Futuremark 3DMark 2008 Specs Unveiled

[Tatty_Two]

Every aspect you can imagine of WinXP has been tested already, theres nothing more to test in WinXP. So now its time for Vista.

And for those that going to throw in stupid comment about SP3 for XP, you need to understand that SP3 is mostly to improve security and fix bugs. It has nothing to do with Gaming performance.

Well yeah, but Futuremark is not about testing a windows platform as such, it's only Vista this time because without it you cannot get DX10 (yet), if I remember rightly, 2006 was about DX9 (B & C), 2005 was about DX9A and 2003 was about DX8?????think thats right.

 

[BOSE]

Well yeah, but Futuremark is not about testing a windows platform as such, it's only Vista this time because without it you cannot get DX10 (yet), if I remember rightly, 2006 was about DX9 (B & C), 2005 was about DX9A and 2003 was about DX8?????think thats right.

But you need the OS, other wise you got nothing to test it on. You are testing your hardware in Windows using software X.

DX is part of Windows, XP or Vista, with out either one you cant test most of your hardware. So you are testing OS over all as one unity.

 

[imperialreign]

Step in the wrong direction IMO. CPU tests shouldn't be anything visual, video tests should be high res high settings, and at multiple settings. That would give a much better comparison. A game test of 1280x1024 2xaa 4xaf, high res test of 1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf, low res of 640x480 no aa/af. Then a couple cpu based tests. That would give a much better comparison.

As it stands currently CPU score is dependent on the video card, ram performance isn't measured. Some tests are CPU bound and therefore adversly affect the video score.

totally agree about the CPU tests in 3m06, and the resolution tests. I can tell you from running a licensed copy of it, the scores I can pull running the X1950 at the native 1440x900 res of my monitor are a ton better than the 1280x1024 scores. Although the card can do 1600x1200, my monitor can't though. Not without having to adjust the image . . . but it's not like that actually hurts the bench any.

The recommended is a little too high if you ask me. I mean, its a benchmarking program, and they should remember that. Setting the bar so high means, unless you vary the OC in it, its pretty much gonna wrangle up the same way...

although, the leaked min specs still offer support for single core procs . . . but - you can prob expect single cores to do even more horrible in the new benchmark compared to how they score in 3m06. Look at how poor the P4's are currently, for example, no matter what the GPU . . .

IMHO, 3Dmark should be aimed solely at the GPU, and not put any rendering on the CPU, not unless you have a decent chipset on the mobo . . . leave PCmark to be aimed more at the CPU and OS/rig. I mean, just how many people nowadays, especially gamers and the enthusiasts, leave graphics to the CPU/chipset? I don't know anyone who has run any game at 640x480 or 800x600 for years now . . .

Besides, though, it's still a ways off, nothing has been set in stone yet, and until we hear the official word from Futuremark, no one knows for sure. If it's to be labeled 3dMark09 - we're still quite a ways off from seeing it . . .


I'm also curious . . . why not implement an OpenGL test in the new benchmark? Isn't there going to be a new revision to the API soon? We haven't seen a new, OGL only dedicated benchmark in quite some time, either - why does it seem that DX8/9/10 API is the only interface that matters?

 

[Kursah]

Even though I may not prefer using Vista atm, it's still good to see things like this. I still bet there'll be a patch or something to have at least some of the tests work w/o Vista/DX10, but that's what I "think" could happen, hard saying.

It's good to see support and a slight push towards the newer OS and it's technology w/Vista, DX10 and DX10 capable video cards have been out a long time now and not much to really show for what they were touted for. Granted things are getting better and better, and hey I may try Vista again, we'll see what SP1 does to it. Futuremark has always been about staying with what's new, which is good stuff IMO.

I will look forward someday being able to run it in the future, probably after it's been patched and I've got all the hardware to fully support it.

I agree with Imperial about OpenGL benching, since it's still good and getting better, a lot of games use OGL. I would like to see that as a part of 3DMark.

 

[AddSub]

I really can't see why people are so confused as to why this is vista/dx10/etc only.

