Unigine DX11 "Heaven" Benchmark

[ilpalmare]

I report my experience.

VISTA SP2 with DX 11
E8500-3600
3gb dd3
2x4870 crossfire

1680x1050 aniso 16 all HIGH
All option enable with tesselation active (wow that image)

1670 point with 60 frames.

Is good???

When i have time i report the HTML file from benchmark

PS: I have use the catalyst 9.11 that i have found with SDK2 beta 4 stream OPENCL 1.0

 

[HeX_00]

New bench @ 960/1325 (was getting 36.7 @ 900/1300):

It seems I have one poor memory clocking card which is holding the other back, anything past 1325 on the memory and my performance divebombs. Most irritating.

However Cores on both cards clock very well easily topping out CCC.

Might have to give that ASUS bios a flash and see if I can break the 1GHz mark

 

[jessicafae]

MSI R4890 OC 900mhz, PhenomII x3 720 3.3ghz

All tests with high shaders, tessellation disabled, full screen

DX10 1024x768 0xAA 4xAF 66.8fps, 1683 score
DX11 1024x768 0xAA 4xAF 65.8fps 1656 score

DX11 1280x1024 0XAA 4XAF 49.8fps, 1255 score (edit added)
DX11 1280x1024 2XAA 8XAF 43.9fps, 1107 score
DX11 1280x1024 4XAA 4XAF 40.0fps, 1008 score
DX11 1280x1024 4XAA 16XAF 38.3fps, 965 score
DX11 1280x1024 8XAA 16XAF 31.0fps, 781 score

DX10 1440x900 0XAA 4XAF 49.1fps, 1236 score (edit added)

DX11 1680x1050 0XAA 4XAF 40.1fps, 1010 score (edit added)
DX11 1680x1050 2XAA 4XAF 35.4fps, 891 score
DX11 1680x1050 4XAA 4XAF 31.4fps, 792 score
DX11 1680x1050 4XAA 16XAF 30.2fps, 760 score
DX11 1680x1050 8XAA 16XAF 23.6fps, 596 score

DX11 1920x1080 0xAA 4XAF 35.5fps, 894 score
DX11 1920x1080 2xAA 4XAF 31.3fps, 789 score
DX11 1920x1080 4xAA 4XAF 27.7fps, 698 score
DX9 1920x1080 4xAA 16XAF 34.4fps, 867 score (edit added)
DX10 1920x1080 4xAA 16XAF 26.5fps, 668 score (edit added)
DX11 1920x1080 4xAA 16XAF 26.6fps, 669 score
DX11 1920x1080 8XAA 16XAF 21.1fps, 531 score

interesting how much of a hit 8xAA caused at all resolutions.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

my results with SLI'ed GTX280s OC at 671/1444/1158 and my CPU at stock

 

[Blacklash]

Once you've run this bench in DX11 with tesso and the goodies you can't stand to see it in DX10. Bleh...

 

[Sommer]

Need another one in cf.

 

[DRDNA]

http://img.techpowerup.org/091023/029.png

http://img.techpowerup.org/091023/unigene.png

DX10

 

[Blacklash]

LMAO My notebook got 20FPS @ 1440x900 DX10 using default filtering. It's got a 9800M GTS.

 

[xXxDieselxXx]

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Results with 4850 X3 1 GIG

Unigine
Heaven Demo v1.0
FPS:
40.6
Scores:
1022
Hardware
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Oct 22 2009
Operating system:
Windows Vista (build 6002, Service Pack 2) 64bit
CPU model:
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 920 Processor
CPU flags:
2800MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT
GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2 8.01.01.961 1024Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d10
Mode:
1920x1200 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
16x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Unigine Corp. © 2005-2009

 

[audiotranceable]

thing that bugs me is they could make the stairs and rocks look 3D and not flat with DX10

Once again posted at OCN to prove my point

This benchmark is rubbish, DX9/10 doesn't look as bad as this benchmark makes it seem as they can use Parallax ocullsion mapping

Crysis DX9 with POM + 16xAF :

Now the above pictures are not as good as tessalation but are better then what this benchmark gives the impression of what DX9/10 can do

This benchmark doesn't show real DX9/10 graphics.

 

[leonard_222003]

Exactly , they wanna sell DX11 with effects that can be done on DX9.

 

[RejZoR]

I'm not thrilled by this tech demo in any way. Cobble stones are flat, those corner stones are flat, roof is flat, depth of field is a joke and all the blurring makes me wanna puke...

I've seen 3D cobblestones done with parallax mapping in Crysis. It looks just as good and i had not noticeable performance hit. There probably was, but nothing significant. Do we really need DX11 and expensive new hardware just to see those corners stones sticking out? Or roof tops not being completely flat? Depth of field looks like awful view distance fog in old games and the random blurring all over the scene makes it 10 times worse. I don't know, is it just me or they're trying to sell us DX11 the way NVIDIA was trying to sell us PhysX ? I get the exactly same impression. Plus this thing looks so damn cartoonish it's not even pleasing to my eyes at all.
Just look at the Crysis screenshots above, the shore with loads of stones. The level of detail and the way everything is shaded is just unbelievable. And you don't even need DX10 hardware for that. So i'm sure DX11 can do much more than just this with far more justifiable effects that could all be done with good old parallax mapping. The point of tessellation is not in making one version flat and another detailed. It's in level of detail that you can do without significant performance hit. More poly's where you need them and less where you don't. But Unigine guys here are doing it the other way around just to prove the point. All this could be done in DX9 or DX10. It's just that in DX10 mode, we'd get slightly different (lower) framerates compared to DX11 counterpart with no loss in quality.

 

[revin]

AGP run

P4 3.4EE @3.6
AGP Hd3850 800/1000
DX10
13.7 fps 346Score

 

[wolf]

So I Don't get it, why can non DX11 cards run in DX11 mode? does it look the same as on an actual DX11 card? wtf

Also I have a few bones to pick;

Stairs in DX11 mode are a flat gradient in DX10.... LAME.
The cobblestone streets are far too bumpy, ridiculously so.
I have seen this kind of depth in games before, POM anyone?

looks ok but all in all I'm pretty meh about it, can't wait for my free copy of Dirt2

 

[RejZoR]

You can run DX11 even on DX10 cards. You just can't use features like tessellation...

 

[Steevo]

Once again posted at OCN to prove my point




This benchmark doesn't show real DX9/10 graphics.

tesselation causes only a minor performance hit in memory too. It basicly allows the use of a mediocre quality surface, and then give render coordinates to the tesselator, and its done.


What card were those screens rendered on? There are alot of otehr performance and IQ benefits to go along with DX11 if only we can force the programmers to use them.

 

[bobzilla2009]

To be honest, this benchmark for me isn't a display of dx11 capability, considering it most likely doesn't even used SM 5.0.but it is a nice display on how the dx11 gpu's handle extensive tessellation. The answer is that even when huge amounts are applied to a scene, the performance hit isn't absolutely huge, whilst the visual gain is very good. I'm not saying these graphics can't be reproduced in dx9/10, it just takes a lot more grunt to do so. Tbh i'm more looking forward to a true dx11 benchmark built from scratch just for that, so we can really see what dx11 can do.

 

[chaotic_uk]

is something bottlenecking my 5770 ? , below is the dx11 test at default settings apart from being full screen @1024x768

now for 1680x1050 at 16x af fullscreen

my cpu is overclocked to 3.2ghz , what else should i do to try to improve the fps alittle ?

 

[daehxxiD]

Hope this hasn't been asked yet. Is there any way to get the Tesselation-Unit of the HD 2xxx, 3xxx and 4xxx-Series going in this Benchmark?

I haven't tried yet myself (Mobility Hd2600); I would really like too see that in action, but really haven't got the time to "waste" on tweaking around with this right now ... Am running Cat 9.9 on Vista SP2 DX10.

 

[SonDa5]

Does anybody know if DirectX11 works on any of the beta versions of Windows 7?

I'm running the beta Windows 7 and I'm unable to turn on Direct X11 with HD5850.

 

[SonDa5]

Once again posted at OCN to prove my point




This benchmark doesn't show real DX9/10 graphics.

Very nice images with Crysis.

 

[audiotranceable]

tesselation causes only a minor performance hit in memory too. It basicly allows the use of a mediocre quality surface, and then give render coordinates to the tesselator, and its done.


What card were those screens rendered on? There are alot of otehr performance and IQ benefits to go along with DX11 if only we can force the programmers to use them.

Not sure I quoted it from OCN on a thread about this benchmark. I'm not sure if I'm allow to link you

Very nice images with Crysis.

Thanks but not mine that's why I quoted it

I'm not thrilled by this tech demo in any way. Cobble stones are flat, those corner stones are flat, roof is flat, depth of field is a joke and all the blurring makes me wanna puke...

I've seen 3D cobblestones done with parallax mapping in Crysis. It looks just as good and i had not noticeable performance hit. There probably was, but nothing significant. Do we really need DX11 and expensive new hardware just to see those corners stones sticking out? Or roof tops not being completely flat? Depth of field looks like awful view distance fog in old games and the random blurring all over the scene makes it 10 times worse. I don't know, is it just me or they're trying to sell us DX11 the way NVIDIA was trying to sell us PhysX ? I get the exactly same impression. Plus this thing looks so damn cartoonish it's not even pleasing to my eyes at all.
Just look at the Crysis screenshots above, the shore with loads of stones. The level of detail and the way everything is shaded is just unbelievable. And you don't even need DX10 hardware for that. So i'm sure DX11 can do much more than just this with far more justifiable effects that could all be done with good old parallax mapping. The point of tessellation is not in making one version flat and another detailed. It's in level of detail that you can do without significant performance hit. More poly's where you need them and less where you don't. But Unigine guys here are doing it the other way around just to prove the point. All this could be done in DX9 or DX10. It's just that in DX10 mode, we'd get slightly different (lower) framerates compared to DX11 counterpart with no loss in quality.

Exactly , they wanna sell DX11 with effects that can be done on DX9.

goood points

 

[Steevo]

NOt good points of you actually look at teh work being done. If they did that screenshot at 18FPS on a 295 and we can get the same IQ with 60FPS out of a single GPU solution by adding a few items it is much better.

**EDIT**


Those screenshots are from a Crysis MOD, just like I have over 10GB, read thtat again, 10GB mod for HL2 that makes everything look real, it takes a relatively huge comutational HP, and memory to run it. The same for the Crysis mod, the more vmem and pixel pushing power the more you can make existing tech look good too. But instead of a 10GB mod using a slightly higher res texture and feeding vertice information and then allowing tesselation to do its job will be faster, adn have a smaller memory footprint.


The otehr reason games don't look like that upon launch is imagine trying to play HL2 with a huge mod on a 1GB P4 with a 512MB 9600XT. That is what i had, and it ran great. Now with a 1GB card, a quad core, and watercooling it sometimes stutters a bit. If tesselation were impemented on that for alot of items............

 

[ilpalmare]

Why 4870 support tesselation.. and benchmark dont make this?????????