Unigine Valley Benchmark

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,291
4,817
136
Extreme
Score: 2249
FPS: 53.8
Min FPS: 26.9
Max FPS: 99.6

ExtremeHD
Score: 1738
FPS: 41.5
Min FPS: 22.5
Max FPS: 74.7
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Of course it does, it's sponsored by Nvidia.
You have some kind of background to Nvidia sponsoring 'Valley' exclusively?

http://unigine.com/company/
Partners

UNIGINE Corp. is a registered developer of Apple Inc., AMD Inc., NVIDIA Corporation and Creative Technology Ltd. As a registered developer we work closely with our ecosystem partners in order to achieve the best level of performance and compatibility for all of our products.
logo_partners.gif



http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=unigine_valley_benchmarks&num=1

Benchmarks Of Unigine Valley

Published on February 13, 2013

http://www.phoronix.com/review2forums.php?view=unigine_valley_benchmarks

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.

This weekend I was allowed by Unigine Corp to spill the beans on Unigine Valley 1.0 and Unigine Heaven 4.0 (there's lots of screenshots in that article for those interested). Heaven 4.0 was released on Tuesday while Valley 1.0 is coming for a public release on Thursday to Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux users. For the past few days I have been busy running OpenGL benchmarks on Valley 1.0 and Heaven 4.0 to see how the performance stacks up.
Unigine Heaven 4.0 is much more demanding than the Unigine Heaven 3.0 release from last year with the frame-rates for NVIDIA and AMD graphics processors both being sharply lower. Unigine Valley 1.0 is also able to drop all current-generation graphics cards to their knees. For reference, on the same assortment of graphics cards, I also re-ran Unigine's older tech demos -- Unigine Tropics and Unigine Sanctuary.

The graphics cards tested for this comparison on the NVIDIA side were a GeForce 9800GTX, GT 220, GT 240, GTX 460, GTX 550 Ti, and GTX 680. On the Radeon side there was the Radeon HD 5750, HD 6570, HD 6770, HD 6870, HD 6950, and HD 7950. The latest proprietary graphics drivers (NVIDIA 310.14 and AMD fglrx 9.1.11) were used from the Ubuntu 13.04 development system backed by an AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core processor. Only the proprietary AMD/NVIDIA graphics cards were tested since Mesa/Gallium3D isn't yet in a state to support the latest Unigine Engine.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Very odd. With the old 3dmark11 and unigine benchmarks, nvidia reigned 3dmark11 while AMD did better in the unigine DX11 heaven benchmark.

Now it appears that the exact opposite has happened - AMD better in the new 3dmark, while nvidia is better in the new unigine. Although i'm sure both sides will tweak drivers.
 

Rhezuss

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,120
34
91
Glad you got it figured out!

I now realize that the reason you had a 30fps cap in extreme HD but hit 40fps in extreme is that the extreme benchmark was actually jumping between the 30fps and 60fps VSync caps. Hence why both improved without VSync.

Well I forgot to thank you and Russian for the advices. Greatly appreciated. :)
 

Tookie123

Member
Sep 28, 2007
38
0
61
gtx 670@ 1201/7000

FPS: 46.5
Score: 1947
Min FPS: 25.0
Max FPS: 84.0

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 670 9.18.13.1396 (2047MB) x1

Settings
Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen
Preset Extreme HD
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Go look it up from when Heaven was released. Hint: It's in their blog.

Ok , that's a no. Both companies were involved. And Heaven was one of the only programs/benchmarks that could display dx11 after the 5870 launched. Which was the first and only dx11 hardware, for months, besides the 5850. The other dx11 software was Dirt2.


edit: Heaven 1.0
Post Date: Oct 23, 2009 6:54am PDT

//////



http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=477&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=3

  • Native support of OpenGL, DirectX-9, DirectX-10 and DirectX-11​
  • Comprehensive use of tessellation technology​
  • Advanced SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion)​
  • Volumetric cumulonimbus clouds generated by a physically accurate algorithm​
  • Dynamic simulation of changing environment with high physical fidelity​
  • Interactive experience with fly/walk-through modes​
  • ATI EyeFinity support
edit added link of review before Fermi launched.
 
Last edited:

YBS1

Golden Member
May 14, 2000
1,945
129
106
Didn't bother to crank up the cpu, assumed it was just like Heaven and default vs. 4.6GHz+ wouldn't show a bit of difference. Might try later...
Capture6.JPG
 

Xenphor

Member
Sep 26, 2007
153
0
76
Does anyone else get a slight hiccup at scene 10 with the closeup of the rocks? Sometimes it'll be fine but other times I get a slight pause as if it's loading something.
 

Rhezuss

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,120
34
91
I must confess, the Gigabyte WF3 is one hell of a nice cooler. It's silent and highly effective. I was "lucky" enough to get a card with BIOS FZ1 with a locked voltage of 1.25v and a factory OC of 1000MHz...you could call it a HD 7950 GHz Edition.

Although I could get a bit more OC out of it I stayed in the comfort and safe zone at 1150/1450 which give me an awesome gaming experience in all my games (Crysis 2, Thw Witcher 2, Guild Wars 2, WoW, Diablo 3, Dishonored, etc). On top of that I got Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite for free. I highly recommend this card to any potential buyers.
 

Protomize

Member
Jul 19, 2012
113
0
0
HD 7970 @ Stock | i5-3570k @ 4.7GHz

valley2013021601343287.png



HD 7970 GE @ Stock | i5-3570k @ 4.7GHz

valley2013021601295123.png



HD 7970 @ 1220/6900 | i5-3570k @ 4.7GHz

valley2013021601251890.png
 

hyrule4927

Senior member
Feb 9, 2012
359
1
76
Gave it a try on my laptop, which honestly performed better than anticipated.

GTX460M @ 675/1250
1_zpsec954070.png


GTX460M @ 800/1600
2_zps45516d56.png


Going to have to see what my 7950 can do, but clearly the laptop has set a very high standard already. :p
 
Last edited:

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Well something is fishy about my card specifically since a HD7870 OCed outperforms my HD7950 OCed...

The 7870 and 7950 have had an odd relationship since release. The 7870 is made to clock higher than the 7950, and they both have the same dual geometry engine (Pitcairn and Tahiti have the same geometry engine in general), and they have the same amount of ROPs. This can lead to the occasional situation where the 7870 pulls ahead of the 7950 in geometry-limited benchmarks.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
what are the reasons for these benchmarks anyway? Are the numbers just for bragging rights?

Isn't it better to test a gpu on a real game to see fps and temperatures?

This particular benchmark, as well as 3DMark, are in it to make money. Why else would they continually come out with newer benchmarks? For the fun? :D
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
what are the reasons for these benchmarks anyway? Are the numbers just for bragging rights?

Isn't it better to test a gpu on a real game to see fps and temperatures?

Benchmarks are good for testing behavior with overclocking, or to check whether a stock system is set up properly. Games, and even the built-in benchmarks in games, aren't quite as precise, and often rely on significant amounts of CPU power, making GPU comparisons difficult.