3D Mark Vantage available for download

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
Well that was a wasted download...

Q6600/2Gb/8800GTS(640Mb) - I watched the first test then hit escape. The graphics looked like they were from 5 years ago, and run at about 10fps. 3DMark06 looks infinitely better in terms of IQ and runs at much higher frame rates. What, exactly, is the point of this over-restricted POS?

3DMark06 did the same thing when it was initially released. It bought all current hardware at the time to its knees.

 

[flexy]

there were/are some uses for the older ones...i remember 3dm03 (05???) a very good test for GPU overclocking/artifacts.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: flexy
it looks "ok"..nothing too exciting. The space stuff looked kinda cool, but all the game demos run like molasses here Might look better seeing all this 50+FPS.

Old 3dmark looked way better...i remember they once had nice stuff, like the nature scenes, the matrix scenes and the very old fantasy scene with the flying dragon years ago...3mardk gotten very boring. Yeah i got my score...done...nothing to see...get along. Why would i want to buy this?

Yup.. 3dmark 2001 was the bomb... I watched it over and over and never got bored, it was miles ahead of games at the time.. 03 was also very impressive with the space scene, bringing pixel shaders and stuff (and I had just gotten my shiny new 9700 PRO, those were the days)

But after that it went downhill

I hear ya... When 3DMark2001 came out, that was just about the time I got interested in graphic cards. 3DMark2001 was really impressive (at the time).

I'm not sure if I will be getting 3DMark Vantage. The last 3DMark scores were hardly accurate, given the G80/92 vs. R600/RV660 results, compared to real-life gaming. I also a little bit turned off that the free version only allows a single, scored run.

 

[Rubycon]

Final Reality + Voodoo 1 back in 1997 was a lot of fun.

 

[apoppin]

Question

What is the difference in the 3 versions .. IF i D/L the *trial* .. can i buy a key later?
- especially between

or is it a different D/L?

Purchasing 3DMark Vantage Basic Edition delivers the ability to make an unlimited number of runs of the Performance preset, while the 3DMark Vantage Advanced Edition allows you full access to all presets and benchmark settings.

i guess i would want "advanced" .. but i don't want to pay *today*
- will i have to D/L it all over again?

my graphics cards actually aren't very thick ..
. . but evidently i may be

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Question

What is the difference in the 3 versions .. IF i D/L the *trial* .. can i buy a key later?
- especially between

or is it a different D/L?

Purchasing 3DMark Vantage Basic Edition delivers the ability to make an unlimited number of runs of the Performance preset, while the 3DMark Vantage Advanced Edition allows you full access to all presets and benchmark settings.

i guess i would want "advanced" .. but i don't want to pay *today*
- will i have to D/L it all over again?

my graphics cards actually aren't very thick ..
. . but evidently i may be

You won't have to download it again, it's all key based.

 

[apoppin]

thanks .. 23 hours to go!

 

[Blazer7]

As expected both ATI and nVidia released new drivers right after Vantage.

The Inquirer : Graphics firms start driver arms race.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: flexy
it looks "ok"..nothing too exciting. The space stuff looked kinda cool, but all the game demos run like molasses here Might look better seeing all this 50+FPS.

Old 3dmark looked way better...i remember they once had nice stuff, like the nature scenes, the matrix scenes and the very old fantasy scene with the flying dragon years ago...3mardk gotten very boring. Yeah i got my score...done...nothing to see...get along. Why would i want to buy this?

Yup.. 3dmark 2001 was the bomb... I watched it over and over and never got bored, it was miles ahead of games at the time.. 03 was also very impressive with the space scene, bringing pixel shaders and stuff (and I had just gotten my shiny new 9700 PRO, those were the days)

But after that it went downhill

I too concur with this. I even liked 05 for the opening space scene, but this version is entirely graphically and artistically uninspired. It has no soul (or demo mode for that matter), it's as if they started off wanting to make it a non-graphical client that did pure number crunching.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Just got my new PC up and running and haven't even benchmarked at all since probably '04. What else would you run other than this if you are just interested in seeing how you fare relative to similar builds?

 

[apoppin]

3DMark06 - it is still free
[hurry]

and there are tons of benchmarks for the rest of your rig like SiSoft's Sandra or PC Mark

 

[phexac]

Actual game performance matters, 3dmark score doesn't since you cannot play 3dmark.

 

[flexy]

3dm score always mattered to me - solely to check performance and compare with others. Whether its good or bad, people use it as a reference at fixed settings - so its easier to compare whether you system/drivers etc. work right to others - as compared to XYZ game benchmark where everyone runs at different settings.
Also...for a rough overview what a card is capable to do, for comparing cards its good.

Its unlikely that a card is "bad" in 3dmark....but then sucks playing a game.

IMHO 3dmark got almost worthless....for me the latest 3dmarks are at the same level as going to demoscene.org and download some demo..and compare the "show" how it runs on another machine...so it became nothing more than a random (???) series of scenes...adn then giving some score at the end. As far as i remember the older ones were way better. Even the very first, final reality was more interesting in benching certain aspects....the older ones very more flexible.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: flexy
3dm score always mattered to me - solely to check performance and compare with others. Whether its good or bad, people use it as a reference at fixed settings - so its easier to compare whether you system/drivers etc. work right to others - as compared to XYZ game benchmark where everyone runs at different settings.
Also...for a rough overview what a card is capable to do, for comparing cards its good.

Its unlikely that a card is "bad" in 3dmark....but then sucks playing a game.

This has been done to death but I'll still put in my 2c. Both Nv and ATI optimize their drivers for 3Dmark...it's not exactly a 'true indication of the potential and performance of your system' lets use the example of R6xx based cards beating all the 8800 series in 3Dmark yet when it comes to games it's in most cases a different story- that is no true indication of performance. The same is true for Quad cores scoring alot higher in 3Dmark yet in games a high speed dual is almost always better.

I won't be bothering with this useless crap.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Syntax Error
I can't wait to play some 3DMark when I come home!

No doubt. Better enjoy it the first time around too cuz you don't get a second shot...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: flexy
3dm score always mattered to me - solely to check performance and compare with others. Whether its good or bad, people use it as a reference at fixed settings - so its easier to compare whether you system/drivers etc. work right to others - as compared to XYZ game benchmark where everyone runs at different settings.
Also...for a rough overview what a card is capable to do, for comparing cards its good.

Its unlikely that a card is "bad" in 3dmark....but then sucks playing a game.

This has been done to death but I'll still put in my 2c. Both Nv and ATI optimize their drivers for 3Dmark...it's not exactly a 'true indication of the potential and performance of your system' lets use the example of R6xx based cards beating all the 8800 series in 3Dmark yet when it comes to games it's in most cases a different story- that is no true indication of performance. The same is true for Quad cores scoring alot higher in 3Dmark yet in games a high speed dual is almost always better.

I won't be bothering with this useless crap.

i can only speak for *me*
[pas if you didn't know by now]

3DMarkXX is *valuable* to me because i DO benchmark; i SWAP HW in and out all the time, and it is a quick way to test (1) if i made an error or (2) relative performance of the changing HW in the SAME SYSTEM; for example i can and do compare my O/C'd 2900p/256 bit with my 2900xt 512bit, for example .. or see if another GPU gets similar performance
i am finally looking forward to a DX10 version of it

when my D/L finishes .. tomorrow sometime

for me 3DMarkXX is a tool
-NM i have been called one here
[in error, of course]