I know right, not very confusing, really. Microsoft quite probably did some pre-release studies, closed door consumer satisfaction testing (like any good corporation does) and they found out what everyone already knew from the time earliest beta versions of Vista, which is: very few people would buy Vista for the sake of actually having Vista. Their studies told em people would not use Vista unless it had critical features the competition could not offer, like Dx10 (pretty critical if you are a gamer). And as far as Vista is concerned, NT 5.x based OSes are in fact competition. So MS execs went: "How about making Dx10 Vista only? That ought to sell some units." Pretty fucking clear to me. Of course, it helps that Vista is getting preinstalled on millions of OEM machines. Which is really the way MS has been spreading their OS since Windows 95 era.

As for the newest 3DMark? It (3DMark) stopped being relevant as a true performance benchmark after 2001 version. Right now, it’s pretty much a showcase for latest eye candy. Glorified tech-demo and it has been since 2003 version. If I want to find out how my GPU performs, 3DMark is not on top of my list.

 

[Steevo]

About the time the X1800XT was released no one saw benefit in a card with 512Mb of RAM, but with the games following........




I have been holding off for awhile now on major upgrades as there was nothing taking real advantage of newer hardware, but in the next year all games should be multi-core coded. Multi-GPU coded, and adding physics by extra cores, or by extra GPU power, tesselation should be added, as well as any number of the multitude of things that DX10 will allow us to do. THEN it will be worth the upgrade.

 

[Helvetica]

I know right, not very confusing, really. Microsoft quite probably did some pre-release studies, closed door consumer satisfaction testing (like any good corporation does) and they found out what everyone already knew from the time earliest beta versions of Vista, which is: very few people would buy Vista for the sake of actually having Vista. Their studies told em people would not use Vista unless it had critical features the competition could not offer, like Dx10 (pretty critical if you are a gamer). And as far as Vista is concerned, NT 5.x based OSes are in fact competition. So MS execs went: "How about making Dx10 Vista only? That ought to sell some units." Pretty fucking clear to me. Of course, it helps that Vista is getting preinstalled on millions of OEM machines. Which is really the way MS has been spreading their OS since Windows 95 era.

As for the newest 3DMark? It (3DMark) stopped being relevant as a true performance benchmark after 2001 version. Right now, it’s pretty much a showcase for latest eye candy. Glorified tech-demo and it has been since 2003 version. If I want to find out how my GPU performs, 3DMark is not on top of my list.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOLOLOLOl

No offense dude, but your entire post sounds like sour grapes because you don't have a rig that can run 3dmark.

3Dmark is extremely valid. It pushes your pc to the limit and gives you a score based on it's performance - then you can compare your score with the rest of the world. What more do you want in a benchmarking program?

BTW, I like Vista more than XP.

 

[Judas]

Well its about time, been waiting for this

 

[Tatty_Two]

But you need the OS, other wise you got nothing to test it on. You are testing your hardware in Windows using software X.

DX is part of Windows, XP or Vista, with out either one you cant test most of your hardware. So you are testing OS over all as one unity.

Yes but in any OS lower than Vista DX is a seperate entity, thats my point, you buy a game, you have the option to install the latest DX that is loaded with the game, prior to Vista it was about DX, now it's about OS as they are embedded.

 

[Wile E]

Yes but in any OS lower than Vista DX is a seperate entity, thats my point, you buy a game, you have the option to install the latest DX that is loaded with the game

Not on Win95.

 

[HookeyStreet]

The best thing to do is run a dual OS system (XP and Vista) You get the best of both then

 

[Tatty_Two]

Not on Win95.

Picky!

 

[Mussels]

i dont see why its so big. this is for DX10 only - that means vista.

If you want to run an XP test, use 06 - vista and XP use it, its got a free version... its comparable.

Wow lets compare DX10 in vista vs XP in 3dmark 2008 - i guess XP gets a 1 for trying

 

[imperialreign]

y'know . . . considering MS . . . by the time 3m08 is actually out, we might be looking down the throat of DX11 . . .