Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 191

Thread: 3DMark Vantage Review Thread

  1. #151
    One-Eyed Killing Machine
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Inside a pot
    Posts
    6,340
    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

  2. #152
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,692
    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.
    Last edited by Tim; 04-28-2008 at 03:54 PM.

    Intel Core i7-3770K
    ASUS P8Z77-I DELUXE
    EVGA GTX 970 SC
    Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) Vengeance LP 1600
    Corsair H80
    120GB Samsung 840 EVO, 500GB WD Scorpio Blue, 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3
    Corsair RM650
    Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced
    OC: 5Ghz | +0.185 offset : 1.352v

  3. #153
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,671
    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.

  4. #154
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    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.

    Intel Core i7-3770K
    ASUS P8Z77-I DELUXE
    EVGA GTX 970 SC
    Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) Vengeance LP 1600
    Corsair H80
    120GB Samsung 840 EVO, 500GB WD Scorpio Blue, 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3
    Corsair RM650
    Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced
    OC: 5Ghz | +0.185 offset : 1.352v

  5. #155
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    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.
    hmmmm i can't remember any 7800gtx's scoring 6k. SLI probably but single 7800gtx in 06 and 6k?

    but i would say i like the different presets. but why is the only good looking test test2? test one is extremely disappointing.
    CPU: Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.5GHz
    Mobo: Asus Rampage IV Extreme
    RAM: 32GB (8x4GB) Patriot Viper EX @ 1866mhz
    GPU: EVGA GTX Titan (1087Boost/6700Mem)
    Physx: Evga GTX 560 2GB
    Sound: Creative XFI Titanium
    Case: Modded 700D
    PSU: Corsair 1200AX (Fully Sleeved)
    Storage: 2x120GB OCZ Vertex 3's in RAID 0 + WD 600GB V-Raptor + Seagate 1TB
    Cooling: XSPC Raystorm, 2x MCP 655's, FrozenQ Warp Drive, EX360+MCR240+EX120 Rad's

  6. #156
    Xtreme Enthusiast Kai Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    831
    Looks like this is where i quit benching altogether...i dont think i'll even be wasting the bandwidth on this.

    Main Rig

    Intel Core i7-2600K (SLB8W, E0 Stepping) @ 4.6Ghz (4.6x100), Corsair H80i AIO Cooler
    MSI Z77A GD-65 Gaming (MS-7551), v25 BIOS
    Kingston HyperX 16GB (2x8GB) PC3-19200 Kit (HX24C11BRK2/16-OC) @ 1.5v, 11-13-13-30 Timings (1:8 Ratio)
    8GB MSI Radeon R9 390X (1080 Mhz Core, 6000 Mhz Memory)
    NZXT H440 Case with NZXT Hue+ Installed
    24" Dell U2412HM (1920x1200, e-IPS panel)
    1 x 500GB Samsung 850 EVO (Boot & Install)
    1 x 2Tb Hitachi 7K2000 in External Enclosure (Scratch Disk)


    Entertainment Setup

    Samsung Series 6 37" 1080p TV
    Gigabyte GA-J1800N-D2H based media PC, Mini ITX Case, Blu-Ray Drive
    Netgear ReadyNAS104 w/4x2TB Toshiba DTACA200's for 5.8TB Volume size

    I refuse to participate in any debate with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.
    Creationists don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters to them is that I give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai Robinson View Post
    Looks like this is where i quit benching altogether...i dont think i'll even be wasting the bandwidth on this.
    In response to...?

  8. #158
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    376
    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) ?


    Generalizations are, in general, wrong.

  9. #159
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    hmmmm idk...
    ...

    all this cpu dependency in their last 3dmark series really annoys me...
    there isnt a single game that depends that heavily on the cpu... and yes, maybe in some years there will be games that require that much cpu power, but thats not the point of 3dmark. the whole point of 3dmark was to show how gpus can handle future games in the next 1-2 years and how well they can handle the new techniques used in rendering.
    There is at least one cpu dependent game today, EQ2.
    Asus Rampage Formula
    Intel Core2Quad QX9650 @ 3.3GHz
    Corsair H50
    GSkill 4x2GB DDR2 F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ @ 5-5-5-12
    Corsair 750HX 750W PSU
    Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon HD 5870
    AuzenTech AZT-FORTE X-Fi Forte
    Audio-Technica ATH-A700 Headphones
    Intel X25-M G2 160GB SSD
    ASUS DRW-2014L1T
    Corsair Obsidian 800D
    Microsoft Windows 7 x64

  10. #160
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    So. Cal
    Posts
    847
    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

  11. #161
    Xtreme Enthusiast Kai Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Sr7 View Post
    In response to...?
    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!

