Futuremark lays an egg.

[Pixelsmack]

L A M E

Wow, Futuremark has lost their way. They expect me to PAY for that? That first demo looks especially like crap. If I want to see how my box does with action environments like interiors and jungles, I'll run Crysis. Which hauls ass.

The first demo looks so bad and ran like crap. The second while looking a little better still was unreasonably slow.

At least with the old 3DMark demos, if the demo ran slow, you could SEE why. The demos were sexy as hell. Now I am staring at this crappy looking demo that looks like my old Geforce3 should be able to get 60fps with it but it's not. It's a slide show!

Then I see all the embedded ads for new hardware and it starts to all make sense. What a joke.

I'll stick with Performance Test for reliable numbers. 3DMark use to at least offer eye candy, now it offers nothing.

[Shocky]

I agree, the graphics are poor and there are less tests, from toms results I don't think there anymore relevent then 3dmark06 results and they want people to pay to run it more then once, it's a big joke.

[SH64]

Agreed. 3DMark took a huge step back with Vantage :thumbdwn:

[bacon12]

They lost me when they applied for copyright to the word 'pwn' or "pwnage"

These synthetic benchmarks are useless imho. Having a good score doesn't equate into real world performance.

[Shocky]

They lost me when they applied for copyright to the word 'pwn' or "pwnage"

These synthetic benchmarks are useless imho. Having a good score doesn't equate into real world performance.

Yep, the only good thing it really had going for it was the pretty tests but vantage isnt visually impressive at all, the first test looks bland and the second one is just, meh.

[CaptNKILL]

Completely agree.

3dMark 2001 was amazing back then. 3dMark 2003 was pretty cool... 2005 was decent... 2006 was bloated (lots of effects pasted on to make things run like crap without really improving visual quality)... and now "Vantage" is even worse, AND you have to pay to use it more than once.

Before 2005 I would have said Futuremark was one of the few companies that could successfully make use of our graphics technology, but anymore it seems like they're just using gimmicks to make people buy more hardware from their sponsors.

I mean, the program actually uses Physx acceleration now...

How convenient now that the technology is owned by billionaire nvidia... :p

[ViN86]

lol just dont buy it guys.

cmon now, youre all pretty computer savvy and you know that the higher your 3dmark score is, the bigger your ePen0s is and that's about it :)

[CaptNKILL]

lol just dont buy it guys.

cmon now, youre all pretty computer savvy and you know that the higher your 3dmark score is, the bigger your ePen0s is and that's about it :)
Yeah but it in the past it was actually interesting. Its just turned into a big hardware advertisement over the past 5 years, and now they're even charging for the basic version.

I never really cared much about 3dMark scores, I just liked the visuals.

[ViN86]

Yeah but it in the past it was actually interesting. Its just turned into a big hardware advertisement over the past 5 years, and now they're even charging for the basic version.

I never really cared much about 3dMark scores, I just liked the visuals.
that's a very good point.

it was initially about stressing your hardware and actually benchmarking. in the end though, if youre system is fast enough for you, then who cares about a benchmark.

i mean, i dont need 3dmark to tell me that my E8400/8800GT system will beat my X2-3800/7800GTX system heh :D

[MaXThReAT]

Unfortunately it's too late for many of us. After playing with this thing most of day I'm inclined to agree with the OP.
For me, the purpose of running 3DMark is not so much to get a good score but to impress others and myself with the spectacular visuals and new effects...in the demo...with sound. I don't know how many countless times I've run the demos from 05 and 06. I think the last actual benchmark I ran was over a year ago. It took allot of waiting and upgrading to be able to view the demos at high settings. All thrills are lost for me with the lack of a demo with sound or any mini game, not to mention 1 of the 2 GPU test is total ass..yes lots of stuff going on and maybe if knew everything that was going on in the background it might be imprezive but I’ve seen water and I’ve seen cloth physics. Don't even get me started on the ad banner within the benchmark making them money with every tick and I would like to simply see my score without having to upload and connect to them everytime.
With 06 there was a good reason to buy, it unlocked allot of extra stuff. With this one I think they know they're going under and need to sell allot of keys cheap. Why spend time making something good when most people are paying less than seven bucks.

[CaptNKILL]

Yeah I don't see futuremark's gaming benchmarks being around too much longer. Professional PC benchmarking isn't exactly a huge market, and regardless of how little their newer stuff impresses me, its expensive to make.

I give them one more release (2009 revision) before they stop making 3dmark.

[turdhat]

Funny that this used to be a celebrated occasion and now is like.... Meh.....

The irony is that they release a new product like they have all this clout by allowing ONLY ONE RUN and based on that alone it seems most dont even care to go through the trouble of downloading it. And it doesnt look all that great...

How to alienate your customer base and ruin your product credibility 101.

[WeReWoLf]

So it's not just me who thought GPU test #1 sucked ass.

[Bman212121]

Yeah I don't see futuremark's gaming benchmarks being around too much longer. Professional PC benchmarking isn't exactly a huge market, and regardless of how little their newer stuff impresses me, its expensive to make.

