darkzone

Finally, a clear mind Well, that's more than nothing. The $20 version is OK, either, if will have these options.

Actually, I've used that crappy bench tool last night, and my opinion is based on what I've seen with my own eyes. Like I'd said before, this is crap. Results are below.

The correct question in the poll should be: Is worth Pro version of Vantage for home users? I think not, these $500 are too much for majority of PC users, whatever it say. More likely, the $20 version could had the offline save option, and everything works just fine. But no, Futuremark have to sneak in my rig, set me blind and send out of my machine God knows what. In top of all, I can see my own result benched on my own hardware only if that system is online. I can't add in that browser window the other programs windows I used so people can see my real settings and more stuff. Why, can I ask? What's the point? George_o/c, I agree with you, we all have to move, sooner or later, on Vista. But not in that ugly way used by the Microsoft and Futuremark (and other companies who kiss Bill's ass) and not so fast. What's the hurry, that Vista crap just was released few months ago, what did they think? That people will massively migrate on it? Big mistake from Bill, there's not so much people who's in love with Vista, that's the point, and now he want to regain the lost ground. That's why the RAM prices was cut off several times, that's why the CPU prices was cut off, again, several times, that's why more and more hardware prices was cut off, to "invite" people to move on Vista. But I don't get one: why the Vista's price isn't cut off? Maybe because Bill have more to win from new OEM systems which are delivered with Vista, just like that, whatever I want it or not. BenchZowner, here's a little bit radical suggestion, don't you think? At the first point, it will be a good thing from Futuremark ... if this will happen. At the second point, honestly, I can't agree with you for several reasons: - this can be take as a monopoly, against antitrust laws as I know - why send me to *nix world when you well know there is nothing to do for real benching or gaming - I like some Microsoft's products, so why can't use them further? because of a crappy OS (Vista) and a more crappy bench tool (vantage) which have to be promoted in any possible way? - I prefer Server 2003 instead of XP, 'cause is more stable and versatile, and much more reliable, 3DM06 and all my programs runs flawless on it, so why can't use this OS instead of Vista? Microsoft can implement DX10 API in any modern OS it want, if it want to. But no, don't want that, it have to promote newest shiny and good-looking packed shit named Vista. The most funniest thing is that DX10 API is implemented in the newest version of server operating system, Windows Server 2008. It was possible for this, but not for XP. Oh, wait ... XP was announced EOL from june this year, but ... wait again ... a few days ago was released SP3 for it. I don't get it ... Microsoft drop XP in the same time of appearance of a new SP for it. Shame on Microsoft this time. Maybe Server 2008 will be better choice instead of Vista, in the end.

Yeah, yeah, but ... big trouble in little ... Vantage - here.

Speakin' of evil http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80140 Anyway, this is not a reason for laugh, but is a reason for cry.

Then, why didn't Futuremark made Vantage compatible with XP, like proceeded with 06? Because of exactly the same reason for what Microsoft didn't include DX10 API in XP. I'm absolutely sure that DX10 will run fine under XP, if desires that. Yes, yes ... you're close ... that's it ... Vista. Does Microsoft sell around Vista if DX10 is, ipothetically, available for XP? I guess not. If you like it or not, Vista isn't that most popular how would wish or like Microsoft. Not in Europe, not in my country and not in other many countries in the world. So, that Vantage is a good way to promote Vista crap, and Vista to promote Vantage crap. One hand clean the other, and both clean the face. I'm saying just is not the right time to make this move, there is not too many top-hardware users, despite the fancy and shiny-coloured graphics exposed by Microsoft, Intel, nVidia and the rest of IT industry. I repeat, if you like it or not. Come back with your feet on the ground, the few enthusiasts who own "heavy artillery" and which you have seen on worldwide forums represents a very small percentage from PC users. Yes, I agree to move on to the future, but not so fast. And not so that agressively, that's scares most users in front of quick changing. People need some more time to work in parallel with XP and Vista, for an easy pass to the newer OS. That's all.

Most people will not be able to use it, due to Vista, first of all. In second place - price for complete version. And three - honestly, it looks bad, very bad, this first release at least. No, nobody forcing me to run Vantage, but I have also the right to run it, or not? And I don't have the alternative, either. In other words, Futuremark "suggest", directly more or less, to move on Vista in order to run their newest bench crap tool. Moving on Vista -> massive Vantage license sales -> this will bring some nice cash in their pockets. And for Microsoft, too. Yeah ... well ... it's easy to speak for one like you who have access at both pieces, hardware and software (don't tell me you had purchased Professional version of Vantage with your personal money for this review, because I don't believe that you spend $500 just for fun). Btw, nice one, you deserve some congratulations.

I have some questions for you: 1. How many people in this world have quad-SLI, quad CrossFireX, quad-core CPU and so many quad-something? 100? 1000? Do you know? I don't, but aren't too much. Yet. 2. And since when is Vista a must have for an ordinary 3D bench tool? Says who? 3. The others who runs just fine XP on the-state-of-the-art pieces of hardware are discriminated from the ones who runs "briliant" Vista on the-state-of-the-art pieces of hardware, this looks fair for you? Disclaimer: I'm not XP user anymore, from a long time ago, I'm using Server 2003 on my home machine. But I'm performing my personal tests on rigs using still good old XP SP2. Until now, when some "good guys" from Futuremark decided in other way and force, yes force, me and other people to move on Vista. This looks like a backstage joint between Microsoft and Futuremark for me. Yes, I agree that the expensive hardware is better and faster than ordinary hardware, but why we, the others, do not have the possibility to run this bench on our mid-range hardware, either? And on XP?

I know what is the parity, I'd should say that an $150 price in US became an €150 in Europe, in Romania at least, and that before taxes. Call this as you wish, this is the reality here. Back on topic: when 3DMark06 was released, the hardware at that time was capable to run the benchmark, in one way or another, on almost all operating systems, not only Windows XP, just because it was the newest OS in the world. Why did Futuremark this mistake to not offer support for XP? Because this OS doesn't support DX10? No problem, will run the tests in DX9, even with some score penalties, I can accept that, but just run.

Oh, really? This is not a kind of ... discrimination? You say that I have to buy some new top-end hardware (around of $1500-2000 or so) for that benching tool only? More, I need that piece of crap called Vista, too. In top of these will stand another $500 for purchasing Vantage, to have all features available. Don't you think that's too much for many of us, I'd say you included? Not to mention the fact that in Europe, where I live, hardware components are much expensive than in US, because of parity between € and $ which is regularly set to 1:1. I have a good rig, anyway, (Phenom 9500, 8GB of RAM and HD3870), but that is not enough for Vantage, as I've seen.

This ... Vantage bench ... is a good reason for some people to change their hardware. And higher scores in it are their purpose in life. Most of us can't afford high-end hardware, but maybe wish to test the actual machines which own already. And we can't do that because of some ridiculous requirements established by Futuremark. So, what for I must pay? For a run at a preset settings? For online result only? Or, if I want all features, I'm free to pay about $500? Thanks but no thanks. Funny thing: in the first test, I've seen a Sapphire logo on that boat. Delicious, isn't it?