Jump to content
128 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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

Bildschirmfoto 2013-02-17 um 12.52.54.jpg

Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-09 um 23.48.25.jpg

Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-09 um 23.55.24.jpg

PCG313_PREY_highres.pdf

PCG313_COD_highres.pdf

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.

 

Screen%20Shot%202012-03-10%20at%2012.26.23%20AM.png

 

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

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 (

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

 

uningine-heaven-3-0-basic-edition-macos-x-466x390.png

nvidia-engtx480-unigine-heaven-3-0-47-1-fps-438x246.png amd-hd6870-unigine-heaven-3-0-40-7-fps-438x246.png

 

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

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 (

With AMD i guess the Win7 OpenGL result will be less than OS X OpenGL.

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

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.

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

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

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

 

 

146uiu.png

 

 

Although Win 7 X64 performed as should be with this card

 

flw88.jpg

 

 

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

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)

  • Like 1

Aniso Filter 4* > 8* or 16* hasnt much negative speed effect on faster gpus. So diff between 4* and 8* / 16* is little. (Ani makes textures more clear / sharp)

The FSAA X* has much, much more effect on speed and i would not use > 4* to bench the gpu, otherwise you bench more FSAA algorithm speed than overall OpenGL speed.

But FSAA * 2 ( at least on res

×
×
  • Create New...