3DMARK Vantage Brief Test
- Thread starter mao5
- Start date
Those really don't look like the ones here: http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?47838
(though the last pic at techpowerup is apparently fake)
(though the last pic at techpowerup is apparently fake)
There's always the possibility that the various shots are from different scenes.
That`s 100% because the picture is an offline render from a guy named Marek Denko. It was posted on CGTalk a while back. His personal site with his other work (including this one) is here:
http://marekdenko.net/?page_id=3
http://bbs.chiphell.com/attachments/month_0712/20071224_358ee76503a3285a8466wO43VsPv8Exz.jpg
This has got to be some kind of joke. What is this, 1998?
This has got to be some kind of joke. What is this, 1998?
hehe, I know what you mean, but you have to remember that the effect du jour seems to be HDR and trending towards GI, so I can understand if that's a real shot. Still doesn't mean it looks "great" but it's not horrible all things considered.
I hope 3Dmark get back on track. It was a fun benchmark to look at circa 2k3. But 3Dmark 05 and 06 are just awful. They look absolutely terrible, yet many of these fugly , almost PS2-ish quailty scenes bring even the strongest video cards to their knees.
None of that matters to the purpose of 3Dmark, getting a final number, but sitting through the bench is a absolute chore right now because it's so damn fugly and just uninteresting. And also certain parts such as one CPU test in 06 are HORRIBLY designed (test speed hard capped at 2 FPS..wtf is that?)
Crysis looks about a billion trillion times better than any scene in 3Dmark06 for example..
I will say that this "vantage" incarnation looks like it has potential to look a lot better. Although on second thought, many of the alleged "Vantage" scenes still do look really, really bad..(and given 3dmark's history, those fugly scenes will run on 8800GTX ultra at about 5-10 FPs).
Guess that's the difference between real game programmers, and Futurmark's programmers..
None of that matters to the purpose of 3Dmark, getting a final number, but sitting through the bench is a absolute chore right now because it's so damn fugly and just uninteresting. And also certain parts such as one CPU test in 06 are HORRIBLY designed (test speed hard capped at 2 FPS..wtf is that?)
Crysis looks about a billion trillion times better than any scene in 3Dmark06 for example..
I will say that this "vantage" incarnation looks like it has potential to look a lot better. Although on second thought, many of the alleged "Vantage" scenes still do look really, really bad..(and given 3dmark's history, those fugly scenes will run on 8800GTX ultra at about 5-10 FPs).
Guess that's the difference between real game programmers, and Futurmark's programmers..
100000000000000000000 times better? I personally thought that the added lighting and ambience made 3DMark06 very pretty.
I agree with the CPU tests comments though - they really are incredibly painful to watch.
The firefly scene is asthetically pretty, and the serpent in lake jumping over a airship thing isn't too bad I guess. Then again neither scene wows like Crysis either, but at least, especially the firefly scene is the right idea it's pretty to look at.
But the trolls versus indiana jones lady, futuristic space shooter, and WW2 airplanes scenes are terrible looking, imo. And the space shooter scene actually stresses the hardware a lot while being aggressively ugly as well.
But the trolls versus indiana jones lady, futuristic space shooter, and WW2 airplanes scenes are terrible looking, imo. And the space shooter scene actually stresses the hardware a lot while being aggressively ugly as well.
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
LOL, I thought it looked that bad because my computer is too weak. Good to know I'm not the only one who had to suffer through those.
The tests in 3Dmark05/06 looks good, some things not as good but then take a look at what is rendered (readme file for example). Comparing it to PS2'ish graphics though shows you haven't seen the techdemos at all!
How about the final part of the flying ship demo, you know the 10m/polygon city scene?
Look at all the scenes in these posts.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1110013&postcount=51
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1110014&postcount=52
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1110015&postcount=53
Last edited by a moderator:
3dmark2001 will forever hold a special place in my heart. I trust it more for my benchmarking to this day than any newer release that's come out. I just love the way it stresses different aspects of your system with each test... I haven't seen that with newer *marks, if things are unstable, they just die randomly at any time. With '01, you could go "BSOD at GT1 - memory stressed too hard" (of course all depending on what you're doing to your system at the time), "GT2 = FSB", "GT3 = Videocard core pushed too far", and "Nature = Video memory clocks pushed too far".
Sounds silly, sure, but it was how I / we / everyone I know worked back then with our 9600/9700/9800's and FX series cards. And it still works quite well to this day.
Sounds silly, sure, but it was how I / we / everyone I know worked back then with our 9600/9700/9800's and FX series cards. And it still works quite well to this day.
My (Q6600 @333x9 system and HD3870 800core/2400mem) score for 3DMark2001SE official default test 50k+ points I have read that kind of a comment before but may I ask what the difference is? To me a game engine vs 3dmark's 'engine'...they are similar and all I am missing is keyboard and mouse inputs...this is just ignorance on my part talking. I would just like to know. I dont put much stock in to the final score...I look at the individual scores to get a good idea of where a system lies...sort of a yardstick type tool...like did I setup my SLI right? How come a cpu at x ghz is getting higher score than mine...stuff like that...
