Skip to main content

Futuremark's 'Vantage'

Graphics Test 1: Jane Nash

This test is supposed to represent a game that’s set indoors. Jane Nash, a female character who’s fairly similar to Ruby (ATI’s demo super starlet), arrives at an enemy base on a jet-ski and leaves in a speedboat that transforms itself into a plane, pursued by guards... While the rendering of this scene is really very close artistically to 3DMark05 and 06 (closer to an animated cartoon with poor animation of the characters and their faces, except for Jane Nash herself), the rendering of the water is emphasized here, and it’s impressive. But despite the times, Futuremark’s demomaker origins are still discernible.

With numerous dynamic lights, complex surface lighting models, and PCF filtering for the shadow maps, it’s very power-hungry. As always, the scenes aren’t fluid, even with the currently available high-end cards. Here are the results we got with our reference system, using the Catalyst 8.4 and ForceWare 175.12 beta drivers - which we’ll talk about more later. Note that our GeForce 9600 GT is a model with a GPU overclocked to 720 MHz instead of the stock 650 MHz.

Not surprisingly, 3DMark was very sensitive to multi-GPU cards - the HD 3870 X2 performed 95% better here than the HD 3870 (despite the latter’s much higher memory frequencies). The rest wasn’t very surprising, though the spread between the 9600 GT (despite it being overclocked) and the 8800 GT was wider than in current games (see these averages as an example).

  • honestjohn
    Why should I pay good money tobe shown that my close to state of the art overpriced hardware sucks.
  • clay12340
    Because chicks love it when you post the high numbers from your overclocked machine in forums.

    I think they might have underestimated how cheap a lot of the PC community is. $20 for a utility to get some arbitrary number seems a bit high to me.
  • bourgeoisdude
    What an incredibly stupid move. In the long run futuremark will make less money because, as Florian says, popular support for this product is indispensable. Now that Tom's is shooting it down, it has already lost a significant amount of share. This product has been all about hype, and there seems to be little hype for it this time around. I'm certainly not paying for what appears to be more of the same. With two years instead of just one, and DirectX 10 instead of DirectX 9, I would have expected something better.
  • bpogdowz
    When I tried to get my results I get this fatal error:
  • hannibal
    Well this is the first and only pure DX10 title you can test on. Every other (real games) use DX9 engine with DX10 makeup. (Ofcourse, because it would be economical suisade to make only DX10 game at this moment (too few Vistas out there))

    So is you want to know if you graphic card is any good in DX10 environment, this is the only test you can use. What it's good for... Well not much at this moment, because it will take years untill we will see pure DX10 game engines, because the DX9 support is too important to the game makers!
    But one day those DX10 games will come out, so until then this is the one and only test that you can use to test yours gpu's DX10 power...
  • caskachan
    duuuuuuuuuur huuuuuuuuur lets use sintetic benchamrks instead of real world game tests

    seriously i am happy tomshardware wont be using 3dmarks newest applet anymore =D
  • wingless
    Its amazing what some Hotfix drivers can do. 477% on a useless test is still pretty impressive. Imagine what ATI and Nvidia could do with their present day lineup if they took the time to optimize the drivers for each game. I mean REALLY optimize the drivers. Nvidia should be much better at this since they've had so long to optimize for the G80. ATI should probably spend more time optimizing than trying to get a new driver out each month. Their drivers sometimes degrade performance.

    As far as 3DMark Vantage goes, its useless in the real world. We should have Unreal 3 powered benchmarks since so many games actually use that game engine.
  • If 3Dmark Vantage is anything like PCMark Vantage, stay away. It's the most aggravating, stupidest program I've ever used. I wasted $20 on this piece of crap. To view your results you are directed to a web site that has literaly hundreds of pop-up adds all mixed in with your results. Realy, realy stupid
  • arius
    I can run free TRIAL VERSION asm many as I want - just click UPGRADE LATER and RUN !
  • thomasxstewart
    with fire GL v. it won't work, although most OTHER test do work, not vantage.