I give them one more release (2009 revision) before they stop making 3dmark.

Remember that they said they were planning on making games in the future. The idea behind vantage was they were making their own game engine to run the tests on, so games developed on this engine could be compared easily. I can't remember where that link was though, but if this does happen then they will make plenty of money licensing out their engine.

[crainger]

They should go back to 3DMark01 and actually use a proper engine. 3DMark01 used the Max Payne engine included Havok as well. This new stuff is just usless. The fact that it incorporates PhysX into the benchmarks really shows they are not following PC Hardware trends, looks like a last ditch effort to force those damn addon cards into our faces!

[tijean]

It beg the question.... Who would be stupid enough to license this crappy engine ???

:thumbdwn:

It's crap !

[[EOCF] Tim]

It beg the question.... Who would be stupid enough to license this crappy engine ???

:thumbdwn:

It's crap !

I don't think they have ever been licensed, because they are not designed to create games, just a single benchmark.

I love the fact how they try to hide the fact that it all looks pants but adding masses upon masses of motion blur and HDR. Pffff

[FallenAngel]

3DMark Vantage graphics looks so ugly and old that I would call it 3DMark "VINTAGE"...

:)

[Toss3]

I'm just glad we got to try it once before deciding on buying it. I was going to buy Vantage because it looked awesome based on the screenshots on their page, and because I wanted to support futuremark as a company and for the work they're doing.

Nothing really prepared me for the utter crap we were to receive. This is what waiting for a Wii and getting a Vii must feel like. Wtf happened FM?!?? :thumbdwn:

[Revs]

So you're all not gonna use it because it doesn't look as pretty as you thought! :o

Surely the point is to benchmark your PC, which it does very well. Nothing stresses a PC like Vantage does. It makes full use of multi core CPU's and SLI setups, unlike anything else out there and tests almost every aspect of performance.

I just don't see the problem. For the record I think the second graphics test looks awsome.

[K007]

Also don't forget you need DX10 to run it. Which also means Vista..i wouldn't be surprised if MS had a hand in that as well.

Yes DX10 is the future, we have the option but at the moment the current hardware is just not able to push it, the performance hits don't give results that say...ok that looks ****ing fantastic.

They really should have had a DX10/9 option in it.

Also the fact that everything in that thing looks far worse than even DX9 stuff makes it pointless benchmark.

Sure..it gives you a number...faster the gpu/cpu the number goes up...GREAT...but that number is meaningless and has no real meaning to it.

This is why i always value actual game benchmarks more than anything, they have more meaning to the numbers, and the number represents actual graphics that everyone can see and enjoy in...Un fortantely...Vantage looks like garbage and runs like it...if it actually did look like those UT3 Screenshots awhile back..then yea...wow that looks amazing i would love to see that at 40fps instead of 16fps...but really i don't think anyone here wants to see garbage run at 40fps or even 1 fps..or 10000fps...its pointless.

So you're all not gonna use it because it doesn't look as pretty as you thought! :o

Surely the point is to benchmark your PC, which it does very well. Nothing stresses a PC like Vantage does. It makes full use of multi core CPU's and SLI setups, unlike anything else out there and tests almost every aspect of performance.

I just don't see the problem. For the record I think the second graphics test looks awsome.


Crysis looks better and probably make a better benchmark program than anything out atm. I rather see results of new gpus to compare with than Vantage.

The GT200 might give me 100fps in Crysis in DX10 Ultra settings...and 10fps increase in Vantage.....which result do you care about the most as a gamer?

[Revs]

It's no different than any other 3Dmark in that respect. I don't see how someone can dislike Vantage if they like '06. The CPU tests are far more entertaining in Vantage if it's entertainment you're looking for.

Crysis looks better and probably make a better benchmark program than anything out atm. I rather see results of new gpus to compare with than Vantage.

As I said before, Crysis, or any other benchmark for that matter doesn't scale anything like as well with Quad/Oct core CPU's and Tri/Quad SLI rigs as Vantage. And we'll have to beg to differ that the Crysis BM looks better than the Space thingy BM on Vantage.

Anyhow, after the first coulpe of runs of any benchmark you've seen all there is to see. You can't tell me after 10 runs you'll still be sat there watching the damn thing juddering through the frames.

[Toss3]

Anyhow, after the first coulpe of runs of any benchmark you've seen all there is to see. You can't tell me after 10 runs you'll still be sat there watching the damn thing juddering through the frames.

Yes, which is why it's important that we actually have something worth looking at. 3dmark vantage failed in that department miserably.

[Logical]

Windows XP'ers crying about 'how they should have made it DX9', get a grip.....you have 3D mark 06 which benchmarks DX9 to the max...why should they release another. ?

[SeriTonin]

Windows XP'ers crying about 'how they should have made it DX9', get a grip.....you have 3D mark 06 which benchmarks DX9 to the max...why should they release another. ?

It's actually a dumb move on the company's part. They took out a good percentage of potential sales by excluding xp users.

Then again, odd's are, people smart enough to stay away from vista are also smart enough to not give two sh*ts about a benchmarking tool such as this.