Unigine 'Valley' Benchmark 1.0

It does look overdone. Blur should not be noticeable IMO, just enough to make things a bit smoother
 
Meh, I still found it impressive considering it doesn't use any newer tech like tessellation and the such. Definitely found it much nice and cooler looking than the new 3DMark that's for sure.
 
The DOF and blur need to be either significantly improved all implementations of it look horrible.
 
The scale of the trees as they advanced up the mountain bugged me. Made the trees either look too large or the mountain too small.
 
Good looking for a benchmark. I like the sound and weather effects. Decent tool that serves a small purpose.
 
I thought it was pretty cool. I dig the nature theme. Scored a 1940 with 1080 at default settings with a 6950.
 
SO, when are we going to get a good game on the Unigine engine? Is there any out there?
 
lilbabycat said:
Everyone,
Stop using blur in games, demos, benchmarks. Please.
Click to expand...

What I find more annoying is how the rocks look when it rains. That slow moving film of water looks so unrealistic. I've seen that too many times...

But overall I think it looks fantastic. This benchmark already kills my GTX 680 at 1440P and we don't have tessellation worked in yet, which I assume will come in a later version. Moving around with free camera at ground level results in me dropping to 20-25fps in the forest areas.
 
Aside from the blur, waterfalls on the rocks, lens flare, it looks pretty damn good. Wind with the trees looks real nice. First time I've seen trees look good in a demo/game.

I'd LOVE to see a good flight simulator built on this engine. Or an open world style RPG.

Just get rid of the gimmicky stuff - blur, lens flare, bloom and work on the water effects.
 
So much fugly pop-in in this benchmark... looks really bad.

Lighting effects with the dynamic weather are cool but that's about it.
 
blade52x said:
What I find more annoying is how the rocks look when it rains. That slow moving film of water looks so unrealistic. I've seen that too many times...

But overall I think it looks fantastic. This benchmark already kills my GTX 680 at 1440P and we don't have tessellation worked in yet, which I assume will come in a later version. Moving around with free camera at ground level results in me dropping to 20-25fps in the forest areas.
Click to expand...

Guessing it's the benchmark then and not video cards. Ran it max settings 4xAA at 2048x1536 on my GTX 580 and was getting about the same results...your 680 should smash my card...so it tells me the performance is in the benchmark.

Plus, though it looks nice and all, I don't see anything that should bring my card to the 20-30 fps area to begin with. Skyrim looks nicer and with mine being modded the fuck out I still get like 40-60fps...

Hmm...it is version 1.0 though!
 
Youn said:
No, depth of field is bad. Let my eyes focus on anything I wish, please!
Click to expand...

This. It's like 3d movies like Avatar you were really forced to focus on one part (or at the very most a few areas) of the scene rather than marveling at everything that was created. We already have enough tunnel vision when playing games and automatically blur what's in our "peripheral" vision. Hell while typing this reply I can see clearly the central part of the screen however the corners and edges I can't read unless I change my focus to them... mother nature already gave us the ability blur :p
 
I benched on my 4.8ghz 2600k, 1200mhz GTX 680 at 1440p.
Ultra settings with no MSAA.

mine 32, max 64, scored 1930 points average 51 FPS?

seemed slightly bad to me
 
Youn said:
No, depth of field is bad. Let my eyes focus on anything I wish, please!
Click to expand...

While I agree for gameplay reasons, it does help to make some scenes look amazing though. If only there was eye tracking for depth of field to really work well.

BigMack70 said:
So much fugly pop-in in this benchmark... looks really bad.

Lighting effects with the dynamic weather are cool but that's about it.
Click to expand...

This was the first thing I noticed and man, did it annoy me as well. Turning on rain and wind obscured it and it looked great during that though.
 
Average around 45 at 1680x1050. GTX 580 got up to 95c I thought it was going to explode. :p
 
This is what I got with my system. Ran nicely.

FPS: 72.3
Score: 3026
Min FPS: 32.9
Max FPS: 135.7

System Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz (3403MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 9.18.13.1090 (2048MB) x1

Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
High
 
Got this for my score. Not too bad considering my box is pushing over 2 years old and I'm using the Force CrossfireX option since there's no profile for it yet.

FPS: 48.2
Score: 2018
Min FPS:14.7
Max FPS: 84.7
System Platform:
Windows 8 (build 9200) 64bit
CPU model:
AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor (3210MHz) x6
GPU model:
Microsoft Basic Render Driver 9.12.0.0/ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series 9.12.0.0 (1024MB) x1

Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
High
 
Did a quick run with all my normal background crap and 96 tabs worth of Firefox running. Wheeee, 127.1FPS, score of 5317.

Doesn't look too bad, but a bit overdone on the DoF and filters.
 
Should also note my settings.

CPU is at 4.8GHz at the moment. Less juice at the outlet.


FPS:
127.1
Score:
5317
Min FPS:
30.6
Max FPS:
195.7
System
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz (3400MHz) x4
GPU model:
AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series 12.100.17.0/Intel(R) HD Graphics 3000 9.17.10.2867/AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series 12.100.17.0 (3072MB) x1
Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1200 fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
High
 
devil22 said:
Average around 45 at 1680x1050. GTX 580 got up to 95c I thought it was going to explode. :p
Click to expand...
Something does not look right with that temperature. I ran the benchmark at the "Extreme HD" setting and my GPU temperature plateaued at 70-71C. My specs are in my signature. Perhaps the fan speed profile is not set? Mine only ramps up modestly and is not annoying at all to me.

Benchmark uses around 1250-1350MB of VRAM, I noticed.
 
FPS:
28.0
Score:
1171
Min FPS:
17.3
Max FPS:
47.7
System
Platform:
Windows 8 (build 9200) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz (3399MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 9.18.13.1396/Intel(R) HD Graphics 3000 9.17.10.2932 (2559MB) x1
Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen
Preset
Extreme HD
 
It's not like motion blur is forced. You can turn it off, and depth of field, and almost everything in the benchmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top