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.
Last edited by flippin_waffles; 11-05-2009 at 10:48 PM.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited by randomizer; 11-06-2009 at 04:45 AM.
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.
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.
__________________
Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Marta Piccoli, Oliver Baltuch, Steffen Eisentein
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
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 ]
__________________
Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Marta Piccoli, Oliver Baltuch, Steffen Eisentein
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"?
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
__________________
Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Marta Piccoli, Oliver Baltuch, Steffen Eisentein
__________________ NVIDIA: The Way It's Meant To Be Gimped. System
Intel C2 Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz
ASUS Ragimus Formula SE
HD4870x2 2048MB Gainward Rampage700 Golden Sample Goes Like Hell @ 775/1100
4GB GSkill Pi 6400
ASUS SupremeFX XiFi
Antec 850W TruePower Quattro 50" Full HD PDP
Ferrari Red Cosmos 1000
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
__________________ 1. Asus P5Q-E / Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @~3612 MHz (8,5x425) / 2x2GB OCZ Platinum XTC (PC2-8000U, CL5) / Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 @690/1093 MHz / WD Caviar Blue 640GB, WD Caviar SE16 320GB, WD Caviar SE 160GB / be quiet! Dark Power Pro P7 550W / Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA / Teufel Concept E Magnum 5.1 Surround Speaker // SysProfile
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.
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/
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
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/
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
@ 
]
i know just wanted to flash some bling LOL
.
Linear Mode
