"Over the past twelve and a half years, Futuremark Corporation has undoubtedly proven itself a premium provider of benchmarking solutions for high-performance and extreme performance systems, not only targeting the demands of enthusiast communities like XtremeSystems, but also serving the demands of system builders, OEMs, professionals, and the republic of gamers worldwide..."
ive lost my faith in them, they use to have beautiful graphics, for a performance hit sure. but since 06 they graphics look like crap, and it runs like crap.
the dx11 benchmark better let us know what dx11 is all about. i want it to be like watching a movie
Bulldozer can't show up fast enough either. Bulldozer better live up to THIS: Image
It will either make history or make AMD history if it doesn't. Intel's thread count is getting higher than Fugger's bed sheets!
Undergoing rebuild:
CPU: Core i7 920 (batch # 3910A732) | Heatsink: Prolimatech Megashadow | TIM: Indigo Xtreme | MB: EVGA Classified E760 | RAM: G.Skill Trident 3x2GB DD3-2000 | GFX: Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5 | HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB | SB: Auzentech X-Fi Forte | PSU: Corsair HX1000 | Case: open stand till Silverstone Raven RV02 arrives | Monitor: LG Flatron W2452T | Keyboard: Razer Lycosa Mirror Edition | Mouse: Logitech MX518 (screaming for an upgrade) | OS: Windows 7 x64 Professional
Is this another balanced and fair benchmark in the TWIMTBP program? If it is, it's just another product i'll skip, just like Vantage which I haven't so much as downloaded. Seriously, how can anyone make a popular industry benchmark that doesn't even follow industry standards and expect it to succeed. That hurt futuremark's reputation badly, and they probably won't recover from a second stunt like that. I bet Shattered Horizon will experience medioric success, due in part to it's reputation of being nv sponsored. I've no idea if it is, but it seems pretty likely.
I await to see what exactly they do with this one too. As with many others, I never used Vantage.
__________________ Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but what are you going to do about the zombies?
My vantage was just a blip, and now they can keep on getting better, I am to young to have used pre 06, but I use it a lot for testing, my free vantage key has never been used
Is this another balanced and fair benchmark in the TWIMTBP program? If it is, it's just another product i'll skip, just like Vantage which I haven't so much as downloaded. Seriously, how can anyone make a popular industry benchmark that doesn't even follow industry standards and expect it to succeed. That hurt futuremark's reputation badly, and they probably won't recover from a second stunt like that. I bet Shattered Horizon will experience medioric success, due in part to it's reputation of being nv sponsored. I've no idea if it is, but it seems pretty likely.
Vantage is fair tbh.
The HD5870 which is better than the GTX 285 outperforms it in all presets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit^pr0n
Hopefully they actually make a fair benchmark and not use something like PhysX to boost Nvidia cards scores. That was just plain annoying.
THE OFFICIAL SCORES ARE WITHOUT PhysX, so you're wrong about PhysX making it unfair and boosting nVIDIA's scores.
__________________
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
the whole physx thing was just a misshap. notice most of their advertisements seemed to be from sapphire, an ATI brand. their goal was to measure cpu performance, and hopefully its better than just being used to calculate physics, since thats not really the only thing a cpu does in games. if anything the mistake they really made was basing cpu score only on physics
Vantage is fair tbh.
The HD5870 which is better than the GTX 285 outperforms it in all presets.
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!
So yeah, unless the graphics industry wants to go down that road, the defacto standard for measuring hardware performance, futuremark, better be neutral. Not to take away from Uningine though, because that seems to be a pretty successful piece of software at measuring dx11 capabilities. And obviously futuremark stood up and noticed, as prove by this press release.
you can slag of futuremark for all the things you want here, and granted the Physix debacle was an issue, but lest we forget that Futuremark have given us not one but 4 of the de facto standards, in gaming benchmarks 3Dmark01/03/05/06, that to this day we use to compare rigs and quantify results.
did i use vantage? no i thought it was garbage
would i use futuremark products again, based on past software? hell yeah.
i also personaly think that they have priced there products farely over the years, considering they have had such hold so much of this market.
i think what they need to do is have more smaller "games" with a variety of intense effects. sure one company might win by 10-20% in one feature, but they cant win them all unless they truly are flat out better, in which case they should.
and whatever they do, up the textures and polygons, vantage looked so 1999. sure it might have had 3D water, but the worst character models of this millennium. when i get home tonight i want to reinstall 03 and 05 and up them to 1920x1200 4xaa 16xaf and see how good the quality really is.
the water looked like cloth and it didnt interact with the solids it touched. The spray is a circular layer and doesnt interact with the water surface.
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)
2001 was great. 03 was OK but slipping. Since then 3DMark is just crap. I'll play Crysis if i want eye candy.
__________________
Q6600 g0 (lapped up to 1200 grit) @ 3.6 ghz (will be higher once a game comes out that needs the juice)
DFI LP LT X48
EVGA GTX 260 (216) FTW (what a name...)
4 gigs DDR2-800 Ballistix 4-4-4-12
Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer
500 gb Seagate + 150 gb Raptor X
Silverstone 850 watt (modular)
Vista Business 64 bit
EK Res 150 -> DDC3.2 + XSPC Rev. 3 top -> MCR320 rad (S-Flex F fans) -> Apogee GT (bowed) -> MCW30 -> MCR120 rad (Zalman F3 fan) -> MCW60 -> EK Res 150
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.
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.
Well spoken
This is also what seems to be so great with Unigines benchmarks, there you measure GPU performance and the CPU seems to have a very little impact on anything really.
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)
i agree
this is the most important consideration for general community
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
Rule 1A:
Rule 2:
Rule 2A:
FM were developing Vantage before nVidia toko over Aegia. FM had already added in PhysX. Not FMs fault.
Linear Mode
