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!