HeavyH20
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 406 (0.06/day)
System Name | In flux |
---|---|
Processor | Core 2 Duo QX9650 |
Motherboard | EVGA 790i SLI FTW Digital PWN |
Cooling | Phase |
Memory | 4 GB DDR3-1600 |
Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 260 Tri SLI |
Storage | 2 x WD RaptorX RAID 0, 1 x WD RaptorX, 1 x Seagate 500 GB 7200.11 |
Display(s) | Dell 3007 HC |
Case | CoolerMaster Stacker 832 Evolution |
Power Supply | Coolmax 1200 Watt |
Software | Vista 64 Ultimate |
you guys must start running Vantage without physics....that`s legit way to go..
Well, the lack of using PhysX (which is sponsor of the Vantage benchmark) for competitive benchmarking effectively handicaps the system so that ATI can compete. The 3DMark benches were always touting future game performance (not current games) as a measure. Since PhysX is a component of some current and upcoming games, it makes sense that a PhysX capable system would be better equipped to handle upcoming games and should definitely be a consideration of a benchmark that pretends to predict the future.
Now, as a handicapped race, which 3DMark has become, it makes sense to keep things competitive or people complain about unfair (dual GPU cards are not a single card, drivers cheat, etc, etc). But, in the end, sales are hurt on both ends a bit. ATI is the king of 06 and NVIDIA (with PhysX) the king of Vantage (that is, until ATI gets PhysX or Ageia capable drivers). Maybe people would have picked up cards from both camps to attempt score domination on all fronts. Instead, they decided, due to pressure from the benchmarking crowd, to handicap the bench so that no one had to buy anything else other than a 4870x2 to win on almost all fronts.
That's my take, biased, tainted, and skewed
Last edited: