Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-28-08, 08:27 PM   #13
WeReWoLf
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,015
Send a message via MSN to WeReWoLf
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

So it's not just me who thought GPU test #1 sucked ass.
WeReWoLf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-08, 08:35 PM   #14
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-08, 08:38 PM   #15
crainger
 
crainger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia
Posts: 29,559
Send a message via AIM to crainger
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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!
crainger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-08, 08:39 PM   #16
tijean
Registered User
 
tijean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 74
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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



It's crap !
__________________
Core I7 920@3.2ghz
Asus P6T Deluxe
3x2gb Corsair Dominator@1600mhz 8-8-8-20 1T
Sapphire HD 4870 1gb + X-Fi Titanium
HD 300gb VelociRaptor + 1Tb WD
Samsung 275T 27" + Diamond HD4870 1gb
Vista x64 Sp1
tijean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 05:38 AM   #17
[EOCF] Tim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 641
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tijean
It beg the question.... Who would be stupid enough to license this crappy engine ???



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
[EOCF] Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 06:11 AM   #18
FallenAngel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sicily
Posts: 16
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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

__________________
Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 @ 3.2 GHz
MSI Neo3-F
PNY GTX560Ti
8GB DDR2 800MHz
OCZ ModXstream-Pro 600W PSU
Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit
FallenAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 06:16 AM   #19
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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?!??
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 06:45 AM   #20
Revs
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6,365
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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

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.
Revs is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-08, 07:15 AM   #21
K007
 
K007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia, Sydney
Posts: 9,406
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revs
So you're all not gonna use it because it doesn't look as pretty as you thought!

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?
K007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 07:38 AM   #22
Revs
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6,365
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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.

Quote:
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.
Revs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 07:48 AM   #23
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revs
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.
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-08, 08:26 AM   #24
Logical
Registered User
 
Logical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,523
Default Re: Futuremark lays an egg.

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. ?
Logical is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HPCwire: @Intel Release Knights Corner ISA, Lays Groundwork for MIC Launch http://t. News Archived News Items 0 06-11-12 06:10 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.