a dog.. get fleas!!!!

---

LOL.
Who told you that ? :rofl:

[ oh I see I see, the whole humanity depends/is waiting on nVIDIA nowadays :D ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

However the benchmark in the Extreme Preset behaves very very similar to todays games, which makes it the best 3D Mark in terms of video card comparison that can be translated to gaming performance in normal games as well.

---

Which of today's games (other than Crysis) will cripple the performance of literally every high-end card to the point of irrelevance like the Extreme preset does? How is it so "similar"? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Which of today's games (other than Crysis) will cripple the performance of literally every high-end card to the point of irrelevance like the Extreme preset does? How is it so "similar"? :confused:

---

I was talking about the way the cards get ranked by the X preset scores.

I mean that in the past a card could dominate 3D Mark03 per say, and yet get it's as* kicked in normal games by the other card that scores lower in 3D Mark03, etc etc.

While it's only a single benchmark and the card's performances vary from game to game, when one card is ahead in the majority of today's games somehow it does seem to score higher in Vantage's Xtreme preset as well.

Hope that didn't confuse you even more :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

I was talking about the way the cards get ranked by the X preset scores.

---

Ah. "I see" said the blind man.... :up:

Quote:

---

..., and the republic of gamers worldwide..."

---

Are they sponsored by ASUS this time around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

The point is that Vantage performs alot worse than 06, but has marginally better image quality (some say it's worse, but I don't think so).
[...]

---

agreed. however, in some aspects, i do think vantage does look pretty crap - especially the kate nash scene. omg, seriously, almost everything in that scene looks awful. the water, the effects, kate nash herself, ... the list is endless :p:
in the past 3dmark has always been "cutting edge" when it comes to graphics, but after 3dmark05 this somehow vanished. 3dmark06 was more or less an upgraded 3dmark05 and then they came up with vantage, which has by far the most un-impressive graphics ever compared to older 3dmarks at their time.
back then watching a new 3dmark was like "woah, looks great!", nothing i even dare to say about vantage ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

agreed. however, in some aspects, i do think vantage does look pretty crap - especially the kate nash scene. omg, seriously, almost everything in that scene looks awful. the water, the effects, kate nash herself, ... the list is endless :p:

---

On that point I do agree. Jane Nash (;)) was the joke of the whole benchmark. Not only does it take longer to load and compile shaders than every other scene, it is also by far the worst looking besides the CPU tests (obviously). The textures are bad; the high momentum, "flowing" character animation gives the appearance of being underwater the whole time; and just like a "good" Hollywood movie the guys with guns can't hit her when she's standing still or running directly in front of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Jane Nash (;))

---

ah, my bad lol :D

well hey man vantage is a benchmark for hardcore systems. not widely used imo because it takes a long time to run, and many highly overclocked systems cant hang. but, hey, im number thirteen so of course i like it:eek:
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computurd

well hey man vantage is a benchmark for hardcore systems. not widely used imo because it takes a long time to run, and many highly overclocked systems cant hang. but, hey, im number thirteen so of course i like it:eek:
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

---

thats pc mark vantage tho, not the one most people use which is 3dmark vantage

lol :ROTF:i know just wanted to flash some bling LOL:rofl::up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Computurd

well hey man vantage is a benchmark for hardcore systems. not widely used imo because it takes a long time to run, and many highly overclocked systems cant hang. but, hey, im number thirteen so of course i like it:eek:
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

---

3DMark is for pansies. This is a man's benchmark.

That's great news but with this new release of 3dmark i also need to upgrade my video card with a DX11 card :(.

Hope the graphics are better than Vantage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LardArse

Vantage is much more of a 3D Mark at current times as it actually measures gpu performance and not CPU Mark06, CPU Mark 05. It may not have the coolness of it's predecessors but it is doing a good job of measuring gpu performance as it was designed to.

---

3D03 at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF is also a nice GPU benchmark;)
all they need to do is release a set of new defaults for the oldie benchmark
and do away with including CPU score in the final tally for 3D05/06

Quote:

---

i got into pc overclocking around the time of 01SE so i really dont know what it was like compared games when it first came out.

---

then you should know that they worked together with the makers of Max Payne, they also said that if your systems gets 2500+ in 3D01 you can run Max Payne at resolution x with max detail and get good performance
so yes it was very comparable to a game out there ;)

Quote:

---

Although the game tests were created with Remedy Entertainment's MAX-FX game technology, and the same tools and 3D engine that will power Max Payne, they are not available as stand-alone games.
http://www.futuremark.com/support/3dmark2001/

---

from 03 and onwards no such link was made; especially after all the driver cheating issues, which made 3DMark score irrelevant as a basis to gauge a system's performance in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

3D03 at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF is also a nice GPU benchmark;)
all they need to do is release a set of new defaults for the oldie benchmark
and do away with including CPU score in the final tally for 3D05/06

---

i fully agree. it would really freshen things up on there. (and given how many games are still played in dx9 its not like they are that out dated)