I never score that well, but this time I think I'm close enough to the bleeding edge to get a decent score as well as enjoy the visuals.
Edit: Seems like the trial version can only run once, and the basic edition is no longer free, but costs $7...
Doomulon on
0
Posts
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Ah, 3DMark. The fruitless exercise in seeing how shitty your thousands-of-dollars computer really is. I remember how stoked I was when I could finally see that one scene in the "Return to Proxycon" test in 3DMark 05/06 when that big guy blew open the hatch and a hojillion particles flew out -- without the demo completely grinding to a halt for three seconds while my computer struggled to calculate the effects. It took me three years.
And now, the wonderful cycle continues!
Zxerol on
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Woo. Just bought a new computer. Can't want to know how much money I wasted.
I like 3Dmark because the graphics are usually really cutting edge and look awesome, and it provides a solid abstract comparison point to see where your PC stacks up.
I hate 3Dmark because the scenes are purposefully assembled to run like ass and not perform well, so that by the time normal games actually look like that your computer actually performs FAR better than the bench would let you think.
am i correct in understanding that 3dmark is not "optimized" in the way that games are "optimized" so that running them becomes a reality
contraband on
0
Options
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I've always hated 3dmark as a real test because it fluctuates too much. Something that is pragmatic and solid test design shouldn't fluctuate to the degree that 3dmark does. I've always felt like it was some sort of E-peen meter that was pointless.
Ah, 3DMark. The fruitless exercise in seeing how shitty your thousands-of-dollars computer really is. I remember how stoked I was when I could finally see that one scene in the "Return to Proxycon" test in 3DMark 05/06 when that big guy blew open the hatch and a hojillion particles flew out -- without the demo completely grinding to a halt for three seconds while my computer struggled to calculate the effects. It took me three years.
And now, the wonderful cycle continues!
Oh man, I just can't wait to see my $2000 laptop (and probably the $1500 quad-core desktop I'm about to buy) get absolutely destroyed by this ridiculous, completely-not-relevant-to-anything graphics demo. "Thank you sir. May I have another?"
edit: Look at those ridiculous fuckin' screenshots. There's no way anyone can run that shit at 2560x1600. As Alpha said this product is essentially an e-peen meter and nothing more.
Their dev videos say that DX10 is far nicer to work in than DX9, and the only benefit in using it comes from making it all DX10 native, rather than just sticking some bits on afterwards.
Their dev videos say that DX10 is far nicer to work in than DX9, and the only benefit in using it comes from making it all DX10 native, rather than just sticking some bits on afterwards.
Precisely. The performance benefits from DX10 are only noticeable if the test is built from scratch in DX10. To make it work in XP you would have to rework everything to work in DX9 which would end up being a completely different test. It's impossible to create a test that tests the limits of DX10 and still works with DX9.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
Apparently mine will get 9,000 points - a useless number, but eh. It gave out to me for having an 8800 GTS 320mb when I should have a gpu with 512mb and above. Tsk, eh? It'll give me an excuse for booting up Vista anyway.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
If it's any consolation, you're not missing much. Crashes on my laptop, and I don't seem to get any results from my desktop for some bizarre reason. Tests look kinda rubbish too.
I think what Rook means is not so much that it doesn't run well on his laptop, but that it's buggy and the tests don't look too good.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
Well, with the lousy mirrors and such I haven't had a chance to test it out yet. My first download was corrupted or something and the damn thing won't even install.
...I love those "quit unexpectedly" errors in Vista...D:
Posts
And now, the wonderful cycle continues!
Sign me up
I hate 3Dmark because the scenes are purposefully assembled to run like ass and not perform well, so that by the time normal games actually look like that your computer actually performs FAR better than the bench would let you think.
edit: Look at those ridiculous fuckin' screenshots. There's no way anyone can run that shit at 2560x1600. As Alpha said this product is essentially an e-peen meter and nothing more.
The best news is in 15 years time your mobile phone will run this, and you'll cry.
Close, but no cigar - your computer does not meet the minimum requirements.
My specs:
AMD FX60 Processor (running at ~2.8ghz)
2GB RAM
Nvidia 8800GTS 512MB
I have a hard time believing that I can't run this test at all.
e: Apparently Windows XP isn't supported?
*tear*
That's not on the bleeding edge and the new ATI RADEON MAXX 9990XXL XTREME GOLD EDITION is DX10, so why bother?
I'm sure they're quivering in their boots over the legions of people not on Vista.
I just don't understand why they couldn't do an XP launch. *shrug* I guess that wraps it up for me.
Edit : ballmer link for the lawlz.
http://gizmodo.com/381469/ballmer-vista-is-a-work-in-progress
It's a DX10 benchmark, and you need Vista for DX10.
This is not Futuremark saying anything negative about WinXP
Precisely. The performance benefits from DX10 are only noticeable if the test is built from scratch in DX10. To make it work in XP you would have to rework everything to work in DX9 which would end up being a completely different test. It's impossible to create a test that tests the limits of DX10 and still works with DX9.
..
edit: oh shits... 3 fps!
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
::grumbles::
disappointing, they wont send out another key to my email, but i never got the first one.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
I'm not sure, but I think that number makes my E-Peen somewhere around fifteen thousand feet long. I'm not sure what to do with it.
...I love those "quit unexpectedly" errors in Vista...D:
Get attractive women pregnant from far far away.
P4555
CPU : 8215
GPU: 3966
http://service.futuremark.com/home.action?resultId=31722&resultType=19