3DMark 11 ''Ships'' This Month

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, the jungle part reminds me of the early Crysis screens that most agreed looked nothing like the actual game.

As to the benchmark, I'm still on a GTX 260 so I can't run it.
 
Im fairly certain 3DM11 will support DirectX10 and below as well. The 11 stands for the year it came out, similar to Office 2010 came out in 2010 so feel free to use it if you do not have DirectX11 :) Older versions of 3DMark always supported most platforms too.
 
"Friday Futuremark said that the Basic Edition of 3DMark 11 will be released on November 30, 2011"

Hmm So its going to be released next year
 
I always look forward to the eyecandy they provide, but I find its a very irrelevant benchmark. Vantage is more CPU-dependant than the vast majority of PC games out there, for example, and not to mention that often a card that does very well in 3dMark does worse than its competitors in games.
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Just like with Vantage, Futuremark have borked the Basic version again.Bring back MadOnion. Long live 3DMark 2001SE![/citation]


Heh, yeah. I still use 01SE every now and again for kicks and nostalgia.
 
I still have the madonion benchmark of 99, with the space plane flying a planet (star wars rip).
They all are amazing benchmarks,and great music too!
Though 3Dmark 03 did not look very great on an igp.
 
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I always look forward to the eyecandy they provide, but I find its a very irrelevant benchmark. Vantage is more CPU-dependant than the vast majority of PC games out there, for example, and not to mention that often a card that does very well in 3dMark does worse than its competitors in games.[/citation]
That is why you can compare the GPU score only which disregards the CPU all together. And I have found that 90% of the time the vantage GPU score is dead on with DX10 game performance when comparing cards....try running the bench some before bashing it
 


From the website

Minimum requirements

3DMark 11 requires DirectX 11, a DirectX 11 compatible video card, and Windows Vista or Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Source

I have DX11 and W7 but a DX10 card.

 
[citation][nom]robochump[/nom]Im fairly certain 3DM11 will support DirectX10 and below as well. The 11 stands for the year it came out, similar to Office 2010 came out in 2010 so feel free to use it if you do not have DirectX11 Older versions of 3DMark always supported most platforms too.[/citation]

The website says a DX11 system is required. It is also to be noted that this software was written solely for DX11.
 
Looks a lot like Crysis, yes indeed. But those tents, when they moved in the wind looked really good. Very likely cloth tessalation in there. Did any one more GPU litterated find out other DX11 based tricks in that video? The vegetation most propable? A lot of details in there.

All in all this is better looging than vantage, and now they seems to bring back the music for the demo part! I really missed music in Vantage! And now both Nvidia and AMD have good GPU's at this moment, so maybe some real game support in next 5 years? (Not very hopefull with the adaptation speed, but more promising than DX10 adaptation was!)
 
please check out this and see which is a better benchmark:
http://vimeo.com/14480956
Click to expand...

Well actually 3dmark 11 looked better. The crysis video is so static, no real time movement of vegetation etc. but ofcource it is so much older! For so old graphic demo, it's still breathtaking! They really where ahead of time (and hardware allso ;-)
Now wonder how it tormented hardware (and still does) so long.
 
I'm always a generation behind when it comes to video cards, so 3DMark has usually been next-to-useless to me. That's alright, it's bloatware anyway.
 
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I always look forward to the eyecandy they provide, but I find its a very irrelevant benchmark. Vantage is more CPU-dependant than the vast majority of PC games out there, for example, and not to mention that often a card that does very well in 3dMark does worse than its competitors in games.[/citation]
If you please, proof. From what I've seen and tested, if you rank the cards based on points, you get a good idea of where you'll be in relation so the others. Sometimes, AMD or Nvidia does better in a particular game, but, the cards still rank the same.

[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]I'm always a generation behind when it comes to video cards, so 3DMark has usually been next-to-useless to me. That's alright, it's bloatware anyway.[/citation]
I really am curious as to how you consider this bloatware. Just because you can't afford to use something doesn't mean you have to insult people that made it, especially when it comes to a company that helps stimulate the progress of computer systems, by giving users the desire to make their rigs more powerful, thus showing developers and programmers that we DO want advancements. If you want to know more, look back at some of my posts talking about Windows 7 over XP, etc., and you might get an idea about how things work: People don't buy the new stuff, there's no reason to move on to the next stage.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying gamers are the be-all, and end-all of computer usage, but, if gamers aren't online playing these games, surfing the web, etc. Companies like Blizzard, Google, Steam, etc Have no reason to upgrade their servers as well. Things steam-roll. I don't mind if I get rated down for rambling a bit, but, these people that want to complain about things all the time...really..get a life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom