3DMark Vantage Soon

CPU: 6081
GPU: 4549

Total: P4855 3DMarks

That's with the Phenom 9900 @ 2.6 and the Palit 8800 GTS using the 169.25 drivers, gonna update drivers and try again before tossing the 3870s in.

 

CPU: 5200
GPU: 14156

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.0 Ghz
9800GX2 Quad SLI

http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyzer.action?resultId=11696&resultType=19

its ok. I may do a look at it covering a broad range of Nvidia hardware and SLI setups. The animation seems a bit quirky. But bouncing boobs is enough to add alot of credibility to any benchmark.

 

Seems like the CPU test is taking good use of all cores. My score is double that of the E6600 posted above.

P5394
CPU: 10980 (Q9300@2.9)
GPU: 4612 (8800GT 512 @ 690/1624/970)

 

My Phenom 9850 (stock) just scored 7808 - that in a fully loaded production system, not a benchmarking system.

 

Cannot even finish first CPU test.
Program terminated with an error.

I already sent an support request to FM.

Hope it's not because of my crappy CPU (T5450)

 

Well that was a waste of $20 and 30 mins of my life. 3dmark06 was pretty and I enjoyed using it. But Vantage just has no soul. While the cloth and water effects in game test 1 are impressive enough the whole package is just I don't know.....just really bleh.

The most impressive thing about Vantage by far is its interface and that says a lot.

 

Wow, visuals are definitely two steps down. The animation of running woman in first test is more comical than realistic. To please the masses(?) we have something in the lines of upskirt zoom-in of a woman in very ... mm.. dramatic pose.
And product placement for Sapphire wasn't really very subtle .

 

I believe that part is just texture filtering issues. You are not seeing anything.

 

Question to Nick[FM] about no DX10.1 support....

1. What is FutureMark mean ?

2. Why FutureMark decided that DX10.1 is not important ?

3. Why FutureMark changed it's strategy - by no longer supporting latest DirectX API ? (Based from the past - FutureMark Supported PS1.1 DX8, PS1.4 DX8.1, PS2.0 DX9, PS2.0b DX9b, PS3.0 DX9c.)


No hard feelings,

best regards,

Shtal

 

It's simple ... nV doesn't support the DX10.1 API. No matter how important futures in the DX10.1.
Think about it, the Assassin's Creed has DX10.1 support, but in the next patch it will be removed. I don’t see any reason for DX10.1 support to be taken away from Radeon 3800 series owners. Except that reason is nVidia.
Things are change in the last years. If you have money your interest are provided. Everything is available for purchase.

 

nVidia not supporting a feature didn't stop them before... Like for example when nVidia didn't have ps1.4, or when they didn't have (proper) SM2.x.
3DMark03 is actually the application that 'unmasked' the GeForce FX series as being a useless SM2.x part.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they simply didn't have time to develop additional DX10.1 features/tests, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there will be a 3DMark Vantage SE or something, that will add DX10.1.

 

They also implemented hardware accelerated PCF in 3dmark06 IIRC and that was an Nvidia only feature. That Assassin's creed thing is really shady though.

 

It was at the time, yes. However, I believe that S3 also added support later, and in DX10 it is a standard feature, so all vendors support it now.
Futuremark knew at that time that it was not an nVidia-only feature, even though at release there was nobody else that supported it.
Since it was also a common feature in games, I really don't see much wrong with the decision.

 

Yeah this bench is terrible, I happen to think 3dMark since 03 has been. The tests run like ass and look like it also.

The Jane Nash demo would be laughed at if it was a PS3 or 360 game (consider, Assasins Creed), yet it runs at 10-15 fps on my hardware which has far more raw power than those machines.

Anyways, my score seems rather low, on a Q6600 at stock and a 9600GT overclocked @ 750 mhz, I get 4242, 8706 CPU and 3623 GPU.

I see people in here with 640/320 GTS's beating my 9600GT, that doesn't seem right. Seems even at stock my 9600 should be ahead, let alone overclocked 100 mhz.

 

Why would that be? The 8800GTS is a high-end part, the 9600GT is a mid-end part. You only have 64 stream processors, the 8800GTS has 96. Also, you have a 256-bit bus, the 8800GTS has 320-bit. The 8800GTS has more theoretical bandwidth and more fillrate.
The 9600GT falls somewhere between the 8600GTS and 8800GTS.

 

Extremely shady... Why would any dev. remove a working feature that improves performance? Makes no sense. I hope NV isn't up to their strong arm marketing tactics again.

 

Driver version and cc settings will have a big impact. I think at stock the 9600GT is about equiivilent to the GTS640 (even though its a bit weaker on paper).

 

Wha? you're thinking of the 8800 GS, not the GTS. The GTS(All three versions) have 128 SPs.

 

His point is still valid- 9600GT has less stream processors, less bandwidth and less fillrate, rangers seems to have missed that.

 

No, the old GTS 320/640 (like the one I have, which he was referring to) have 96 SPs: http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_8800.html