From the looks of those screen shots, that space looking one is going to be all Battlestar Galactica with crash zooms and so on. Almost a shame it's not a game. Some one should really do a dog fighting Galactica game.
I'm going to wait until I see it on my own screen before I make that judgement. The fact that I'm not much of a sci-fi person isn't helping me either on this one though. Give me a river and a forest over a spaceship any day.
Two people run vantage. First guy: Runs said benchmark, find's out he's got a meh score, get's pissed off, tweaks the **** out of his comp, gets a 500point increase. But volts and heat goes up.Installs different sets of drivers. Loads up his favourite game. Now that runs poorly, Driver change probably. Second guy: Runs vantage and again scores poorly. Realizes it's just a benchmark and not a real game. Concludes he doesn't need to buy new hardware, install new drivers, increase volts, timmings,blah de blah. and continues playing his games. Moral of this story: Run the benchmark if you can, enjoy it while it lasts, move on. Enjoy games you've bought. I know what your all thinking, hey xg doesn't have a dx10 card. That's correct and will be correct for some time. I'll move on when something special comes along. There is not one game at present i cannot run at decent enough settings. and 1280x1024 suits me fine Enjoy the benchmark.
I am not upgarding to vista for this " test " , may be when SP2 goes out or some really nice games for dx10 :bang:
Just ran it... really not as impressed as I have been with previous 3DMarks. Jane Nash was like a completely lame version of one of ATI's Ruby demos. Visually nothing special, terrible animation, but with some nice water and cloth physics Calico was quite pretty, the vast amounts of asteroids were also impressive. But again, overall I was left thinking "meh". Nothing exciting happens in either of them. The frame rate was poor so I was unable to derive much enjoyment from it at all. The CPU tests were also uninteresting.
Lol I wonder what you were expecting, this isnt made to be like the most impressive CGI-movie ever (we have blizzard for that) this is made to BENCHMARK a COMPUTER
Agreed i thought the first card video test the graphics were unimpressive, dx10 looked flat and there was plenty of HDR (maybe to much). Loading times before each test also takes a time, when it came to second video test i pressed escape just to save my trial key (just incase it was down to driver). I will wait and see what everyone says.
No demo option to run with sound, really liked that feature in the past and is now gone. Physx drivers added, I know they will cause conflicts and or issues sooner or later. Uses Adobe flash player to run ads even in the Advanced version. Flash player causes slow downs and or lock ups running in backround during benchmark. Runs so slow one can't even tell if it's artifacts or just the benchmark running at 10fps (performance test preset). I am not impressed as I assumed Futuremark would have stuck with a working formula that put them on the map like 03-06 did. I don't know, I like it in the fact that it's a solid DX10 and CPU benchmark, but behond that I feel it's bloated with stuff I don't need or want and empty with no Demo option or ending credits on a graphics scene with a cool tune ect. Infact one never 'hears' a thing, seems so blah and on top of it all they charge you for a product that in my opinion has less features and or entertainment value as 3DMark 03/05/06 have.
I've tried it yesterday with a trial key and well..first impressions were not so bad, I especially liked the second graphic test which is very impressive IMO. Another good release from Futuremark, although I've expected it to be more breath-taking. But then again, maybe today's hardware just isn't ready for something better yet
I have to say that Crysis set the bar quite high being so good looking. Comparing it to first game tests makes me wonder how they can even run that looking tests many times slower than Crysis' vast landscapes and superior looking character models and animation.
I agree, character models of Crysis look way better than Futuremark's first test model, but then again..the number of techniques used in tests sounds impressive, plus first test is very physics-heavy IMO (hard to say for sure with a system like mine because it runs quite slow), so maybe that was the key point and the main factor why some details were reduced. But yeah, Crysis has a very sophisticated physics too, but maybe not that much at the same time. Just imagine how many calculations is needed for a real-time physics simulation of a high object count in a complex scene, that may be a real slowing factor, because Crysis doesn't calculate that much for every frame in a game, it just calculates physics when needed and it seems like Futumark's scene does the opposite. Maybe a bit off track here so feel free to correct me as that was just some of my thoughts on this question
This was incredibly "meh" I am not plunking down cash for this bench. Especially since there is no demo mode. And in the last couple of 3d marks there is no "soul" no flavour. Its not as artistically appealing as it sed to be. Pretty, but just dull. I think people are getting over the whole pissing match and are looking at games really play versus these synthetic benches.
Did you run it on your spec system? Now that ive tried it, I agree - Its not very good in my opinion...
Apart from some of the effects, vantage was far less attractive than 06 (at least in my opinion). When the run was finished it gave me an error message and I wasn't even able to see my score. There goes my trial run . I'm not exactly sure how futuremark planned vantage to work out, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this wasn't it. Maybe they rushed the launch, who knows?