• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3DMARK Vantage?

RussianHAXOR said:
Have you guys seen this next generation benchmark? It looks crazy. :eek:

http://www.futuremark.com/3dmarkvantage/


Sorry if this is a repost. :(
Click to expand...

I have not looked at any previous threads on this. But I have noticed that 3DMark Vantage will be Vista-only, and will require a fully DX10/SM4.0-compliant graphics card for that benchmarking program to even run at all. (Sorry, Windows XP users and those who use anything below a GeForce 8xxx-series or a Radeon HD2xxx-series card; you can't run that program at all.)
 
E4g1e said:
I have not looked at any previous threads on this. But I have noticed that 3DMark Vantage will be Vista-only, and will require a fully DX10/SM4.0-compliant graphics card for that benchmarking program to even run at all. (Sorry, Windows XP users and those who use anything below a GeForce 8xxx-series or a Radeon HD2xxx-series card; you can't run that program at all.)
Click to expand...

Or a E6600, or a 512MB video card. Sheesh.
 
yeah, this program appears to be very selective...almost to the point of elitist. Dont have a 2000 dollar rig? too bad. :(
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Or a E6600, or a 512MB video card. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Actually, the minumum would be a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 540 CPU with 1GB of installed system RAM and a 256MB graphics card. Your stated specs, plus 2GB of installed system RAM, would be the recommended spec.
 
Those screens don't look that amazing to me. Let's see the nature scene. Those have historically been my favorites.
 
RussianHAXOR said:
yeah, this program appears to be very selective...almost to the point of elitist. Dont have a 2000 dollar rig? too bad. :(
Click to expand...
Not to sound elitist, but I would like to see software companies force the hardware companies to release new top of the line hardware faster. I am tired of the normal hardware cycles. I want new tech more quickly. I want more software that brings Quad cores to their knees and turns 3-way SLi into absolute slideshows.
 
E4g1e said:
Actually, the minumum would be a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 540 CPU with 1GB of installed system RAM and a 256MB graphics card. Your stated specs, plus 2GB of installed system RAM, would be the recommended spec.
Click to expand...

excellent, i want the new benchmark to really push the hardware.
 
trudude said:
Not to sound elitist, but I would like to see software companies force the hardware companies to release new top of the line hardware faster. I am tired of the normal hardware cycles. I want new tech more quickly. I want more software that brings Quad cores to their knees and turns 3-way SLi into absolute slideshows.
Click to expand...

They tried that, and guess what: Crysis and UT3 sales were in the toilet. At least UT3 has consoles to fall back on, and a much larger group of engine licenses. For Crysis, the sales were so bad, they're rethinking the whole console port option.

And let me give you one piece of advice: so long as there is more than one high-end graphic card producer, you can bet they're designing and releasing new cards as fast as new innovations and new processes will allow. The only thing holding back the PC gaming industry is Microsoft, who foolishly tied DX10 to Vista.
 
defaultluser said:
They tried that, and guess what: Crysis and UT3 sales were in the toilet. At least UT3 has consoles to fall back on, and a much larger group of engine licenses. For Crysis, the sales were so bad, they're rethinking the whole console port option.

And let me give you one piece of advice: so long as there is more than one high-end graphic card producer, you can bet they're designing and releasing new cards as fast as new innovations and new processes will allow. The only thing holding back the PC gaming industry is Microsoft, who foolishly tied DX10 to Vista.
Click to expand...
Crysis has sold over 1 million so far...
 
defaultluser said:
They tried that, and guess what: Crysis and UT3 sales were in the toilet. At least UT3 has consoles to fall back on, and a much larger group of engine licenses. For Crysis, the sales were so bad, they're rethinking the whole console port option.

And let me give you one piece of advice: so long as there is more than one high-end graphic card producer, you can bet they're designing and releasing new cards as fast as new innovations and new processes will allow. The only thing holding back the PC gaming industry is Microsoft, who foolishly tied DX10 to Vista.
Click to expand...

UT3 is extremely forgiving on old hardware. I can play it just fine on my Mobility FireGL V5200 powered notebook... (basically a mobility x1600 from what I can tell)
 
Ouch. That'll shut up all these console fans who think all games sell 5+ million copies just because 2-3 games did that last year. Most big PC games don't even need to sell more than a hundred thousand to make a profit and PC game publishers don't spend millions of dollars on advertising like on the console side (therefore it's easier to break even). A million copies insured that there'll be a Crysis 2...plus they'll be showing off the engine on the 360 and PS3 soon so hopefully Crytek will make some money with that.

Anyway, I of all people love spaceships, but it seems to me like they'll have X3 or Eve-quality stuff (with added motion blur!) but with more wasted polygons, textures and shader effects just to slow things down. It wouldn't be a 3DMark benchmark if it didn't run badly at first, right? The Vista-only thing is also because that's the future, I suppose, so that shouldn't be a big deal. We'll all be using Vista by the time more average systems can run this benchmark at good framerates anyway.
 
Big D. said:
Anyway, I of all people love spaceships, but it seems to me like they'll have X3 or Eve-quality stuff (with added motion blur!) but with more wasted polygons, textures and shader effects just to slow things down. It wouldn't be a 3DMark benchmark if it didn't run badly at first, right?
Click to expand...

Or a Futuremark Game Studios production in the near future, either...
 
vista sux. my pc would run it, but why do it? upgrading to vista for gaming is stupid in my opinion.
 
user Nvidiots suggested that he would like to see 3DMark DO exactly that - simulate the workload of modern games.

Neeyik - a Futuremark staffer - then asked "what would that show/prove?" (shocking!)


Since the Futuremark staffer's vision for what 3DMark is meant to achieve clearly differs from what I and many others understood it to be, I asked HIM (Neeyik) what, conversely, he sees is its aim.


Because as a graphical benchmark closely related to games, the #1 thing it should be doing is giving you an idea of how a given video card (and whole computer) will perform under the games people are and will be playing, compared to other video cards/computers.


user Nvidiots is suggesting the CURRENT 3DMark doesnt always do this well - and wonders if this NEW 3DMark will. That is a perfectly valid concern.

To then see it dismissed by the creators like that's not even the point - well then what the hell is the point? A benchmark for people who like to run benchmarks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top