| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 20th Nov 2010 20:58 Post subject: |
|
|
shouldn't it be in app section?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Sat, 20th Nov 2010 21:33 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 20th Nov 2010 22:17 Post subject: |
|
|
It's a synthetic, useless benchmark anyway :<
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 20th Nov 2010 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 11:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 11:50 Post subject: |
|
|
are they suppose to be exciting?
3dmark was and always will be most unoptimized software in history
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 12:13 Post subject: |
|
|
I think Futuremark deliberately makes their 3D Mark software unoptimized. So that labile and infirm rich folk could lay out cash for more powerful cards so that they can run it more smoothly.
Has the engine, implemented in 3D Mark, been used in games other than Shattered Horizon (which was a scrap heap)?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 12:18 Post subject: |
|
|
well everyone has hidden agenda
i'm just saying, look at how they manage to optimize games for those old consoles and still pull out decent looking games to date
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 13:07 Post subject: |
|
|
it runs fairly good for me but its boring as fuck theres no action or anything...
just a camera under water following a stupid mini sub.... woo look rocks and coral....
then thers a shitty jungle woo look trees , wow look a statue and ooh look a temple ooh look more statues...
no fights , no people , nothing doing fuck all , thing crysis with all the npcs and shit removed ....
anyone remember nature test? its basicly that under water and then in a jungle
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 13:12 Post subject: |
|
|
The test isn't supposed to be optimized, the goal is to stress the DX11 capabilities of a GPU with unnecessary calculations and to compare which GPUs suck the least at it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 14:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| me7 wrote: | | The test isn't supposed to be optimized, the goal is to stress the DX11 capabilities of a GPU with unnecessary calculations and to compare which GPUs suck the least at it. |
either way its a load of shit and they have ventured far far away from what madonion originally set out to do...
they arent even fun to watch anymore just boring maybe we have been spoiled by the demos ATI/Nvidia release to show off there cars...
cos 3dmark 11 looks shit , runs pretty bad in comparrison and its just boring..
least in all the other ones you had some cool battle or something to watch the new ones just feel empty and boring, it has no soul...
Last edited by snoop1050 on Tue, 7th Dec 2010 17:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 16:33 Post subject: |
|
|
So, it sucks more than Vantage? Some say it's even the biggest garbage crap ever created by Futuremark.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 19:09 Post subject: |
|
|
I tried to run it and it crashes with the message "SystemInfo initialization failed".
Great piece of software.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 21:07 Post subject: |
|
|
I can't be bothered downloading this, as anyone who's seen me post in this section knows I don't value 3DMark. One thing I did notice though, is how once again this is one of the few engines (even if only a tech demo) that really shows the strengths of a chip and squeezes as much out of it as possible.
If you don't get what I mean, have a look at this for example. Take notice of how once you have a full framebuffer (read: higher resolutions) anything shader-related (test 1+2 are heavy shader business) performs better on the 5870 than the 480/570. That's taking advantage 5D shaders right there. Shame they went overboard with it causing this to run like shit ata ~5 FPS and no serious developer will ever take the time to optimise for 5D shaders when possible -.-
Credit where credit is due, it's a mighty fine piece of e-peen, but nothing more than that. If only the benchmark was even reliable as an indicator for how cards do in games, but we all know the 5870 loses out to the 480/570, yet here there's cases of it beating those.
Conclusion: still worthless as ever o/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 21:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| pwerelds wrote: | I can't be bothered downloading this, as anyone who's seen me post in this section knows I don't value 3DMark. One thing I did notice though, is how once again this is one of the few engines (even if only a tech demo) that really shows the strengths of a chip and squeezes as much out of it as possible.
If you don't get what I mean, have a look at this for example. Take notice of how once you have a full framebuffer (read: higher resolutions) anything shader-related (test 1+2 are heavy shader business) performs better on the 5870 than the 480/570. That's taking advantage 5D shaders right there. Shame they went overboard with it causing this to run like shit ata ~5 FPS and no serious developer will ever take the time to optimise for 5D shaders when possible -.-
Credit where credit is due, it's a mighty fine piece of e-peen, but nothing more than that. If only the benchmark was even reliable as an indicator for how cards do in games, but we all know the 5870 loses out to the 480/570, yet here there's cases of it beating those.
Conclusion: still worthless as ever o/ |
Err.. The link you posted shows the 480/570 performing as good or better in every test. The 580 does a substantial amount better in every test. The 5970 does the best - But that is two cards in one.
I don't give two shits about 3dmark either, but let us keep the facts straight.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 21:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | Err.. The link you posted shows the 480/570 performing as good or better in every test. The 580 does a substantial amount better in every test. The 5970 does the best - But that is two cards in one.
I don't give two shits about 3dmark either, but let us keep the facts straight. |
Read what I wrote please. I never said the 5870 consistently beats the other two, nor did I say it does so with a huge lead. What I said was that while the 5870 is inferior in actual game performance, in the shader-heavy tests it actually does better - especially when you're dealing with a full framebuffer.
In test 1 the 5870 is ahead of the other 2 at all 3 tested resolutions. Test 2 is the really funny one: from a pretty big negative difference, it creeps closer to the 580 as resolution goes up, beating the 480/570 at 1080p already. They're not big numbers, but it does show a side of Cypress that's rarely seen.
