Jump to content

Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark! Updated 14.02.2013 + BIG GPU test


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#1
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
Hi.
i have great news about an updated (from 3.0) very good OpenGL Benchmark!

http://unigine.com/p...-benchmark-4.0/ Infos

Whats new (since last 3.0):

What's New in Heaven 4.0?
  • Benchmarking presets for convenient comparison of results
  • GPU temperature and clock monitoring
  • Drastic improvement of SSDO
  • Stars at nighttime
  • Improvement of lens flares
  • New, improved version of UNIGINE Engine under the hood
  • Detection of multiple GPUs
  • Anti-aliasing support on Mac OS X
  • Enhancement of automation scripts in Pro version
  • New Advanced edition (see details below)
  • Russian and Chinese localization
http://unigine.com/p...eaven/download/


This benchmark benches GPU good and long under 26 scenes (takes a few minutes)
My screenshoots shows 9600 GT,
Preset BASIC (medium, 1280x720, windowed, AA*2)


Because the different possible settings makes it hard to compare already benched GPUs,

PLEASE

post at least also an Preset BASIC bench with



Preset BASIC (medium, 1280x720, windowed, AA*2)
to compare other users with smaller screens (not able to run 1600x1020 or 1900x1200 res).
Users with more screen res ( i am limited to 1440 :( ) and faster gpu can also post Preset Extreme result :)


EDIT Results from 4.0 will be NOT comparable to 3.0 results!.



RESULTS 4:

Sapphire Radeon HD 7970, BASIC (no AA) = 98,5 fps, BASIC = 91 ( but known artifacts)

MacPro, Nvidia GTX 680 , OS X 10.8.2 : BASIC=88 fps, EXTREME=57fps (rob from barefeats, EXTREME takes around 850 MB VRAM)

EVGA GTX 660 2GB, 10.8.2, BASIC = 65 fps, BASIC with Ultra Quality = 49 fps

Asus GTX275. BASIC = 34,5 fps

Nvidia 9600 GT, 10.8.3 D68: BASIC=21fps

GeForce GT 430, BASIC = 16 fps



EDIT:
I added 2 new and BIG gpu tests. COD + PREY in highres (1900x1080) tests over 100 gpus!
Good to take a look if you want to buy a "new" gpu.
Often new gpus are much worse (in fps) than oldies like 9600 GT / 8800 GT / 9800 GT or AMD 5770.
Example: GT 430 or GT 210/220/230/520 - good in power consumption but worse compared to above listed old+cheap (used) gpus.
Only avoid old 8800 GTX / GTS and 9800 GTX - fast but huge power consumption. Also AMD 4870/50 takes huge power consumption.
PCG (german computer games mag) march 2013 COD+PREY
detailed (cut out) screenshoot of one test - highlighted well known gpus
Attached File  Bildschirmfoto 2013-02-17 um 12.52.54.jpg   234.83KB   104 downloads

Attached Files



#2
TH3L4UGH1NGM4N

TH3L4UGH1NGM4N

    (~_~)

  • Retired
  • 1,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wonderland
  • Interests:(~_^)
Radeon 4850 here

I bumped up the test settings aside from setting the Anistrophy to 16x because of the low vram on the card it wouldn't make sense to go beyond 8x.

Posted Image

These benchmark scores makes my gpu show it's age =p

#3
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
Ani filtering = makes textures more clear/sharper = has less fps effect
Anti aliasing = less pixelation (steps) on lines = has much fps effect, much more gpu work + VRAM usage than OFF
Try to rerun with Anti aliasing = 2* and compare to Anti aliasing = OFF
Anithros Filtering 4*, 8*, 16* has speed effect but much less than Anti-Aliasing (multisampling, FSAA). The second takes much more VRAM+GPU time than off. The first not more VRAM and only a little more gpu time
ani filtering off vs 4* = near no fps lost BUT fssa off vs 4* at least 30% fps lost
To get more gpu related (than cpu related) results i would use Anti-Alisasing *2 , Shaders=high and an higher res than i used like 1900x1080+ .
Lower res in window mode , like 640x480 or 800x600 , Shader=medium, FSAA OFF Anitros OFF is good to test driver version diff speeds.
Happy benching - good that XBENCH & Co "benchmarks" are now complete outdated ;)

EDIT: I tested with 10.8 DP1 also. Used the 800x600 windowed, no FSAA mode - good for driver version compare because less gpu hw speed bound as FSAA*2 and high res.
Same (< 3% diff) result als with 10.7.3 - but that can be different with newer+ much faster gpus.

#4
oswaldini

oswaldini

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cracow, Poland
XFX 5870 1920x1200x32 shaders medium, AA off, OpenGL, Full Screen, Mac OS X 10.6.8 Score: 1298
XFX 5870 1920x1200x32 shaders medium, AA off, DX11, Full Screen, Windows 7 Score: 1528

#5
kozlek

kozlek

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Developers
  • 331 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel
Gainward GTX 570:

Attached Files



#6
Derek12

Derek12

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
My PC in signature, default options

Attached Files



#7
Thireus

Thireus

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France
  • Interests:Security
Today I benchmarked my NVIDIA ENGTX480 and AMD HD6870 graphics cards.

Full review here: http://blog.thireus....your-hackintosh

Edit: First results were wrong. Have a look at the “Wrong Results” section to know more

Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image

Uningine Heaven 3.0 at Maximum Settings! :boxing: :boxing:

#8
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
Great review.
But i am not sure if its really good to use such high FSAA *8. Normally no one uses that in games because it takes lot of max FPS.
I would use 4* FSAA as maximum - otherwise the different FSAA algorithm speeds of the gpus getting to much in focus and not the main OpenGL/Shader speed.

XFX 5870 1920x1200x32 shaders medium, AA off, OpenGL, Full Screen, Mac OS X 10.6.8 Score: 1298
XFX 5870 1920x1200x32 shaders medium, AA off, DX11, Full Screen, Windows 7 Score: 1528

Thanks.
Would be interesting to compare Win OpenGL vs OS X OpenGL too (even more interesting).
For my knowledge AMD OpenGL Win drivers arent very good. Some GTX 570 got little better (<= 3%) OpenGL speed in OS X against Win with that bench.
With AMD i guess the Win7 OpenGL result will be less than OS X OpenGL.

#9
ricola

ricola

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
nVidia GTS 450
1920x1080
Attached File  BM-GTS450.png   129.37KB   76 downloads
800x600
Attached File  450-800.png   96.15KB   67 downloads

-----------------------------------------
nVidia G210 :)
1920x1080
Attached File  U_G210.png   92.25KB   76 downloads
800x600
Attached File  210-800.png   92.6KB   55 downloads

#10
yowhatupg

yowhatupg

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
Radeon HD5870, not sure if CPU matters but it's 4.5GHz 2600K.

And guys, how about cropping the results before attaching!
My screenshot is 78KB vs. 2+MB each above.

Attached Files



#11
deckert

deckert

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
GTX460 1GB

Attached Files



#12
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
Thanks. As i said before i would use FSSA * 4 (not *8) as max. Because otherwise you measure how fast the gpu can do the FSAA / how fast is the algorithm of FSAA and less the real Game / OpenGL / Shader performance.
Only if the diff between *4 and *8 is less (less than 10%) the gpu isnt limited by FSAA and the *8 result make sense.
So check the diff between *4 and *8 and if >> 10% please post also *4.

EDIT: I compared VRAM usage without / with FSAA 1280x1024 (ca. 1400x900):
Without FSAA - all other things high, my 512 MB is used 70-75%
With 2* FSAA 77 -85%, With 4* 88 -93%
Because VRAM never runs out of mem by swapping VRAM <> PCI 2.0 Bus <> RAM at least at 90%+ used the FPS break down by that very slow
VRAM swappings which happen frequently.
So beside the gpu loads by FSAA 4* and more it may happen that your VRAM gets swapped and then the measurement also gets bad.
Only if you have 768MB+ VRAM you will not get / very less VRAM swappings - at least not if you use <= 4* FSAA and res <= 1900x1080.

#13
^Andy^

^Andy^

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Gender:Male
GTX570 Results..

Lion
Attached File  gtx570_1.jpg   77.74KB   144 downloads
Attached File  gtx570_2.jpg   75.88KB   144 downloads

Windows 7
Attached File  gtx570_1_win.jpg   74.93KB   92 downloads
Attached File  gtx570_2_win.jpg   77.14KB   50 downloads

#14
Thireus

Thireus

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France
  • Interests:Security
Alright, so this time I used default settings, and here are the results :

Posted Image Posted Image


:star_sunglasses: :star_sunglasses: :star_sunglasses: :star_sunglasses:

#15
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
Thanks. I would use shaders= high because often+massive used in games >= 2009.
Also interesting is FSAA no vs FSAA*2 (or *4). The faster the gpu the less is the slowdown by using FSAA against FSAA no.

#16
oswaldini

oswaldini

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Great review.
But i am not sure if its really good to use such high FSAA *8. Normally no one uses that in games because it takes lot of max FPS.
I would use 4* FSAA as maximum - otherwise the different FSAA algorithm speeds of the gpus getting to much in focus and not the main OpenGL/Shader speed.


Thanks.
Would be interesting to compare Win OpenGL vs OS X OpenGL too (even more interesting).
For my knowledge AMD OpenGL Win drivers arent very good. Some GTX 570 got little better (<= 3%) OpenGL speed in OS X against Win with that bench.
With AMD i guess the Win7 OpenGL result will be less than OS X OpenGL.


Earlier I made a wrong description. Here is the corrected descriptions and results:

XFX 5870 + i7-870 1920x1200x32, shaders medium, Anisotropy x4, OpenGL, Full Screen, Mac OS X 10.6.8 x64, Score: 1298
XFX 5870 + i7-870 1920x1200x32, shaders medium, Anisotropy x4, DX11, Full Screen, Windows 7 x64, Score: 1528
XFX 5870 + i7-870 1920x1200x32, shaders medium, Anisotropy x4, OpenGL, Full Screen, Windows 7 x64, Score: 1237

#17
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
As my thinking: Only DirectX11 is faster than OpenGL OS X , not the OpenGL Win.
Second guess: I believe that the diff in OpenGL speed OS X vs WIN rises for OS X winning even more , if you use an bench mode with much less gpu load, so OpenGL driver speed differences can be seen much better. Like 800x600 windowed, no fsaa

#18
Blah101

Blah101

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male
Here are my results. I am running 10.7.3 with a GTX 460 1024MB RAM. All the specs are in the picture.
Attached File  Screen Shot 2012-03-11 at 10.12.20 PM.png   2.55MB   87 downloads

#19
daxure

daxure

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts

I am running 10.7.2 with a GTX 460 GLH ver. 1024MB RAM too but my results are low even with res. 800x600 something is wrong with injector



Posted Image


Although Win 7 X64 performed as should be with this card

Posted Image


Maybe somebody suggests something to workout my problem with Lion+GTX460 GLH 1GB Card

#20
mitch_de

mitch_de

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Retired
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuttgart / Germany
GTX 460 OS X results indeed much to low. I think AGPM (Graphicspowermanagement) problem - gpu does always run in idle/low MHz stepping.
In Nvidia GPU thread there is already an AGPM thread (in first threads pinned)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy