X-bit labs

Started by: Janissary | Date 10/20/07

Comments: 9 | Last Comment:  05/02/08

[1-7]

1. "Minimum System Requirements :
32-bit or 64-bit Microsoft Windows Vista OS."

Another Microsucker revealed.

You sir, are a FAG!
Another MAC fanboy revealed!

2. Wonder what does Vista have where XP doesn't that makes
this new benchmark suite Vista only.

directx 10 maybe?

3. This is just another corporation trying to force the gaming market for PCs & PC addon parts to upgrade to Vista. It's obvious from the "Get It Now" links & inclusion, Futuremark is trying to either steers sales to perferred advertisers of theirs or cut a percentage of the hardware sales in affiliate programs! The fact remains that as a consumer segment we are NOT switching to Vista NOR upgrading any hardware until there are multiple games so fantastic & amazing under a new OS & Direct X 10, that we will then perceive the value of doing so.

What a joke! I may never upgrade to Vista at this rate!~

4. I find the results... well, questionable to begin with. In my own experience between Conroe and Socket AM2 processors I've found that they are clock for clock equal. That the Core2 consistently posted better scores than the faster clocked AMD chip? Indicates a severe problem in the benchmark.

As to why the benchmark is like it is, and why the program is biases in favor of Intel's products, I am not likely to find out on my own. Vista is a Dead on Arrival OS. That Microsoft had to relax its restrictions on Xp sales, then abandon the restrictions all-together indicates exactly how bad Vista is doing. When major OEM's refer to Vista as "Windows ME II", and one makes an off the record comment that is should have been named "Microsoft Bobista", that should be an indication that OEM's are not moving Vista systems.

So, aside from its inaccurate reporting, PCMark Vantage went after the wrong market. It is not going to valuable to the reporting press, not in any sense. First hardware reviewers are going to have to get around Windows Hardware Activiation (and after a string of having to call Microsoft 8 times in a row for my own GPU testing on a Vista Ultimate install), Vista was already a scratch for reviews to begin with.

As far as I see it, Futuremark simply doesn't get it. DirectX is a dead API. Several game developers are having to rapidly rethink development strategy and move to OpenGL rendering to cover all platforms, while at the same time maintaining Shader Model 4 (what Microsoft calls DX10) support. Had Futuremark done their benchmarks in OpenGL, then this benchmark would have been valid for Vista releases, NT5 releases, and could easily be ported to Linux Kernel platforms. Futuremark didn't, so the benchmark is worthless from the start, even ignoring all the other factors.

***

posted the contents of this post here: http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-futuremarks-vantage-benchmark.html

5. What I am looking for is a benchmark app that show me my most aging components. HDD's and DVD drives I suspect are bottle necks not looked at enough. If PCmark vantage doesn't do this well. What does?

6. trial code shit doesent work
this suck mules butt
i dl shit i install shit i cant try it

7. good

[1-7]