Good Benchmark test for FFXIV (Heaven 2.0)

[Eyedea-Seraph]

I know alot of people myself included saw the graphics/graphics to come out of FFXIV and would like to know how their comps will hold up against it. Here is a good up to date benchmark being used as a test bench for most high end GPUs. Try it out and post your results maybe we can help you decide what you might need to change in your old systems. Cheers and GL! I will start it off.

Go get this Unigine Heaven 2.0 from here http://unigine.com/download/

So i noticed what Cel said about making the setting eqaul for everyone sooooooo.... set your setting in this manner and we maybe able to help you better then my previous post.

DX9 (Since FFXIV will use it)
Mode: 1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Replication: off
Volumetric: enabled
Anti-Aliasing: default
Tessellation: extreme

(thx Cel for the advice)



Features:
Support of DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11 and OpenGL
Comprehensive use of tessellation technology
Advanced SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion)
Volumetric cumulonimbus clouds generated by a physically accurate algorithm
Dynamic sky with light scattering
Interactive experience with fly/walk-through modes
Benchmark mode

Software requirements:
MS Windows (XP / Vista / 7) or Linux
.NET framework 2.0 (Windows version only, optional)
OpenAL (included into Windows installer)
Latest stable video drivers

Hardware requirements:
Tessellation feature REQUIRES a GPU with DirectX 11 support!
ATI Radeon HD 2xxx and higher or NVIDIA GeForce 7xxx and higher

Note : AA settings on a screen res 1680x1050+ wont need more then 2xAA
AF should be at x16 for high end machines

Mine to start: (just copy and paste your scores)

Unigine

Heaven Benchmark v2.0

FPS:
45.9
Scores:
1156
Min FPS:
24.9
Max FPS:
88.5
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:
2653MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 8.17.11.9621 896Mb
Settings

Render:
direct3d9
Mode:
1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
16x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

[Celeras]

There's an Unigine thread already, but it was for 1.0... so I'll let this slide(like I have power or something). If you want people to bench against you (which is what I'm assuming you're after), you have to edit your post to include a uniform standard of settings for everybody to use. I suggest everybody use the following for comparison sake:

Mode: 1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Replication: off
Volumetric: enabled
Anti-Aliasing: default
Tessellation: extreme

Basically the same as the OP, except with tessellation turned on extreme. It's fine that his is disabled because he has a DX10 graphics card, and even though they can 'check' the DX11 setting on the benchmark.. it won't do anything, and thus they'll get better results. Which is why, if you were keeping track, you'd need a separate table for DX10 vs. DX11 cards.

[Seanr]

whats a good score?

[Celeras]

Depends on the settings, which is why whoever is running the comparison will have to set up the standard. Everything is relevant depending what your settings are compared to your hardware. DX10 cards can't even use the best features of this benchmark, so they will get significantly higher scores then a DX11 card at the same settings.

In fact, I'm going to edit my above post and just say USE THESE SETTINGS.

[Seanr]

I dont know what this means
http://i39.tinypic.com/73ci9x.png
But I'm sure I'll be playing the alpha on my laptop

[Celeras]

You dont even have the required specs to run the benchmark(assuming you have Radeon in the error message), so I doubt you would want the score anyway ;p

[Sinzfeldt]

I'm not quite sure how and why you think a canned benchmark is good to benchmark against ffxiv, you forget real world gameplay is very different and variable ie: npcs, mobs, other players and the fact the engine/world are built completely differently.

[xopher]

Why are you posting DX11 render scores when FFXIV is DX9?

[Celeras]

Battlefield Bad Company 2 was built on a DX9 framework, that doesn't mean that it doesn't use portions of DX11.

Irrelevant regardless. Don't be dicks, he picked the newest benchmark available(came out barely a week ago) to bench for a game that isn't out yet. Post some scores for the guy or go away. I'd post mine, but I'm in limbo with a temporary replacement until my new card comes. I'll post something when it gets here.

[Thunderblaze]

Why are you posting DX11 render scores when FFXIV is DX9?

I was wondering the same thing.

DX11:
FPS: 39.0
Scores: 981
Min FPS: 1.8
Max FPS: 80.4
Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
CPU flags: 3411MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 8.17.11.9621 896Mb
Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1680x1050 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

DX10:
FPS: 41.4
Scores: 1042
Min FPS: 14.1
Max FPS: 82.3
*same settings*

DX9:
FPS: 63.8
Scores: 1608
Min FPS: 29.2
Max FPS: 117.2
*same settings*

I think my scores are a bit low, I suspect it's only using one of the two GPU cores on my GTX295. No overclocking, out of box.
Edit: OP is only using 2xAA for some reason, I used 8xAA on mine.

