FM_Jarnis

3DMark - so extreme that puny computers can't even play the video without failing. (we also saw here on couple of crappy office computers that the 2560x1440 YouTube playback isn't working smoothly)

First teaser on the Feature Level 11 demo (Fire Strike) is now up on Youtube The original res is 2560x1440 and this is from Fire Strike Extreme. Note that this scene is harsh and you probably need quad-GPUs to get anywhere near the framerate of this video when running as Extreme Related PR blurb here; http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/new-3dmark-fire-strike-trailer ...and yes, this means launch is getting close. No date yet, but I guess instead of Soon, it would be Very Soon.

Depends on the hardware. The system scanning component built into 2001se is.. hmm... 10+ years out of date as far as the hardware goes. And it cannot be replaced without rebuilding the whole binary. (these kind of issues are the reason why modern FM benchmarks use separate SystemInfo...) So basically 2001se either runs or it doesn't, depends on your hardware and if the scanning component chokes on it

I can't say yet what we're doing about this but I guess I can say that yes, this issue is known and 3DMark will work differently from 3DMark 11. (and for those who have already seen some early build through their contacts with BDP members (mind the NDAs!), what I'm talking about is not present yet in the build you may have seen)

Excatly same thing. Next 3DMark uses only "offscreen", so to speak. No matter what resolution is used to render a particular test, it always uses your monitor native resolution to display it. Also allows circumventing all kinds of GPU/monitor scaling issues (I'm sure you've seen 3DMark 11 running in "centered" mode with large black borders around a small (720p) rendering area on some monitor/GPU configs...)

Less. Far less than normal variance between runs. But again, if you are trying to get 5 points more or something, it might matter.

Same "trick" is being used (in a slightly different way, but in general same idea) on 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 11 already. Vantage extreme preset works just fine on a smaller monitor, for example. I guess in theory if you are squeezing out those last points for WR, it might matter. In "normal" benchmarking the difference is not meaningful.

Note that the resolution is not a problem if you have smaller monitor. It runs fine no matter your actual monitor native resolution. I'm only talking about internal rendering resolution before scaling to your monitor native res...

I want to see the system where 3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme is CPU limited... Even five years from now. Even with Quad GPUs. Sorry that I can't give more details yet but I'll just drop a little bit here as a starter; 2560x1440. The only obviously broken multi-GPU scaling bit with 3DMark 11 is the case of Quad Crossfire (driver issue). Granted, you need to use Extreme preset (it is there for that exact reason).

No, not at this time. (granted, 03/05/06 will eventually be phased out as they are XP era benchmarks but not anytime soon. It will pretty much be based on the usage statistics. 06 is still very popular - even if it is bit of a CPU mark these days)

Still some work to be done.... but soon-ish

I actually suggest; 3DMark: Ice Storm 3DMark: Cloud Gate 3DMark: Fire Strike ..as all those have multiple tests, each comparable to what 3DMark 11 contained. It really is three-in-one and if you go look at score on 3dmark.com after a complete run, you get three separate overall scores (and each of these have their own graphics / physics scores etc.).

There is a logic behind this - basically we'll have 3DMark for Windows 3DMark for Windows RT 3DMark for Android 3DMark for IOS (and potentially others...stay tuned!) so tossing additional numbers there would have made them somewhat long. Also remember that the desktop version is basically three 3DMarks in one and the scores will be named with the scene name (so "3DMark Ice Storm score" etc.)

Some new info up on 3DMark. http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/new-3dmark-will-compare-windows-android-and-ios-devices So, who's up for some iToy overclocking? (the teaser is aimed to promote the cross-platform nature - there will be a desktop version and it is the one with all the tests, more on that in the coming weeks as we gear towards launch...)

Not sure what the discussion really is about. The result is invalid. Yes, you can do all kinds of things that will give you "big numbers" but if the result, as shown on 3dmark.com, doesn't validate, it is fairly meaningless. There is a lot you can run & submit with 3.54 SystemInfo that will not fly with 4.12... We'll get far more strict with the SI version (and benchmark version) as soon as the new installers are finally out. Good point on the version number on the result screen. I'll see if we can do something about it for this next patch... and as for the next 3DMark result screen, oh it will have [redacted] and [redacted] Now if you have similar cheat score, submitted with v1.03 and SI 4.12 and 3DMark.com doesn't complain (no anomaly box), I'd be interested to see a link.

Just a little note; We've overhauled the 3dmark.com result search with additional options and greatly improved performance. I know the old search was fairly terrible so consider this a heads up that it should now be considerably more useful and perhaps worth a second look As usual, with tons of new code there may be issues - let us know if you see it break in some hilarious way...

Those benchmarks are effectively obsolete with today's hardware; they are little more than CPU tests at this point. Use 3DMark Vantage or 3DMark 11.

In what scenario would the current memory usage matter in any way? Yes, it spawns a bunch of parallel processes to speed up the scan. I guess it is possible to force it to do sequential (single process, single thread) scan through FMSIDIAG.exe debug options but that way the system scan will take quite a bit longer...

I don't know yet but I can say that it won't happen for at least 30 days. Most likely timeframe is something like 6-10 weeks from now. And after that you can of course still upload them - they just won't be accepted to HoF any more.

Updated FM SystemInfo, 4.11 is now available. Updated CPUID and added some additional anti-tampering stuff. This will roll out in full updated installers in the coming weeks assuming no immediate issues crop up with it. http://www.futuremark.com/downloads/Futuremark_SystemInfo_v4110_installer.exe Expect Futuremark Hall of Fame to require this version in a few weeks.

No, it's an issue with the exporter.dll in Vantage that does the saving to the result file. It is already patched but the patch waiting for release after Windows 8 RTM validation tests are done... As a workaround, if you have a result like this, send it as attachment to info [at] futuremark.com and specify your 3DMark.com account name and we'll get it added there.

Sorry, we haven't announced exact tests that will be included yet (and the main reason is that they are not all 100% firmly locked in yet). 3DMark 11 has one (partially) based on DirectCompute (combined test) and it does influence overall score there.

First video showcasing the upcoming 3DMark is out now in glorious 1080p. This is a slightly more polished version of the same scene that was shown on MSI stand at Computex 2012. YouTube: Official PR: http://www.futuremark.com/pressroom/pressreleases/60924/ FAQ - the new 3DMark trailer Q: Wasn't this called "3DMark for Windows 8"? A: Yes, when we first announced this new benchmark it had the working title of 3DMark for Windows 8. Now that we are further along in development we are happy to confirm that the benchmark will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. We are now referring to it as 3DMark for Windows, or simply the next 3DMark, though these are also working titles. Q: So it isn't just for Windows 8? A: Correct. While we aim for it to be the comprehensive gamer's benchmark for systems running Windows 8, it will also be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. Q: The tech demo video shows DirectX 11 graphics. What happened to DirectX 11.1? A: We may include DirectX 11.1 features in the benchmark if they prove relevant for measuring graphics performance, but the tech demo shown in the trailer is based on DirectX 11 features. Q: So how will this highly complex test run on DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 hardware, as mentioned in the press release? A: The demo shown in the video is part of the DirectX 11 level test. There will be other tests and scenes to measure the performance of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 capable hardware. Q: Wouldn't that imply that part of the benchmark could run on Windows XP? A: No. The new 3DMark will use the DirectX 11 API, but that API can be used to target older hardware as well. If you want the technical details, you can look at Microsoft's documentation pertaining to Direct3D feature levels: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876%28v=vs.85%29.aspx Q: So DirectX 11 API and Vista or later operating system will be required but part of the benchmark could be run on very old graphics cards, something like GeForce 7900 GT for example? A: We have not yet finalized the minimum hardware requirements but, in general, you are correct. Even DirectX 9 and 10 level hardware will be able to get a benchmark score. Q: The press release states that this 3DMark will be able to benchmark everything from tablets to high end desktops. So it will be compatible with the new Microsoft Surface tablets and will it also run on Windows RT (on ARM-based tablets)? A: The new 3DMark supports both x86 and ARM-based architectures and can be used in both the Metro UI and 'classic' Windows environments. Since Microsoft have not released full technical specs for their new Surface tablets we are not able to comment further on how 3DMark can be used on those devices.

Used to but he moved to being a full-time rock star a couple of years ago. Fun fact: He coded the framework and content system for yougamers.com and futuremark.com sites which is still in use today

We know that 03 suddenly claims drivers not approved and we're in progress of fixing that. Technically driver approval no longer applies for 03 and 05. Beyond that, if you get submission failures, contact FM and list the "Problem ID" that is shown and we'll investigate. You can use the GetSatisfaction system (at http://support.futuremark.com) or just email to info [at] futuremark.com