Unigine 2.0 Heaven Benchmark out now

@ Manicone

lolwhut? 55fps?

And that's with 5850's in crossfire?

wow ... no reason not to believe you.

I'm running @ 4ghz, not sure why it says 3.8ghz, but 4ghz with 5870's in Crossfire, 6gig ram, Windows 7 Pro N 64bit

I see one guy running a 5970 and his FPS is LOW ..... I bet he is pissed.

Lolwhut at the 77 fps guy as well.

G.D. What the hell am I doing wrong?

I'm running 10.2 drivers
 
Yeah installing now. If so, jesus, what a huge difference. BRB to report my new benchmark.
 
Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 40.6
Scores: 1023
Min FPS: 22.8
Max FPS: 78.5

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows Vista (build 6002, Service Pack 2) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz
CPU flags: 3515MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series 512Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled
 
Never done any benchmarking before but here ya go. Not sure what it all means. Maybe someone can tell me....

I'm running two 1gb EVGA GTX285s in SLI (#01G-P3-1180-AR with stock speeds)....

Temps never got about 72° C on either card with the fans set at 75%.


unigineheaven2.jpg
 
Here is my extreme tessellation score. Quite a drop from my 72.7 score with normal tessellation.Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS:
48.4
Scores:
1220
Min FPS:
17.6
Max FPS:
151.5
Hardware
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz
CPU flags:
3341MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.712.3.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d11
Mode:
2560x1600 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation:
extreme
Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010
 
2x 5850 XFX stock speeds

920 @ 4.2 but bench only shows 3910MHz????

Unigine

Heaven Benchmark v2.0

FPS:
26.7
Scores:
673
Min FPS:
16.5
Max FPS:
62.1
Hardware

Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU flags:
3910MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.712.3.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb
Settings

Render:
direct3d11
Mode:
5760x1080 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation:
normal
Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010
 
Ok, this is with 10.3a drivers .... and wow, what a huge difference. Shocked really

Also, I am cpu bottlenecked. I'm running a 920 @ 3.9ghz ..... before, 4.0ghz but the new 10.3a driver didn't like my overclock. Before the crash, I was 3 to 4 fps faster.


Heaven20BenchResult.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is a comparison in the drop the default settings at 1680x1050 on the left and on the right 8xAA versus none, 16xAF versus 4x and extreme versus normal tessellation
4458943736_5e7208e950_b.jpg
 
Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 107.6
Scores: 2711
Min FPS: 9.6
Max FPS: 288.4

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz
CPU flags: 3574MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series 8.712.3.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1920x1200 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: normal
 
ausidcstaff said:
Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 107.6
Scores: 2711
Min FPS: 9.6
Max FPS: 288.4

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz
CPU flags: 3574MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series 8.712.3.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1920x1200 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: normal
Click to expand...

wow nice rig! you should invest in a couple of more screens to fully utilize that cpu n quad fire ...
 
Wow! Just updated my drivers to 10.3a

New score:

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS:
38.4
Scores:
968
Min FPS:
11.9
Max FPS:
106.4


@ 1680x1050 everything normal, full screen. :D


Compare this to my old score:

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS:
20.8
Scores:
524
Min FPS:
4.9
Max FPS:
43.8

at 1680x1050
 
Here is my GTX 275. No DX 11 but it seems to be doing a fine job.

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 47.3
Scores: 1192
Min FPS: 19.9
Max FPS: 99.9

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
CPU flags: 3600MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 8.17.11.9621 896Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d10
Mode: 1360x768 4xAA windowed
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010

Drivers rolled back after the fan thing.

None of my games look nearly as good as this. Not even DaO, my newest game. It might be awhile before I upgrade.
 
@ SonDa5: How smooth was that. Would a game be playable with those FPS? Most reviews I read seem to suggest 30- 35 FPS are needed. How much does tessellation add to the experience? (actually asking and not flaming because you have an ATI card)
 
"Extreme Mode
It is designed to meet the perspectives of the next series of DX11-capable hardware pushing up the tessellation level to the extreme in the next 1-2 years."

So if a system is able to push like 30+ fps in extreme with all the other settings on high/enabled does that mean your system is kind of future proof? I'm taking into account resolution too.

I saw some pics with extreme tessellation and it had crazy amount of polygons.
 
IVTga.png


From what I was seeing extreme vs normal tessellation doesn't seem all that much different.
 
Apparently the FINAL (not RC) version is much smoother on the min FPS...
 
Here's two pics I found from xs:

2wnsoz4.jpg


358cuur.jpg


I guess the pics speak from themselves...(one's off and the other is on extreme)

Crazy...
 
Last edited:
surfhick said:
@ SonDa5: How smooth was that. Would a game be playable with those FPS? Most reviews I read seem to suggest 30- 35 FPS are needed. How much does tessellation add to the experience? (actually asking and not flaming because you have an ATI card)
Click to expand...