[Sinzfeldt]

Battlefield Bad Company 2 was built on a DX9 framework, that doesn't mean that it doesn't use portions of DX11.

Irrelevant regardless. Don't be dicks, he picked the newest benchmark available(came out barely a week ago) to bench for a game that isn't out yet. Post some scores for the guy or go away. I'd post mine, but I'm in limbo with a temporary replacement until my new card comes. I'll post something when it gets here.

To bench for a game that isn't out and uses completely different technology, yeah real smart..

[Thunderblaze]

To bench for a game that isn't out and uses completely different technology, yeah real smart..

Post them anyway for each version of directx(9/10/11) as I did. At least it will help compare systems so people can decide what to buy, or, if someone's system is similar to yours and is doing a lot better than yours, you could see if they have things set differently.

[Waraji]

Directx9

FPS:
17.6
Scores:
444
Min FPS:
6.2
Max FPS:
42.0
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:
2672MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT 8.17.11.9621 512Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d9
Mode:
1680x1050 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
16x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

Directx10
Didn't even bother.

It would seem the only thing holding me back right now is my GPU. What should upgrade to in the near future that won't break the bank?

[Celeras]

AA is disabled by default, isnt it? Could be mistaken. Was trying to get everybody to run the same settings, everyone got it right so far but both did 8xAA. It'll be a good sized performance hit even on DX10, I know my old 8800GT used to score around 20fps/500 on DX10 and the settings outlined in my first reply.

[edit] Just saying cos its hard to compare if everyone does different settings. idc if you use AA or not.

[Eyedea-Seraph]

There's an Unigine thread already, but it was for 1.0... so I'll let this slide(like I have power or something). If you want people to bench against you (which is what I'm assuming you're after), you have to edit your post to include a uniform standard of settings for everybody to use. I suggest everybody use the following for comparison sake:

Mode: 1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Replication: off
Volumetric: enabled
Anti-Aliasing: default
Tessellation: extreme

Basically the same as the OP, except with tessellation turned on extreme. It's fine that his is disabled because he has a DX10 graphics card, and even though they can 'check' the DX11 setting on the benchmark.. it won't do anything, and thus they'll get better results. Which is why, if you were keeping track, you'd need a separate table for DX10 vs. DX11 cards.

I have edited the post so that everyone computer will run the same settings and then we can see the benchmark run using DX9 and similar to what we will probs get from FFXIV. Cheers for the advice makes this post a bit more comprehensive for everyone.

[Lazytowner]

Hardware
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
2499MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 8.17.11.9713 1024Mb

Settings
Mode:1920x1200 fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:8x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Replication:disabled Tessellation:disabled

Directx11:
FPS:38.9
Scores:979
Min FPS:20.3
Max FPS:78.2


Directx10:
FPS:39.4
Scores:993
Min FPS:20.5
Max FPS:80.3


Directx9:
FPS:39.6
Scores:996
Min FPS:23.8
Max FPS:83.1


The program's bgm makes it worth sitting through, lol.

EDIT: I ran at 8x -.- but there's the point of view for 1920x1200 res

[Thunderblaze]

I have edited the post so that everyone computer will run the same settings and then we can see the benchmark run using DX9 and similar to what we will probs get from FFXIV. Cheers for the advice makes this post a bit more comprehensive for everyone.

Problem with your settings for a standard = tess/replication disabled on almost every card except dx11, so hard to show those.

[Celeras]

Problem with your settings for a standard = tess/replication disabled on almost every card except dx11, so hard to show those.

Replication will always be off. Tessellation is the standard for DX11. Should be the only difference, and people with DX11 cards can run both on/off for comparison.

[Krandor]

M11x, Alienware's new 11" gaming laptop for the unaware. Had to run at lower res since the display only goes to 1366x768. Definitely wouldn't actually play the game at these settings.

Unigine Heaven Benchmark v2.0

FPS: 20.2
Scores: 509
Min FPS: 9.8
Max FPS: 39.7
Hardware Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Genuine Intel(R) CPU U7300 @ 1.30GHz (Note : OCed to 1.73 Ghz)
CPU flags: 1733MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GT 335M 8.17.11.9716 1024Mb

Settings

Render: direct3d9
Mode: 1366x768 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

[naninani]

Unigine - Heaven Benchmark v2.0

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 (OC - 3.2GHz)
CPU flags: 3178MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 8.712.0.0 2048Mb (Stock Settings due to 10.3 ATI CCC being touchy-feely)

Mode: 1680x1050 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 16x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

DX9
FPS: 59.7
Scores: 1404
Min FPS: 29.4
Max FPS: 128.9

DX10
FPS: 50.4
Scores: 1218
Min FPS: 21.5
Max FPS: 90.9

I think I'm good to go