Yay!! It's availabe for download, can't wait to run this. The system requirements are high.

Pc Perspective did a preview here: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=552&type=expert&pid=1

There are 4 options availible also:

Basic Trail Edition- for one time use
Basic Edition: 3dmark score and ORB and it`s $6.95
Advance Edition: Run all tests and presets $19.95
Professional Edition: Aprroved for commercial use and $495.00

Anywho gonna give this a run!

Edit: To enable the software you have to get a key, you click one of the 4 boxes, I chose basic and it takes you to the site were you input your email and type in the two words you see, they send you a key right away. Trying now!

man thats really f'in steep requirments:

Processor
SSE2
Recommended: dual-core with performance equivalent Core 2 Duo E6600, Athlon X2 6000+ or higher
Graphics Card
DX10 compliant graphics card
Display Device
Requires 1280x1024 resolution
Recommends 1920x1200 to run all presets
System Memory
Recommends 2GB or more
Hard Disk
Requires 1GB of disk space
Operating System
Windows Vista with Service Pack 1

Damn! This will surely stress the living hell out of my Pc. Since I don't want it to commit suicide on me, I will leave it to you guys to tell me about the visuals and the hardcore ball busting performance.

What I still don't get from 3d Mark and their benchmarking programs is with the scores. In my case I use the free version of 3dMark06 which comes with default settings being 1280x 1050 rez, no AA etc. Now my question always has been that if the settings are lower and simple, does that mean that I will score more than if I were to put higher settings for the benchmark? Or does it register the same points?

different points, if you look at reviews where they crank the res the score is fairly lower.

Hmm... so shouln't it be better to have the lowest settings possible. I mean the point of this is too score higher whenever you can right?

*Edit*
By the way Sean that quote you have in your sig is funny. Is it from a movie?

Actually the point of benchmarks is to find out what the system is capable of, and to identify possible bottlenecks. Of course the secondary usage is for bragging rights.
Insofar as lower res is better, not necessarily. Most modern GPUs, when forced into artificially low resolutions (640x400, 800x600) actually perform poorer than they do at "normal" resolutions.

Gerritt

WTF....requires Vista.

Futuremark require a kick in the balls.

It's to bad you can only run the benchmark once, need to purchase this. I want to see the rest of the program. Defaintly a different setup from the previous 3dmarks.

My 3DMark score:

P8231
CPU: 6516
Grahpics: 9023

JESUS...Don't have vista Have vista on the lappy but I really dont think that they turion 1.6X2 and the measly 1GB ram with 6150LE integrated is going to do much of a job. LOVE FUTUREMARK

Man it's only a benchmark lol. From the screenshots, am not all that impressed.
The graphics in the past versions look so much better. Still at least we get to see
TRUE DX10 instead of f**kin DX9 with DX10 patched on like all the DX10 games out
there. So i'm still intrigued. I've gave up on the benchmark thing. It was a novelty.
I see it as a way for guys with tiny dicks to look big hahahaahhaha!

What a contradiction! I just tried it. The first GPU test looks god awful! The only good thing
about that one is the material over the boat. Nicely done!

The second GPU test was a lot nicer. The asteroid belt or whatever it is/was is
freakily cool. The explosions are quite spectacular.

And finally for the first time my PhysX Card was actually used in this. In the
CPU & Physics part. Although my card helped in no way what so ever!

My score's not as good as your flo.

http://service.futuremark.com/home.action?resultId=38483&resultType=19

P6731
CPU Score: 15190
Graphics Score: 5677

I managed 30FPS on 2nd GPU Test, and the 1st GPU test was like a clip show at
some parts, but nonetheless ran smooth at times too.

The 1st CPU test was slick as, and then the 2nd (which used my AGEIA) was quite
low.

Ok, I aint buying it, and won't be testing again. In a nutshell, i think it's the worst
looking 3DMark I;ve ever seen. The full version might be a different kettle of fish.

Oh and I also supsect the Nvid Beta's are designed for this 3DMark release - I shoulda
installed those prior to the trial. Oh well...

Tam...

Bought the advanced version.

Its looks rubbish. IMO '06 is FAR more impressive.

Yes, I know its using new techniques for lighting and shading etc, but it really doesnt look good.

Using 'Performance' the 1st GFX test regularly dropped into single digits, and the textures are HORRIBLE.

I might try a custom 12x10 run, with everything else set at the highest to see if it looks better.

Cant even get my damn score because I dont have the 'net yet in my new place, what a fookin rip off

I do not understand why Futuremark is making people pay for the basic version. They really should have done something like they did with '06 where you could run it for free at some preset level.

There's a campaign in the Futuremark forums to get offline results enabled, at least for the €/$20 Advanced version.

€20 and I cant even see my damn score! (or save it to a .3dr file like every other version)

bastards!

I will run the benchmark for fun.

EDIT: I will post my results later today.

Hopefully it will let me install on XP even though the system requirements say otherwise.

Eh no Brenden! DX10 is only on Vista. And will only work on Vista. It clearly states
that's it's not compatable with XP. That's from the horses mouth. But you still think you
can run on XP?! I just don't get that??

Yea I am aware of that now after I attempted to install. Only took 5 minutes to download so no big deal.

Tam thats just becuase you are not teh 1337 H4X0R!