Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: NVIDIA/AMD OpenGL Benchmarks Of Unigine Valley

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,829

    Default NVIDIA/AMD OpenGL Benchmarks Of Unigine Valley

    Phoronix: NVIDIA/AMD OpenGL Benchmarks Of Unigine Valley

    Continuing in the exclusive coverage of the yet-to-be-released Unigine Valley, here are some initial performance results for this visually-amazing multi-platform tech demo / benchmarks when using the OpenGL 3.2 Core renderer on Ubuntu Linux. A range of NVIDIA GeForce and AMD Radeon graphics cards were used for this initial testing of Unigine Valley. There's also benchmarks in this article of Unigine Heaven 4.0, which was just released yesterday.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18476

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    Yeah Unigine Heaven 4.0 seems to be a lot slower than 3.0. Why?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,556

    Default

    Interesting indeed. Here is my result: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...RA-GEFORCE6619

    I noticed that it uses a boatload of DOF. I don't remember it using it, at least to that extent, before, but then I haven't run the benchmark for quite a while now, so I might not remember correctly...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    Yeah Unigine Heaven 4.0 seems to be a lot slower than 3.0. Why?
    I don't really think it's slower, they just added more post-process effects into the demo, like DOF. What's odd (and is going to be a source of confusion) is that the DOF [at least in the free version] is barely noticeable, and [to my knowledge] uncontrollable. There's not even warning telling you it's new or anything.. so to the unsuspecting benchmarker, it just appears that Unigine Heaven 4.0 runs half as fast as 3.0 for no apparent reason.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    105

    Default Smaller resolution maybe?

    Michel can you please include smaller resolutions also in the test? I know higher resolutions stress GPU more but like me many people around the world don't have 1920 x 1080 monitors. If you see the Steam Hardware survey 2nd most used resolution is 1366 x 768 with 20.68%. Including smaller resolution helps to compare the test with our own PC. In your big comparisons, if you add a 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768, it would be awesome

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Coder View Post
    Michel can you please include smaller resolutions also in the test? I know higher resolutions stress GPU more but like me many people around the world don't have 1920 x 1080 monitors. If you see the Steam Hardware survey 2nd most used resolution is 1366 x 768 with 20.68%. Including smaller resolution helps to compare the test with our own PC. In your big comparisons, if you add a 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768, it would be awesome

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
    768p is so big because it is a big de facto laptop resolution in the 13 - 15" space. I didn't even know they made desktop monitors like that. Unless you mean benchmarks for the laptop, but that would require him to benchmark mobile hardware too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zanny View Post
    768p is so big because it is a big de facto laptop resolution in the 13 - 15" space. I didn't even know they made desktop monitors like that. Unless you mean benchmarks for the laptop, but that would require him to benchmark mobile hardware too.
    Well at least in my country, monitors with 1366 x 768 resolution max is kinda common(18.5 inch monitors). Didn't know about the laptops though. And I am suggesting including some benchmark of 800x600 or 1024x768. That way all can compare those results.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Coder View Post
    Well at least in my country, monitors with 1366 x 768 resolution max is kinda common(18.5 inch monitors). Didn't know about the laptops though. And I am suggesting including some benchmark of 800x600 or 1024x768. That way all can compare those results.
    800x600 and 1024x768 is useless. We aren't living in the '90s anymore. If there was any testing with 1366x768 on Intel graphics I could see the usefulness.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    800x600 and 1024x768 is useless. We aren't living in the '90s anymore. If there was any testing with 1366x768 on Intel graphics I could see the usefulness.
    Kind of dismissive, but in truth, if you have a 768p display, you have something else to invest in before a gpu upgrade.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    A large number of laptops have 1366x768 displays,so upgrading isn't an option.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •