Info & pic removed for now due apparent serious miscommunication between two companies involved :)
Printable View
Info & pic removed for now due apparent serious miscommunication between two companies involved :)
Q3, still a while... :(
Why MSI, though? Am I missing something?
3DMark has always included in-bench advertisements. MSI would have paid them money to do it. It's not a major deal really.
You can see Sapphire logo in 3DMark Vantage.
on the boat/ship :) w00t for finally a new bench
what about pcmvantage? any word on another release of that?
I hope it doesn't look like it came from 2001 all the while bringing a 480 or 5970 to its knees this time
that bench scene looks way dark... i really hope it looks better than vantage :/
theres unigine and then theres the cave gnome golem whatever benchmark... futuremark is way way late to the party, and those screenshots look far from impressive :/
man, i really dont get what takes them that long and why their benchmarks seem to look worse and worse compared to games...
2k1 was really awesome compared to the games at its time, 2k3 was meh, 2k5 was meh, 2k6 was 2k5 with higher settings which was ridiculous imo, and vantage... dont get me started on vantage... a game that takes more time to load than to run HAH :D
i really like the guys at futuremark, so nice people...
but since 2k3 i havent really been impressed by their benchmarks :/
and worst yet, their system detection and orb is ridiculous...
Don't care what it looks like so long as it does that second bit well :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
It reminded me of Sub Culture, i want Sub culture dx11 !! :D
I think it is safe to assume the new 3DMark will be nothing more than another unpolished turd that will run at 10fps and look like some DX7 PoS demo.
IMO they arent meant to look good, they are meant to stress your system and give you a score! :yepp: They are late to the party but they have ORB and standards of benching so it should be a new HWBOT bench I hope :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Stressing a system is useful only if it is because it produces groundbreaking graphics. GTA4 can bring any comp to its knees but it's not a reliable benchmark.
It's a pity that Unigine has no interest in securing their benchmarks to create like a Futuremark counterpart. Their 3D scenes look amazing ... I really wanted that one included on the bot :(Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
says who? 01 and 03 nature scenes are devastating look like crap and I love it. Some people run benchmarks because they are pretty though I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Uh? The Nature demos were jaw dropping at the time when most of games were using flat trees without windy leaves, flat ground without grass, no pixel shaded water...
I can still remember how the music explodes into the scene out of the sun flare with all the vegetation. And it still looks damn awesome compared to many games released even these days...
01, 03 nature tests wasnt crap. they were very nice for their time.
hows 03 nature compare to crysis and FC2? i think with just some color changes and newer dx9+ effects its really just a matter of quantity of trees
LOL. Go MSI !!! :D
Thanks Sampsa for the newz :up:
Ah the first time I noticed the logo I was wondering if 3DMark Vantage was intelligent enough to read vendor-specific information about the graphics cards!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
That would have been a fun trick to include :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
It's plenty for vendors to have the exposure they getting for supporting developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
At least in this case.
if vendor support reduces the cost, im all for it
So, with Crysis 2 we will have at least two decent benchmarks, before the end of the year! :rofl:
are they going to release new pcmarkVantage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
A company might not have to rely on advertising so much if everyone went out and got it's only real game so far. :(
Might as well just put up a blank screen and do some math in the background then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigosity
Yep, waay better than the atrocity that is vantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
This benchmark needs the ability for a user who DOESN'T purchase it to do unlimited runs on a default setting. 3DMark06 did that and (IMO) it was a great success. 3DMark Vantage didn't allow this and (again IMO) it was an absolute failure.
vantage had other problems like having phsyX so if u have an NV card u had to change settings in the phsyX control panel or else it was cheating and that confused people who were not into benching, but i agree on the unlimited default runs as a must have for the free one.
i dont know how viable it would be but it would be nice to see a direct compute optional bench
they have had a version of pc mark for every version of windows for a long time so i would assume that one for windows7 will come outQuote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
wrong, the original 3dmark series was successful because:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splave
1. it was free
2. it looked awesome, you could show off what beautiful scenes your pc was able to render
3. it was a good indicator of system and gaming performance
now look at the latest futuremark benchmarks:
1. you have to pay money to even see your score offline
2. looks like crap, notably worse than current games
3. bad indicator of system and gaming performance (2k6=cpu hog, vantage=gpu hog)
luckily lots of games have their own built in benchmarks these days, and luckily there is hwbot, people who provide a REAL database for ALL benchmarks, plus they feature a point system that makes benching more fun, plus they feature lots of awards which is also more fun, plus they actually moderate the database properly, plus they actually know about benchmarks and hardware, other than futuremarks orb and the orbs staff...
just ask them to let you create a tool that captures the stats and uploads it to hwbot directly... you guys should do that with all game devs, im sure theyd be very interested in the stats as well! plus there is no better way to get feedback to debug and tweak an engine than throwing it out in the wild and then gathering stats from millions of people running it! and you can offer that to them, for free!Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
you should def approach game devs and work with them!
build a stats page similar to steams hardware survey, and then add performance in different games to that, the average system scores xx fps in this scene/bench, xx% of the systems out there reaches 60fps, xx% reaches 30fps... this is incredibly valuable for game devs as they need to know how demanding their next game can be and still be playable on most systems out there.
Do we have to buy this one?
Capturing the data is one thing (it's possible but not easy to implement in a user friendly way), but as soon as a bench is added to the HWBOT suite people try to cheat if they have the chance. Unigene benches are not secured for this, and unless they want to cooperate they never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
It's a real pitty they didn't want to invest in this... maybe now we have the support of MSI, GIGABYTE and A-DATA, they can all chip in for the additional development required for securing their benches?
It's incredibly easy to cheat on an Unigine benchmark as with its current version, no you don't edit the HTML or use the photoshop, you can directly alter the score the engine gives you. I never learned how to do it but it probably has to do with pausing the engine during a high FPS portion of the benchmark. They need to fix that first.
So far this sounds pretty underwhelming. The only real highlight is tessellation. This would have been nice to have before developers released DX11 games.
Show me a dx11 only game.
I don't see the need to answer your question to be honest. There are plenty of DX11 games out there right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
There's not one Dx11 Only title out yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
There are DX11 games and benchmark programs out there. Why you feel they must be DX11 only or else is not something I find relevant. They are still DX11 titles be it specific to DX11 or not. A developer can (and has) made a DX11 game/benchmark and also made it compatible with other APIs. Which is part of the reason why I think that 3DMark 11 is so underwhelming to me. Like I said, if they released it before developers released their games/apps using DX11 it would have been a tad exciting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
3Dmark vantage was dx10 only and stumps out even dx11 gpu's.
The first dx10 only game is Stormrise.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...Designer/News/
3Dmark11 will kill anything you throw @ it.
Doubting there will be such thing as a "DX11 Only game" As DX11 was ment to be backwards compatible. So you can make a DX11 game, and easily enable 10 and even 9. This was a main push when Microsoft announced it and any company would be insane to go "Yeah lets only allow/aim at people with dx11 cards to play our spectacular game". Even considering that they may be 5 million (Number from air) dx11 cards out there, the PC install base is much much bigger than that.
On Topic: Any eye candy/bench is still nice for those who want it. Shouldn't crap on it just because it's irrelevant to you/some.
I'm just curious, why do you think any game company would want to make a DX11 only game? Do you think it is possible for a software developer to recoup all their costs selling their game to people with DX11 graphics cards? Would it be possible to explain more fully, why you want to see a DX11 only game? Want exactly would this mean to the gaming community?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
I want true dx11,why buy dx11 hardware to play dx9 games they wont look any better.:shrug:
is dx11 only ?
Show me a game That's converted to DX 9 to DX11, vs DX11 down to DX 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
On DX9 -> DX11 - Dirt 2 is an example of this, it is a DX9 game with "tacked on" DX11 effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thraxis
OTOH, there is no such thing as DX11 -> DX9 game, because majority of AAA games today are built for consoles and then just up-res'd and up-fps'd on PCs, with some "minor" details such as shadow density, higher res textures and things like that.
DX11 allows "only" allows tesselation and access to computational power via Direct Compute. The fundamental thing, the assets, are built within limits of consoles' polygonal budgets. What we need and what won't happen until next genaration consoles hit is upping those budgets. PC games are primarily held back by PS3/360 assets. That is consequence of exponentially rising budgets for games and broken business models of selling them. You won't spend precious time and money bulding something that only a relatively small percentage of your customer base would benefit. The conclusion is that PC games and visual fidelity are first and foremost held back by money. If there was more money to be made by pushing the tech and original gameplay it would happen, but since there isn't, nothing we can do about it.