When you look at tests 3 and 4, the 480/570 go back to where they usually are. That's because in #3 there's crappy lighting, and in #4 there's a shitload of tessellation, so there's not much work to do for Cypress' shaders.
The difference comes from the fact that Evergreen uses 5D shaders, as opposed to the "old" 4D shaders used in everything else, including R700, Cayman and all of NVIDIA's stuff. And Futuremark actually put that extra unit to work. I won't bore you with the real technical shit behind it, but that's where the strange numbers come from; also the reason why the 5870 often sits a lot closer to the 480 in Vantage than it does in real games 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 7th Dec 2010 23:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it performs better when compared to itself and real-world tests.
However, your first quote clearly states 'better on 5870 then the 480/570'.
Huge difference.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 8th Dec 2010 10:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, let me rephrase it then and let's look at relative performance. Relatively speaking, Cypress does better in these situations than GF100/GF110 - it's not hit anywhere near as hard performance-wise. Taking your words they are "equal" there; but taking test 2 as the example (as the numbers could not be any clearer there) Cypress drops almost 50% in performance, whereas GF100/GF100 drops well over 60% when there's almost 3 times as much data to work with (1600x900 = 1.4MP, 2560x1600 = 4MP).
I think you're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make: Cypress has quite a bit of untapped power because no game engines take advantage of the 5D shaders it has. This is one of the few situations where that is visible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 14:39 Post subject: |
|
|
3DMark 11 Pro v1.0 Incl. Keymaker WIKILEAKS FTW-CORE
 Spoiler: | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 17:20 Post subject: |
|
|
What a shitty benchmark the latest 3DMark is. The tests are awfully short. You have 4 graphics tests, a physics test (at least they're not using PissX) and a combined one. The six altogether are probably around a minute long. Literally. You have also a demo mode which is consisted of two also-not-very-long tests. And there's just one camera roaming about. No interactions. No creatures/people. Everything is static, except for leaves moving and falling and tent cloths winnowing. And it isn't showcasing anything particularly new or ground-breaking, or next-gen. The tests are overwhelmed by volumetric lights and the depth of field setting is well-made. Exclude these two characteristics and you get nothing worth noting or fancy, or beautiful. Just some plastic submarines and poorly designed statues (having ugly textures all over) and uninspired environments. Many modern engines can proudly stand next to Futuremark's new creation without concerns. And they perform light years better than this. Cause this ran like an old snail on maxed out settings.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| human_steel wrote: | | What a shitty benchmark the latest 3DMark is. The tests are awfully short. You have 4 graphics tests, a physics test (at least they're not using PissX) and a combined one. The six altogether are probably around a minute long. Literally. You have also a demo mode which is consisted of two also-not-very-long tests. And there's just one camera roaming about. No interactions. No creatures/people. Everything is static, except for leaves moving and falling and tent cloths winnowing. And it isn't showcasing anything particularly new or ground-breaking, or next-gen. The tests are overwhelmed by volumetric lights and the depth of field setting is well-made. Exclude these two characteristics and you get nothing worth noting or fancy, or beautiful. Just some plastic submarines and poorly designed statues (having ugly textures all over) and uninspired environments. Many modern engines can proudly stand next to Futuremark's new creation without concerns. And they perform light years better than this. Cause this ran like an old snail on maxed out settings. |
And that is different to every single earlier 3dmark release how? The point being that it's designed to tax even future cards to the max, leaving current top-range struggling by using more detail and shaders than what current cards can handle.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Nov 2011 11:36 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 35056
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Jun 2012 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/3dmark-directx-11-tech-demo-unveiled-new-3dmark-coming-in-2012/
| Quote: |
Futuremark has just informed us about the next version of their amazing benchmark program, 3DMark, that is being used by millions of gamers, hundreds of hardware review sites and many of the world’s leading manufacturers to measure PC gaming performance. And since Futuremark is also developing games, we might see this engine powering one of the company’s future IPs.
Today, Futuremark unveiled 3DMark’s DirectX 11 tech demo that features intelligent tessellation and advanced volumetric lighting using real-time light scattering. The visible particles and clouds of smoke in the scene react to other objects using fluid dynamics simulation. Post processing, ambient occlusion and various lens effects complete the look. The music and audio design is by Pedro Macedo Camacho, who also created the soundtrack for 3DMark 11.
This next 3DMark will be the world’s first unified graphics benchmark allowing testing of DirectX 9, DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 capable hardware through the DirectX 11 API. This trailer provides a preview of the DirectX 11 test. It is a work-in-progress and does not respresent the final quality of the benchmark.
The new 3DMark is currently in development and is expected later in 2012 following the launch of Windows 8. Since the program will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista, Futuremark is dropping the “3DMark for Windows 8″ working title and instead referring to the new benchmark as 3DMark for Windows, or simply the next 3DMark, though these are working titles too.
Below you can find its first screenshot, as well as its debut trailer.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65105
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Jun 2012 15:36 Post subject: |
|
|
I've watched the video earlier this morning, some good "cinematic" effects but not as impressive as I thought 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 35056
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2012 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
Too bad we never see this kind of graphics in game, thanks consoles <3
