Welcome Stranger to OCC!Login | Register

Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark Tool Walk Through

Guest_Jim_*    -   March 12, 2013
» Discuss this article (2)

Detailed Results & Conclusion

The tests were run in succession and using the latest GeForce 314.07 drivers.

Testing Setup:

  • Processor: AMD Phenom II 720 BE, 4-core, @3.40GHz (17.0x200)
  • Cooling: Corsair H50 with push-pull Akasa 120mm fans
  • Motherboard: ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO 785G
  • Memory: Corsair Dominator 2x2 GB and G.Skill Ripjaws 2x4 GB (12 GB total) @ 1600MHZ 9-10-9-28
  • GPU: EVGA GTX 570 1280 MB (797/1594/1950)
  • Hard Drive: 1 x Western Digital Caviar Black 750 GB SATA
  • Power Supply: Corsair 750TX
  • OS: Windows 7- Home Premium 64-bit

Of course, those are just comments about the visual. As a benchmark, this software is actually quite good. Running three tests on the basic setting the scores differ by no more than two, literally increasing one point, each time I ran the test.

Basic preset:

  • API: DirectX 9
  • Quality: medium
  • Resolution: 1280x720, windowed mode
  • Anti-aliasing: x2
  • VSync: disabled
  • Stereo: disabled
  • Tessellation: disabled

The extreme test was similarly consistent with scores varying by no more than one point.

Extreme preset:

  • API: DirectX 11
  • Quality: ultra
  • Resolution: 1600x900, windowed mode
  • Anti-aliasing: x8
  • VSync: disabled
  • Stereo: disabled
  • Tessellation: Extreme

 

By looking at the minimum/maximum/average scoring, we can analyze how much variation in FPS each preset delivers based on the system specifications.

  

 

Unsurprisingly, the minimum FPS across the Basic tests is fairly consistent, though the maximum FPS varies a bit more. Altogether, I am not surprised by the variance of the maximum FPS, because with the GPU pushing out so many frames, something that could affect its performance by just 1% would be more apparent than if fewer frames were being pushed. What is more important though, is that the minimum and average FPS numbers are consistent, as variances there would likely indicate a problem with the GPU or the benchmark.

  

 

With the Extreme tests, we find the numbers to be more consistent than the Basic tests, with the minimum FPS values differing by no more than 0.1 FPS. The maximum FPS values, though linearly closer, are actually again off by only about 1%. Actually, the Basic maximum FPS values differed from their average by only 0.9%, while the Extreme maximum FPS values differed from their average by only 1.4%. This consistency between the different settings is actually somewhat impressive, though perhaps it is not surprising, as the Basic and Extreme benchmarks are the same fundamental test, but with different effect settings and resolution.

Conclusion:

All in all, this is a pretty solid benchmark. The only issue I could have with it is how much it feels like a tech demo for tessellation with so much geometry relying on that one feature. Of course, tessellation can really push a GPU, so it makes sense to employ that feature to test a graphics card. The consistency is a definite plus for the software also, as it keeps systematic error to a minimum in the scores you brag about post for others to see.




  1. Introduction & Simple Results
  2. Detailed Results & Conclusion
Random Pic
© 2001-2014 Overclockers Club ® Privacy Policy

Also part of our network: TalkAndroid, Android Forum, iPhone Informer, Neoseeker, and Used Audio Classifieds

Elapsed: 0.0402159691