Futuremark developing 3DMark DirectX 11 version

[flippin_waffles]

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.

[Calmatory]

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.

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***?!

[billdavis]

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

[Florinmocanu]

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.

[saaya]

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... :/

[randomizer]

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

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).

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.

[LagunaX]

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

[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.

[BenchZowner]

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.

[Manicdan]

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

[franzius]

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!!!!

[BenchZowner]

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

LOL.
Who told you that ?

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

[SKYMTL]

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"?

[BenchZowner]

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"?

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

[SKYMTL]

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

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

[initialised]

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

Are they sponsored by ASUS this time around?

[RaZz!]

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
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

[randomizer]

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

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.

[RaZz!]

Jane Nash ()

ah, my bad lol

[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
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

[Circaflex]

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
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

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

[Computurd]

lol i know just wanted to flash some bling LOL

[randomizer]

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
http://www.futuremark.com/community/...pcmarkvantage/

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

[So3oL4Nu]

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...

[jmke]

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