It's fairly smooth but this benchmark is very demanding. Could very easily bump down the resolution and still play games very well with single HD5770.

This benchmark is broken down into 26 stages. Very demanding DX11 benchmark.

I have another HD5770. I'll run a HD5770 Xfire run soon.
 
How the frack did I fall from 46.8 in v1 to 40.8 in v2?

Anyway 1920x1200 DX11 default filtering with normal tess = 40.8FPS avg. Link to a full detailed screen cap below.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6420/heavenv2.jpg

Card was a single HD 5870 @ 1030|1300 using the 10.3a driver. Sans tess, aka current nVidia style, I do 61FPS avg at the noted settings and res.
 
Last edited:
Big Jump between 2650x1600 and 1920x1200

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 21.9
Scores: 551
Min FPS: 12.6
Max FPS: 44.9

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU flags: 3212MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series 8.702.0.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d10
Mode: 2560x1600 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 64.1
Scores: 1614
Min FPS: 30.8
Max FPS: 152.2

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU flags: 3212MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series 8.702.0.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d10
Mode: 1920x1200 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010
 
Seems like they added a lot of extra detail etc.
Here are my results with tessellation off, 1280*1024, no AA or AF:
DX9 = 90.8
DX10 = 89.4
DX11 = 76.3
GL = 61.4

Found a few graphical glitches:
In DX9? during the first scene you can see some texture flickering/glitching where two parts of the stony path texture overlap.
In DX11 during the first scene there appears to be a small gap in places between the stony path and the curb.
In OpenGL the scenes with depth blur, render black where it should be blurry (the in focus stuff is drawn correctly).
 
Thought i might just throw my stats on the pile!
Forgot to mention Using 10.3a drivers
Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 29.9
Scores: 754
Min FPS: 10.9
Max FPS: 61.5

Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU flags: 4000MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.712.3.0 CrossFireX 1024Mb

Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: extreme

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2010
 
Last edited:
Something fishy might be up with the benchmark according to somebody who went in to analyze how it runs

http://www.overclock.net/8840643-post67.html

If you go into the heaven 2.0 directory, you will find heaven.zip. If you unpack that, you can see all the mesh files. If you have the free SDK, you will find optimized code that looks for specific hardware before defaulting to a secondary engine.

It doesn't name what it is looking for, but it looks for a specific hardware string, and when it is not found, it just falls back to the old render.

The problem with seaming is still not resolved.

The Tessellation optimization is not truly in place. Instead, we have a series of improved render methods that stack on top of each other. One major flaw with the engine that I already see in version 2.0 is that it is basically version 1.0 with new extensions added that I have not seen before. They are not DX11 library files. They are something else.

I'm not going to say it's nVidia optimized, but it certainly drops a lot of tessellation in, without taking into consideration the fact that a computer will have to run other tasks while rendering it. The CPU usage is maxed out as well.

Running it on our NV simulator, I don't see any advantages, but out simulator is 9 months old, and exists in software to test for final game compatibility, and there are calls that do not exist in that simulator.

I suppose we will soon see. I still say Voxel rendering is more efficient. Seeing as Tessellation on the GTX 480 is handled through CUDA emulation, it can use as many stream processors as it needs to handle the tessellation... but this does not take into account out of order processing, Physx, scenario render, destructible environments, or any other real world scenario.

In short, version 2.0 looks as broken as version 1.0.

We never got to get out hands on 1.1, and Unigine would not send it to me, stating that they did not produce it. I later found out that nVidia bought a license and produced 1.1. As far as I can see, this is not a real world scenario.

The environments are pretty, but they failed to use tessellation gap fill by overlapping or crossing the seams. It looks like it was thrown together to meet a launch date.
Click to expand...
 
QuadMe, the first pic is tesselation off, not normal. Check out the dragon's neck spikes, its obvious.

Also, anyone set it to extreme and pushed all the tesselation values to 2? Its INSANE...
 
QuadMe said:
Here's two pics I found from xs:

I guess the pics speak from themselves...(one's on normal and the other is on extreme)

Crazy...
Click to expand...

That's mental, there is no need for a lot of them additional polygons on things like the inside of the wings they're just not adding any difference to the perceptable shape of the model it's crazy, as a benchmark fine but sheesh.

I too am a bit wary of this benchmark along with the upcomming release of Nvidia hardware that might "like" heavy tesselation, we've got to make sure we dont make the same mistakes we did with 3DMark and get wrapped up in synthetic benchmarks that have an unblanced use of technology in comparison to actual games.
 
Blacklash said:
Interesting link. The way it's meant to be paid? Guess we will see.
Click to expand...

Wonder if the calls are only in "extreme" tessellation cases. Honestly I doubt Unigine would go out of their way to break DX11 spec. I think the timing of this release is more appropriate than suspicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top