    Main Rig

    Intel Core i7-2600K (SLB8W, E0 Stepping) @ 4.6Ghz (4.6x100), Corsair H80i AIO Cooler
    MSI Z77A GD-65 Gaming (MS-7551), v25 BIOS
    Kingston HyperX 16GB (2x8GB) PC3-19200 Kit (HX24C11BRK2/16-OC) @ 1.5v, 11-13-13-30 Timings (1:8 Ratio)
    8GB MSI Radeon R9 390X (1080 Mhz Core, 6000 Mhz Memory)
    NZXT H440 Case with NZXT Hue+ Installed
    24" Dell U2412HM (1920x1200, e-IPS panel)
    1 x 500GB Samsung 850 EVO (Boot & Install)
    1 x 2Tb Hitachi 7K2000 in External Enclosure (Scratch Disk)


    Entertainment Setup

    Samsung Series 6 37" 1080p TV
    Gigabyte GA-J1800N-D2H based media PC, Mini ITX Case, Blu-Ray Drive
    Netgear ReadyNAS104 w/4x2TB Toshiba DTACA200's for 5.8TB Volume size

    I refuse to participate in any debate with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.
    Creationists don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters to them is that I give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.

  12. #162
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,461
    yup. 3dMark05 was the last decent test imo.
    7820X | Asrock X299 Taichi XE | Gigabyte 1080 Ti Xtreme | 32GB Memoriez | Corsair HXi1000 | 500GB 960 Evo

  13. #163
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    528
    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:

    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.
    Though, if the physics are so high, why do her boots clip the boxes?

    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.
    Last edited by THE JEW (RaVeN); 04-29-2008 at 11:07 AM.

  14. #164
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    559
    this prog is really dissapointing. I formatted my dualboot drive afterwards and slapped xp32 back on again. got all my installed, backed it up and then ran 3d06. I'm as happy as can be...
    x6.wickeD

  15. #165
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,838
    3dmark06 was pretty messed up, im happy they finally made a new one.
    the scores in this actually does correlate to gaming performance
    DFI P965-S/core 2 quad q6600@3.2ghz/4gb gskill ddr2 @ 800mhz cas 4/xfx gtx 260/ silverstone op650/thermaltake xaser 3 case/razer lachesis

  16. #166
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    359
    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.

  17. #167
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650 View Post
    hmmmm i can't remember any 7800gtx's scoring 6k. SLI probably but single 7800gtx in 06 and 6k?
    Ummmm what?

    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?
    Last edited by Mungri; 04-29-2008 at 11:39 AM.

  18. #168
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by gallardo View Post
    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) ?
    Anybody run FRAPS as well? See if they are both acurate?
    EVGA 780i--E8400 @4.05Ghz--TRUE--EVGA GTX760 4GB--4X2GB PC6400 REAPER 4-4-4-15-2T @800mhz--150 RaptorX--PCPC 750 silencer--Antec 900

  19. #169
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,005
    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

    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.
    Core i7 3770K
    EVGA GTX780 + Surround
    EVGA GTX670
    EVGA Z77 FTW
    8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill 1600Mhz DDR3
    Ultra X3 1000w PSU PSU
    Windows 7 Pro 64bit
    Thermaltake Xaser VI

  20. #170
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    111
    I agree, wth is up with the graphics? Yes, its DX10 but it looks like garbage

    Anyway, I scored P10701 on my setup

  21. #171
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    706
    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





  22. #172
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    224
    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.

    EVGA 780i--E8400 @4.05Ghz--TRUE--EVGA GTX760 4GB--4X2GB PC6400 REAPER 4-4-4-15-2T @800mhz--150 RaptorX--PCPC 750 silencer--Antec 900

  23. #173
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    324

    OK, review done





    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

  24. #174
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by cookerjc View Post

    The software is not crap... it is not a game so GFX sucks do not equal to bad benchmark.
    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.

    Intel Core i7-3770K
    ASUS P8Z77-I DELUXE
    EVGA GTX 970 SC
    Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) Vengeance LP 1600
    Corsair H80
    120GB Samsung 840 EVO, 500GB WD Scorpio Blue, 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3
    Corsair RM650
    Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced
    OC: 5Ghz | +0.185 offset : 1.352v

  25. #175
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,005
    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
    Core i7 3770K
    EVGA GTX780 + Surround
    EVGA GTX670
    EVGA Z77 FTW
    8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill 1600Mhz DDR3
    Ultra X3 1000w PSU PSU
    Windows 7 Pro 64bit
    Thermaltake Xaser VI

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •