3DMark DirectX 11 Tech Demo

Hopefully it'll be more watchable than the last 4-5 versions they've released. I miss the older ones where they used situations that simulated actual gameplay. Now it's just a matter of run the benchmark and walk away for 15 minutes.
 
only thing i ever use these for is stress testing. but hey to each their own.
 
It looks like a combination of themes from old CG cutscenes from games and movies. It also has feels to have the same art direction and it is approaching a similar quality. We could use real-time games of this level.
 
I've long ago stopped being a benchmark guy. I no longer have any benchmark programs and do not use fraps. I just don't focus on numbers anymore cause all they did was distract me from playing and feeling the game. I know when a game is playing smoothly and know what I have to do when it isn't. I just don't need numbers anymore to tell my fps when I pretty much already know what it is.
 
I only enjoy Futuremark benchies simply for that "Oh wow, THIS is what PC gaming could be like now a days!"

So basically just eye candy, I put no real weight on the actual numbers I get after running the benchmark.

Other than that, W-T-F did I just watch?!
 
JoeUser said:
I only enjoy Futuremark benchies simply for that "Oh wow, THIS is what PC gaming could be like now a days!"

So basically just eye candy, I put no real weight on the actual numbers I get after running the benchmark.

Other than that, W-T-F did I just watch?!
Click to expand...

You watched a "teaser" trailer for the "story" in the 2012 version of 3dmark.

And yes, these canned benchmarks have been pointless for a very long time. I want to know what something resembling an actual game runs like, not just a real time rendered cut scene. Sure, it has lots of nice lighting, shadows, and other effects, but it's not like I'm going to see a game with that complexity any time soon.
 
Merc1138 said:
And yes, these canned benchmarks have been pointless for a very long time. I want to know what something resembling an actual game runs like, not just a real time rendered cut scene. Sure, it has lots of nice lighting, shadows, and other effects, but it's not like I'm going to see a game with that complexity any time soon.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for this is due to hardware limitations more than anything...

Yes, there are PC's that could easily run a game with the level of fidelity, but those PC's make up, what, 1% of PC gamers? Most people would have to run a game like this severely dumbed down...like down to Unreal 3 engine level graphics...so there lies the problem. Why make a game that 1% could run maxed out?

Hell, look at Crysis...here we are FIVE years later and most mid-range gaming PC's STILL can't play the game maxed out, especially with AA enabled.

In the end though PC games will start looking like this once consoles have gotten to the point of being able to run games like this.
 
Always just eye candy and demos. Wasn't Futuremark part of the demo scene way back when? The 64K demos? I thought I remembered them from way back then.

Anyway, I don't use them as benchmarks, really. Just for a cool little visual demo. Always fun to look at.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Always just eye candy and demos. Wasn't Futuremark part of the demo scene way back when? The 64K demos? I thought I remembered them from way back then.

Anyway, I don't use them as benchmarks, really. Just for a cool little visual demo. Always fun to look at.
Click to expand...

Future Crew was a Finnish denoscene group that made many good PC demos and were responsible for screamtracker, the first module tracker, later resulting in such programs as fast tracker etc. They pretty much created the .mod style tracker music file.

They also hosted one of the big early demoparties, Assembly, in Helsinki, Finland in the early to mid 90s.

As the gang got older and the denoscene started dying (in large part due to the rise of networked games, and demoparties slowly turning into lanparties) various members turned their skills into something more marketable.

Some of them started Remedy, the company behind the Max Paune games.

Some of them were involved in the Bitboys effort (which was a flop)

And yes, some of them founded Mad Onion which later renamed itself FutureMark.

3DMark 2000 was very reminiscent in its audiovisual artistry to the demoscenes demos. Once they got away from that, 3DMark went downhill IMHO.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038860321 said:
Future Crew was a Finnish denoscene group that made many good PC demos and were responsible for screamtracker, the first module tracker, later resulting in such programs as fast tracker etc. They pretty much created the .mod style tracker music file.

They also hosted one of the big early demoparties, Assembly, in Helsinki, Finland in the early to mid 90s.

As the gang got older and the denoscene started dying (in large part due to the rise of networked games, and demoparties slowly turning into lanparties) various members turned their skills into something more marketable.

Some of them started Remedy, the company behind the Max Paune games.

Some of them were involved in the Bitboys effort (which was a flop)

And yes, some of them founded Mad Onion which later renamed itself FutureMark.

3DMark 2000 was very reminiscent in its audiovisual artistry to the demoscenes demos. Once they got away from that, 3DMark went downhill IMHO.
Click to expand...

IMHO, my favorite work to come out of Future Crew was the music of the member "Purple Motion", Jonne Valtonen, if I recall properly.
 
Just ran 3DMark2001 SE...scored a low 53,000!

If my PC were this fast in 2001 I'd be killed for witchcraft.
 
Thanks for the history lesson (no sarcasm, genuine thank you!). Nice to hear that most of them went on to much better things. :) I was a off quite a bit (Future Crew), but I guess it wasn't really that much considering they did branch off to Mad Onion.

Cool!

Zarathustra[H];1038860321 said:
F.....History lesson.
Click to expand...
 
Zarathustra[H];1038859440 said:
You're welcome.

Such fond memories :)
Click to expand...

I agree that 2000 and 2001 were actually interesting to watch. The subsequent ones have been less and less interesting to watch. The latest one is terrible if you want something to watch.
 
heh, it sorta reminded me of star wars meets the matrix with maybe a mix of halo forerunner thrown in.. That walking character design reminded me of the red emperor guards. Tentacle machine gave me matrix feel.



LOL. about the best thing about futuremark is the comparison thing. Sometimes its hard finding benchmarks for certain configurations if your hardware isnt current with the current games getting benchmarked. Im running q8200 with 6850. My 4850 went out, bought a 6850 to replace it and thought everything was good. Found out my system was actually running a little behind thru the comparison feature, because some odd reason it wasnt clocking my card at right speed. Once fixed i was actually a little ahead. It was about 10% difference.
 
You know, after watching this a couple times I gotta say that if this is a demo of the next 3DMark I am not impressed.

If this is some demo of a game engine they are working on then I am some what impressed.

Just a lot of things I saw sucked, like the smoke effects that are still sprites, weird looking if any physics cloth on the "thing" walking, tessellation overload, so-so textures, average lighting effects...just over all meh...
 
JoeUser said:
I think the reason for this is due to hardware limitations more than anything...

Yes, there are PC's that could easily run a game with the level of fidelity, but those PC's make up, what, 1% of PC gamers? Most people would have to run a game like this severely dumbed down...like down to Unreal 3 engine level graphics...so there lies the problem. Why make a game that 1% could run maxed out?

Hell, look at Crysis...here we are FIVE years later and most mid-range gaming PC's STILL can't play the game maxed out, especially with AA enabled.

In the end though PC games will start looking like this once consoles have gotten to the point of being able to run games like this.
Click to expand...

You could build a PC with a Sandy Bridge i3 (which is as fast in games as the old Core 2 Quad) and GTX 480 or 570, 8GB RAM, etc etc with Windows 7 for $900 that would run Crysis at 1080p on very high with AA just fine.

A new game that looks almost as good as this new 3D Mark or UE4 quite should run quite nicely with $900 IMO, if not $1200 with an i5 and GTX 670 and you are there for sure.

We are not in 2006 anymore. The days of the $650 dual core CPU are gone. You don't have to spend $3500 to do amazing stuff and $900-1200 is in the price range of way more than 1% of the market.

I would argue if you make a really great game today that no console could hope to run and requires a $1000 PC the glory days of desktops could return.

Developers stopped pushing the boundaries and abandoned PCs for easy money, market share and conglomerate financial backing that calls the shots. That is the real reason we don't see games like this new 3D Mark.
 
Staples said:
I agree that 2000 and 2001 were actually interesting to watch. The subsequent ones have been less and less interesting to watch. The latest one is terrible if you want something to watch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, part of the cool factor of 3DMark was the demo mode with sound just like the old Demoscene demos. it was the showoff stuff you could show to your non tech friends as a tech demo of what computers are capable of now.

3Dmark 06, 3dmark Vantage (and possibly some earlier 3DMark version, I got distracted somewhere after 3Dmark 2001 and stopped paying attention to new releases, until 3DMark 06) got away from this, and it made them less interesting.

They sort of got back to it with the 3DMark 11 demo mode, and that was a nice showing. I hope they continue in that direction.
 
Anyone remember that 3D demo back in the early 90's of the guy driving a Lamborghini Countach that was stuck in gridlock traffic on a suspension bridge, then it goes into a "daydream" of his car turning into a plane or spaceship, lifting above all the traffic, and just flying around? Can't remember the name of it or the creator.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this new DX11 version does...although mostly pointless for gauging real-world performance.
 
i like graphics demos, not graphics benchmarks. real games make perfectly viable graphics benchmarks. i honestly dont care about the computational power of graphics hardware anymore. it all about what gets me prettier graphics vs price (short and long term)

if 90% of games i play use an unreal engine and a crytec engine, i dont care about the graphics engine futuremark performance.

though i am looking forward to mainstream games that support bokeh and depth of field by default, that is an effect that ads a significant amount of cinematic feel to actual gameplay.
 
The demo has potentials but they need to work on one very glaring oversight: making the guy's robe furl and actually interact with the ground and his body - waving and rippling with the contours and cracks in the ground. It's moving like he's wearing hard plastic, not a cloth robe.

If they can do that, then I'll be more impressed.

Here's another 3DMark DirectX 11 demo - High Temple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGAzAO3leqE

It suffers from the same mistake as the robe guy demo - no interaction with the environment. The trees and leaves and foliage are all stiff and not moving. No breeze or wind at all?

Futuremark should take some lessons from Epic's Unreal Engine 3 demo - see 0:26 where the overcoat moves with his legs and his surroundings, and 1:10 where the trees and plants move with the breezes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top