The fear of running 3DMark Vantage!

I was wondering if its really that worth downloading + running 3Dmark Vantage considering i have an 8400M GT DDR3. I know that its not too bad and that it can somewhat cope with futuristic games up to some extent.

3Dmark Vantage also introduced a new point system...as i have seen.

I want to know what is considered a fair score or something to atleast reach to be in the "safe zone".

What i mean is, since i got 3522 3Dmark06 points, i consider 4000 to be a mid-range zone so i always aim for that.

Can someone please help me out on my decisions? thanks!

 

don't waste you money for a heart breaking

 

im not going to buy it...im wondering if i should download the trial

 

The point of 3DMark is to make your computer seem slow because it can't hold a smooth framerate with 9 quintillion polygon, quia-mapped characters running around.

 

The scoring system has been set up differently. This time there are four different "profiles" that you can run, and each outputs a score.

For you, you'll defininitely want to use to lowest level of test, I don't know what score you might get, maybe something around E2000.

How you tell each different preset is by the score prefix.

E- lowest settings, everyone can run this ok.
P- performance settings, these will murder your score.
H- high settings? I'm not even sure it is an H. These are tough to run.
X- Extreme settings. Nobody can run these decently, maybe in 2 or 3 years, but no way in hell anytime soon.

I got a P1014 or something like that with my 8600m GT.

It seems that for now, the P benchmark seems to be the most popular.

EDIT: Score was lower than I thought.

 

So will i be expecting something around P700?


Btw, can the developper computers run on Xtreme settings?

 

I'd say 600. I checked and my score was actually P1014.

 

thats really brutal...are games going to be that intense by the end of this year? or will these games start to be out on the market in like 2 years

 

More like 3 years. The stuff is so freaking intense. Geez.

P.S. Yeah about 2 years from now.

 

Yes and no, depends on what GPU you have. 8400m GT never meant for gaming.

 

Yes i know but it can still run games decent at my native res (1280x800).

I ran Crysis everything med xept for shadows + shaders which were at low...and got nice fps.

Im not always up to date though, i like old games and fun ones too

Im almost graduated from High school and i probably wont be playin new age games

 

The trial only allows P @1280x1024 I believe, no?

I got arround P1100 too.

 

You have a DDR2? hmm


I think i can get to 800 easy

 

Vantage is just stupid. Pay-to-use bencmark. And why make a benchmark that requires Vista and DirectX 10, but not make it widescreen? So you have to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars for Vista compatible hardware and Vista itself, but cater to the few that refuse to spend a couple hundred bucks for a decent widescreen monitor. Makes no sense to me.

 

What do you mean? it doesnt support 1920x1200?

 

This is my biggest gripe, too. I don't know any gamers or enthusiasts (people who would run 3DMark) that use a non-widescreen monitor.

 

Yeah, they should have chosen 1280x800 for the default resolution. High is running ay 1680x1050 and Xtrem at 1920x1200 though

Can someone explain me what the settings actually do? I've tried everything and quality is always the same. Weither I run at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050, I get the same FPS (didn't finish it so no score though). The only settings that actually change something are AA & AF of course

 

I'm tired of the "8400GT wasn't designed for gaming" BS. How do you figure? Because it wasn't marketed like the 8600GT. (Which 98% of laptop owners on this site have) It was put in a lot of "Desktop Replacements", and is actually quite a powerful card. Now, the X3100, IGP's in general, or even the quite crippled 8400GS, I can see. But the GT has some solid strength to it. Seems like everyone who makes this comment doesn't actually own an 8400GT. I'm telling you, from owning one for quite some time, I have NEVER been dissapointed, running all games at high. (Except Crysis, which was an absolute waste of $50, seeing as it was a tech demo with a midnight 'Sci-Fi' channel story)

/rant

 

I'm not really gonna bother. The main reason why I got 3DMark06 was to see how my computer performs compared to similar configurations like mine, to see if I'm getting what I paid for and it's not underperforming, or faulty or anything.

 

My G1S scored P1216.

 

Aww. *pat* *pat*

At least it's qualified as a "Performance Card" in the Graphics sticky topic! It's really basically an underclocked 8600M GS as far as I'm concerned [same 128-bit bus, same 16 unified shaders, just clocked slower than the 8600M GS], which makes it totally not weak at all.

Now back on topic, well, Vantage is just really trying to milk the money out of enthusiasts. Come on, free trial can only run once?!

 

Crysis looks better than 3DMark Vantage tests' animations.

 

Its not meant to be a showcase of graphics. Its a benchmark and stresses your gpu to the max. There are tons of new graphic technologies on in vantage that crysis does not even come close to.

 

I`m sad I can`t test my 7950GTX..
*pulls out rope and chokes 7950GTX*

 

I'm happy with my 8400gs. it can play source at playable settings. every game I've played I've been happy. although its not at 1900x1200 on insanely high settings, its still good enough for me .

 

OT- Where ya been harpster don't see you on steam anymore?

Ele I would take the gtx over my 8600 gt.

 

I only run benchmarks to see if my or the computer I'm testing performs as it should.

And yes, when I had my Vostro 1400 with an Nvidia 8400 I could run current games well such as Halo 2 and Call of Duty 4, not at the very highest settings but very well nonetheless.

The 8400 can run games but it is indeed an entry level card so you must have CORRECT expectations from it.

Only a hard core gamer who must run everything at the highest settings, highest resolutions, highest AA and AF at a kajillion frames per second would find it inadequate.

For the record, my current laptop is a Vostro 1500 with an 8600 card from which I can get very good performance in games. I only got it because I got a good price.

I sold my 1400 to someone I work with who needed it.

 

The 2nd Vantage test looks absolutely gorgeous at 1680x1050 with 16xAF and 4xAA. GRanted it's a slide show but still

 

You wont be seeing games who are that advanced till like 3 years.


Can Developers run the tests on Xtreme settings with 16xAA/16AF with like 60fps? that wud be sweet!!!

 

I don't think so. I'm looking forward to see the Geforce Quad-SLI 9900GTX though.

960 shaders, 4 billion transistors