Unigine DirectX 11 benchmark

[Sxotty]

Does it really look as terrible as the youtube video with crazy shimmering constantly?

edit:

The other video looks better thankfully. Still whoever is responsible for the road made of boulders should be shot.

 

[crusher_pt]

My results... graphic card´s clocks at 610/1500/920. DX9 only...

1024x768 0xAA 4xAF

1600x1200 0xAA 4xAF

1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF

 

[vazel]

People posted screenshots at neogaf that showed texture blurryness/distortion with tessellation. Looks like we're in for a new set of artifacts with this tech to add to our blocky shadows and shader aliasing.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2z9ei6b.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/4036863035_a23cdc69d7_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2803/4037612326_819235bbb1_o.jpg

 

[nutball]

Not impressed. Shimmering, stuttering, LOD popping everywhere. The depth-of-field de-focus thing is way over-done.

And I only get 1.2FPS (admittedly that's at 2560x1600@8AA on an HD5850 )

 

[Neb]

People posted screenshots at neogaf that showed texture blurryness/distortion with tessellation. Looks like we're in for a new set of artifacts with this tech to add to our blocky shadows and shader aliasing.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2z9ei6b.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/4036863035_a23cdc69d7_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2803/4037612326_819235bbb1_o.jpg

It is becouse the surfaces originally are flat. So when this techdemo that exaggerates the 3D bumping the textures get distorted along the edges (stretching). Though it would still get with less bumping. Should not be very visible and it is and was already present in games that use parallax mapping and parallax occlusion mapping. So I dont get the worries. I didn't hear anyone complain about this in Crysis for example...

 

[fellix]

4890 @ 950/4600MHz, 1600*1200

No AA:

4xAA:

8xAA:

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yeah, obviously, if you try to displace something out of a plane, there'll be stretching. That's why I say that you need a better base model, where you have to move vertices around by just a smaller amount.

 

[Sinistar]

"Program Files (x86)\Unigine\Heaven\data\demos\heaven.zip\heaven\config\camera.config"

Contains the settings for Depth of field, you can turn it off there.

 

[homerdog]

It is becouse the surfaces originally are flat. So when this techdemo that exaggerates the 3D bumping the textures get distorted along the edges (stretching). Though it would still get with less bumping. Should not be very visible and it is and was already present in games that use parallax mapping and parallax occlusion mapping. So I dont get the worries. I didn't hear anyone complain about this in Crysis for example...

Actually I found it rather bothersome in Crysis, but never bothered to post about it. The ground can look very weird and distorted when you crawl around on your belly.

 

[Sxotty]

I have often found parallax mapping annoying. I think it is more common than you think Nebula.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Hell, I'd take the blurriness for the absolutely HUGE improvement in IQ.

I can't think of the last tech that was this influential on how well a 3D game looked. HDR? Hmmm, close, but not quite. Maybe the introduction of Dx9.0 and programmable shaders. That's going back about 7 years? To the last time a new 3D tech got me really excited.

Regards,
SB

 

[vazel]

I'm seeing that tessellation in this demo causes a significant performance hit. So if all those new polygons from tessellation takes that big a toll is the point of tessellation to save space in memory? Because after tessellation is done creating all the new polygons it still has to be rendered just like the rest, right?

From a post at neogaf.

Q9550 stock, ATI 5850 stock

1920X1080 2XAA DX10 no Tesselation 41 fps
1920X1080 2XAA DX11 no Tesselation 42 fps
1920X1080 2XAA DX11 + Tesselation 26 fps

Edit: This guy at neogaf explained it. I should've finished reading that thread lol.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

He's actually very correct, which is a surprise from a Neogaf poster

 

[Malo]

I'll take Parallax Mapping anyday, it was one of the aspects of CE2 I thought was the most visually impressive. Though of course this next step, Tessellation, is a much bigger improvement still. Obviously it was very exaggerated in this demo in parts where it shouldn't be (boulder path). Would Parallax be better used in those circumstances where you don't need such extensive differences? Better performance?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'll take Parallax Mapping anyday, it was one of the aspects of CE2 I thought was the most visually impressive. Though of course this next step, Tessellation, is a much bigger improvement still. Obviously it was very exaggerated in this demo in parts where it shouldn't be (boulder path). Would Parallax be better used in those circumstances where you don't need such extensive differences? Better performance?

IMO, no. Not even close after having seen both in action. There's places in the demo you can see much less exaggerated use of tessellation, and it's still quite impressive.

Regards,
SB

 

[loekf]

IMO, no. Not even close after having seen both in action. There's places in the demo you can see much less exaggerated use of tessellation, and it's still quite impressive.
Regards,
SB

Indeed... very impressive. 37.3 fps + 940 points on my machine.

/me starts saving for a DX11 card.

 

[Berek]

It's a fantastic demo of a technology... I just hope that games will have what we see here. How many times have we gawked at demos, but not games with the demoed technology?

It looks like DX11 is being pushed much faster (and more successfully) in game development than DX10 was, so perhaps there is hope. I may be buying a card sooner than I think.

 

[Kaotik]

It looks like DX11 is being pushed much faster (and more successfully) in game development than DX10 was, so perhaps there is hope. I may be buying a card sooner than I think.

And there's quite simple reasons for it too; DX10 required complete rewrite of "everything", it wasn't compatible in any way with DX9 so there was a lot of work to be done.
Going from DX10 or 10.1 to 11 however is said to be trivial and quick job, so once you're there, you'll have a lot more time in your hands to implement new fancy things and do it properly, compared to when you had DX9 graphics engine in your hands and had to make it DX10 suddenly.

 

[assen]

ATI Radeon 5750, stock frequencies, 1920x1080 fullscreen in both cases:

DX11, tesselation, 4xAA, 8xAniso: 15.8 fps, score 399
DX10, (obviously no tesselation), no AA, 4xAniso: 33.2 fps, score 837

 

[Sxotty]

IMO, no. Not even close after having seen both in action. There's places in the demo you can see much less exaggerated use of tessellation, and it's still quite impressive.

Regards,
SB

You mean it is actually impressive instead of unimpressive like the exaggerated use of tessellation.