Friday, October 19th 2007
![Futuremark](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/futuremark-v1719085767169.png)
Futuremark 3DMark 2008 Specs Unveiled
The German hardware site K-Hardware has unveiled the minumum and recommended requirements for Futuremark's next gen 3DMark 2008. Unfortunately, there's no additional information, only specs this time, no release date either.
Minimum Requirements:
Source:
K-Hardware
Minimum Requirements:
- X86 compatible single core CPU with SSE2 support and a performance, which are comparable with a Pentium D 3,2 GHz+.
- DirectX 10 compatible with 256 MB memory
- 1024MB Memory
- 2GB of free fixed disks
- Windows Vista
- Intel core 2 Duo E6600 or comparable AMD CPU
- DirectX 10 compatible with 512 MB memory
- 2048MB Memory
- 2GB of free fixed disks
- Windows Vista
38 Comments on Futuremark 3DMark 2008 Specs Unveiled
DX is part of Windows, XP or Vista, with out either one you cant test most of your hardware. So you are testing OS over all as one unity.
IMHO, 3Dmark should be aimed solely at the GPU, and not put any rendering on the CPU, not unless you have a decent chipset on the mobo . . . leave PCmark to be aimed more at the CPU and OS/rig. I mean, just how many people nowadays, especially gamers and the enthusiasts, leave graphics to the CPU/chipset? I don't know anyone who has run any game at 640x480 or 800x600 for years now . . .
Besides, though, it's still a ways off, nothing has been set in stone yet, and until we hear the official word from Futuremark, no one knows for sure. If it's to be labeled 3dMark09 - we're still quite a ways off from seeing it . . .
I'm also curious . . . why not implement an OpenGL test in the new benchmark? Isn't there going to be a new revision to the API soon? We haven't seen a new, OGL only dedicated benchmark in quite some time, either - why does it seem that DX8/9/10 API is the only interface that matters?
It's good to see support and a slight push towards the newer OS and it's technology w/Vista, DX10 and DX10 capable video cards have been out a long time now and not much to really show for what they were touted for. Granted things are getting better and better, and hey I may try Vista again, we'll see what SP1 does to it. Futuremark has always been about staying with what's new, which is good stuff IMO.
I will look forward someday being able to run it in the future, probably after it's been patched and I've got all the hardware to fully support it.
I agree with Imperial about OpenGL benching, since it's still good and getting better, a lot of games use OGL. I would like to see that as a part of 3DMark.
:toast:
As for the newest 3DMark? It (3DMark) stopped being relevant as a true performance benchmark after 2001 version. Right now, it’s pretty much a showcase for latest eye candy. Glorified tech-demo and it has been since 2003 version. If I want to find out how my GPU performs, 3DMark is not on top of my list.
I have been holding off for awhile now on major upgrades as there was nothing taking real advantage of newer hardware, but in the next year all games should be multi-core coded. Multi-GPU coded, and adding physics by extra cores, or by extra GPU power, tesselation should be added, as well as any number of the multitude of things that DX10 will allow us to do. THEN it will be worth the upgrade.
No offense dude, but your entire post sounds like sour grapes because you don't have a rig that can run 3dmark.
3Dmark is extremely valid. It pushes your pc to the limit and gives you a score based on it's performance - then you can compare your score with the rest of the world. What more do you want in a benchmarking program?
BTW, I like Vista more than XP.
If you want to run an XP test, use 06 - vista and XP use it, its got a free version... its comparable.
Wow lets compare DX10 in vista vs XP in 3dmark 2008 - i guess XP gets a 1 for trying :P