| Forums-> Technical Forum-> 3DMark Vantage: 1 2 >> |
| Author | Message |
Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-02-02 14:14:55 3DMark Vantage http://www.futuremark.com/3dmarkvantage/ --- |
Inflatable Since 1806 Days |
2008-02-02 17:03:54 I meet all the recommended requirements, expect the OS.. :P --- |
Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-02-03 00:49:26 I have all requirments however I don't think my onboard GPU could handle that :P --- |
| Phaethon360 Mr Pant  Since 1014 Days |
2008-02-03 00:52:07 Time to install Vista on my spare (test dummy) HDD. Looks awesome, but I highly doubt I'll get good framerate. But who knows. I got pretty decent framerates with Crysis. Wonder how it'll be optimized, or is its sole purpose to make you feel like you need a huge upgrade? --- |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass!  Since 1168 Days |
2008-02-03 02:07:41 DX10 is a joke right now. It seems to exist mostly to destroy framerates. |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-02-03 11:34:51 Yeah DX10 doesn't perform too great but then again there really haven't been any game that truly uses it. I think it's interesting to see how this works, because this only uses DX10 so no holding back by older version. I don't expect good fps from this, remember guys it's for hardware testing! --- |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1139 Days |
2008-02-03 12:34:15 Most "DX10 Software" isn't DX10. It is DX9 with some low-hanging goodies which eat up extra performance. You want more eye candy, that costs. Most of the performance gains from DX10-based software aren't implimented. --- |
| Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-02-03 16:42:47 First generation direct X cards never have the power to pull the features off with good frame rates anyway, I would wait for the next set of cards personally. --- |
| Inflatable Since 1806 Days |
2008-02-03 18:11:02 I don't really know who's to blame this time, but the fact is DX10 offers nothing special over DX9 (yet) that justifies the performance drop, and *both* Nvidia and ATI cards have the same performance problems.. When DX9 got introduced it was only Nvidia who had problems with DX9 and their FX series cards, ATI 9000-serie cards handled it pretty well with virtually the same performance in DX9 as in DX8.1.. --- |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1168 Days |
2008-02-04 18:57:54 ^^ Yup. DX10 is definitely the joke. |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1139 Days |
2008-02-05 06:53:52 In reply to Jollipop (2008-02-03 16:42:47) Posted by Jollipop
This isn't like DX6-8 with a hoard of fixed function effects. DX10 is about increasing flexibility of GPUs as well as efficiency improvements for common techniques. In both cases you will need to design with DX10 in mind to tap the results. The "DX10 only" stuff people are seeing are easy to impliment techniques that are expensive on any architectures (the difference being the flexibility of DX10 allows them at reasonable costs). Doing advanced motion blur, for example, isn't an architecture issue--it just is very resource intensive. While there are some shortcomings in each of the designs, the performance issues seen in "DX10 software" aren't really related to those (e.g. one of the GPUs has poor streamout bandwidth--but no game has hit this hurdle yet). --- |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1139 Days |
2008-02-05 07:16:17 In reply to Inflatable (2008-02-03 18:11:02) Posted by Inflatable
To put this into perspective: DX10 GPUs are extremely flexible, and while not quite to the level of being CPUs you can run very-non GPU algorhythms on them or graphic techniques that are far outside the scope of the current performance envelope. In the past the improvements to DX were mainly inline with their ability to adequately execute fixed function effects; when you open up your resources and flexibility you run into a new paradigm which puts the weight of decision making on developers: is this technique a cost effective solution for the GPU? No one expected 6000+ line shaders to run well on DX9 GPUs (even though the HW could do it), so I am not quite sure why people would expect some of the stuff devs are tacking on to magically run great. Currently, the new GPUs trash the old DX9 GPUs, a clear indication they are faster. And synthetic tests show that they both do as expected with the new stuff (i.e. no NV FX style cheats and mis-designs).
NV tried to strong arm MS and went with a DX9 compliant card but went with a different "sweet spot" instead of focusing on accelerating the API to the "t". e.g. 32bit instead of 24bit for shaders and clinging to 16bit. So you got full speed 16bit (outside the DX9 spec for most stuff) and half speed 32bit (which ment less realestate working on 24bit code). They had HQ but slow AF and made a tragic mistake of not making the compiler with the design. Essentially NV went with nailing the DX9 check boxes, focused on great DX8 performance, and tried to use new features that were non-DX9 to segment the market. And it totally backfired on them.
ATI had pretty big problems with R600. But the HD3*50 are relatively competitive and price slotted to match any disparity. i.e. good bang for buck. And they have the edge in features right now (DX10.1). Whereas NV was getting *killed* in early 2004 by FX revisions -- we are talking 50% less performance at playable framerates -- ATI is nowhere near that sort of craptitude. ATI's problems have to do with being tied to a sinking ship, a loss in R&D funding, and NV/Intel snatching up the Physics API market (bye-bye AGEIA and Havok). ATI also is losing out on top tier moneys by basically not competiting at the top end.
Option 3: DX10's focus isn't fixed function "click to enable" effects but is a focus in versatility/flexability as well as design efficiencies... So a title can (a) tack on some expensive, not available before, effects that Drop DX10 performance because it is doing a lot more that cannot be done in DX9 with any sort of performance or (b) they can design their games with the efficiency changes to make better use of the platform. B takes *years* as shown above and requires a sizable market share to motivate this shift. Interestingly Crysis on DX10 GPUs does show a number of nice effects that are **very slow** on DX9 hardware that run with a **relative** minimal performance hit on DX10 hardware (when you enable hacks to get them on XP). DX10 isn't about IHVs screwing up; it is about a new way of thinking of GPUs. The trend within MS is shifting GPUs directly at general purpose resourses that are far more flexible than before. You can do more stuff but you need to design with it in mind and be responsible with the hardware performance limitations. --- |
| Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-02-05 15:34:59 In reply to Acert93 (2008-02-05 06:53:52) Posted by Acert93
Like I say in time things will get faster on the DX10 front but right now its just not worth it. --- |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-02-06 17:43:53 Video only shows stuff from the earlier 3Dmark's. Still it's the first diary so maybe they show some Vantage on next video. --- |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1139 Days |
2008-02-08 02:16:54 In reply to Jollipop (2008-02-05 15:34:59) Posted by Jollipop
The MB example is a perfect example of why you don't understand the issue. DX10 GPUs are faster at the old techniques and can do new techniques at reasonably levels. SM3.0 could do these new tricks, but they aren't even playable. e.g. LP has non-silhouette based MB. The praise of DX10 is a) the flexibility to do such techniques with b) reasonable performance tradeoffs. The fact techniques, like certain raytracting tricks, can work on a DX10 GPU -- albeit slowly -- isn't a failure of the GPUs but a nod to their success. GPUs aren't the ol' school fixed function tools you seem to cast them. It isn't even an issue of techniques they accelerate. They are general resource pools with resource limitations. It is up to developers now to properly manage the resource. Just because you CAN run something on a GPU doesn't mean you SHOULD. And just because something is slow doesn't mean it is the hardware's fault. That is like saying a 3GHz quadcore sucks because it cannot handle 50k sphere-sphere fully dynamic physics objects in gameplay. It means then idiot programmer didn't properly assess the resource limitations/ Just because new hardware can allow something doesn't mean you should do it because the caps were taken off. --- |
| Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-02-09 20:32:36 Well no if you run game at those settings its your (mental) shortfall not the GPU's :) --- |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-02-22 08:59:34 Developer's Diary 2: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30932.html?type... --- |
| Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-02-23 15:45:01 Looks cool :D --- |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-04-25 15:33:36 Info about 3Dmark Vantage and different version + some new images: --- |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-04-28 15:21:42 3DMark Vantage is out now! --- |
| Jollipop Since 1051 Days |
2008-04-30 05:30:38 Well I could only get abnout 1 FPS on the default settings. --- |
NeoNemesis Since 880 Days |
2008-04-30 11:52:31 DX11 should be out in a couple of years. Oh, I bet you didn't know but the guys who made 3Dmark are now the head of Remedy. --- |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-04-30 12:12:08 Remedy did Final Reality benchmark before Futuremark was founded. Final Reality OMG it was so awesome. --- |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1168 Days |
2008-04-30 21:25:11 Final Reality was more of a scene demo than a benchmark program, wasn't it? |
| Isomac Since 935 Days |
2008-04-30 21:31:39 This is what the official site says:
--- |
| Forums-> Technical Forum-> 3DMark Vantage: 1 2 >> |
| You have to be logged in to post in this forum! |