logo
Main

Forums

Downloads

Unreal-Netiquette

Donate for Oldunreal:
Donate

borderline

Links to our wiki:
Wiki

Walkthrough

Links

Tutorials

Unreal Reference

Usermaps

borderline

Contact us:
Submit News
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) 227J_20 Benchmark galore (Read 7910 times)
Skywolf
Betatester
Offline


Just placeholding...

Posts: 829
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2009
227J_20 Benchmark galore
Oct 9th, 2014 at 2:35pm
Print Post  
Introduction
Sinds it seems to be a curse tradition to have somebody asking for DirectX 10/11 renderers atleast every 2 months did I decide to put these renderers to the test to see if these "futuristic" renderers (and I put that in quotes because DX12 is already around the corner) really make a difference in our over 15 year-old game. And sinds I'm benchmarking anyway might I aswell test the other ones while I'm at it.

Smirftsch was so nice to send me a copy of 227J_20 with a (clearly) unfinished version of DirectX 10. So if you also want to enjoy the awesome graphics of the future then you have to ask him. although, at the moment, you won't miss out on much, believe me Wink:

Fog rendering doesn't work correct in DX10. Especially in combination with semi-transparency.

Benchmark setup
For benchmarking I decided to make two maps on top of the one that came with the 227J_20 package. The first one mainly test simple geometry with tons of standard fog while the second one focuses on excessive amounts of particles (although I'm not sure if these differ much from meshes sinds that is pretty much what they are). The one that came with the patch mainly tests on meshes and is by far the most demanding because of this.

All tests are done using the default configuration for each rendered except with any Vsync and framerate limit disabled. I also disabled Anti-aliasing where necessary and set anisotropic filtering to 16 when possible (only D3D didn't have this option which didn't matter as you will see) and I enabled DetailTextures on every renderer. Other settings like FOV and Brightness where left untouched. Shadows where set to Blob and all systems ran the game at a resolution of 1920x1080.

I wrote down the average and lowest FPS. I ignored the maximum FPS because that would be like saying you can run Crysis 3 smoothly at max settings but only when you are looking at the ground Cheesy.

Tested hardware
These are the systems I ran the benchmarks on:

My rusty old laptop:
OS: Windows XP Professional
CPU: Intel Mobile Core Duo T2300E
RAM: 2,5GB
GPU: Nvidia Geforce Go 7400 256MB

My school laptop:
OS: Windows 7 x64 Professional
CPU: Intel i5-3230m @ ~3Ghz
RAM: DDR3L 8GB
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GT740m 2GB

My trusty (but dated) game Pc:
OS: Windows 7 x64 Home Premium
CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ 3.3Ghz
RAM: DDR3 8GB
GPU: Asus Radeon HD 6870 1GB

My dad's Pc:
OS: Windows 7 x64 Home Premium
CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230V2
RAM: DDR3 8GB
GPU MSI Twin Frozr GTX660 3GB

The benchmarks
Alright then, lets get started Cheesy:

Benchmark-sewers.unr (Fog benchmark):

you might notice how the Go 7400 has 0 fps on D3D10. This is simply because that thing doesn't support D3D10. As for the score: Pretty much every decently modern card likes D3D9 the most with OpenGL as a nice alternative option. Interestingy does the 6870 have lower minimun FPS than the weaker GT 740m although this one seems to hate D3D8 quite alot. The Go 7400 is already struggling with getting an average of 60 so that is a good start. But if you look at the chart you will see that this old piece of hardware favors D3D8 over D3D9 even though D3D9 is fully supported. D3D is pretty much useless to benchmark though. I refuses to go above 60fps even with vsync and framerate limiters disabled. Even turning Vsync off using Nvidia Control Panel yields no result. This problem occurs on every chart so just ignore it unless I tell you otherwise Wink. D3D10 doesn't perform bad but there is no reason to use it above D3D9.

Next: particles.

Benchmark-particles.unr (particle benchmark):

And again, D3D10 doesn't quite live up to the hype. It's also good to notice how the 6870 and GTX 660 don't differ that much from each other. It seems that there is another bottleneck at work here. The Go 7400 has trouble choosing between OpenGL and D3D8 while D3D9 is lagging behind again. The 740M and D3D8 are still having problems in their relationship and D3D still doesn't cooperate.

Now lets mesh this up Tongue.

Benchmark.unr (meshes benchmark):

Alright then, It seems OpenGL gets some time to shine Grin. Although only on system with Nvidia hardware Angry. The Go 7400 is still not sure if it will be OpenGL or D3D8 but it doesn't seem alone anymore in this matter as its younger Nvidia brothers (or sisters?) join in this dilemma aswell. The 6870 still likes his D3D9 too much to let it get beaten by any of the other renderers but D3D8 does make a desperate attempt in the minimum FPS department but to no succes. D3D10 still does what it does best: chilling in the middle between D3D9 and D3D8. This is also then only chart where D3D never reached above the 60 FPS (on the Go 7400 ofcourse) so it gives a nice idea how it performs. Which it does pretty badly.

Conclusion
Just use D3D9. Can I go home now?

Ok, to be fair: The D3D10 rendered is not finished so its performance might increase (or decrease Wink) but when it gets down to it, it really doesn't matter. If your hardware is so old it needs more FPS then newer renderers won't help you and it might be better to just use older ones. Modern Pc's with decent hardware should have no problem running the game with the GTX 660 even reaching over 600 FPS on average on a fog filled map using D3D9. Unless Windows 10 drops support for DirectX 9 is there really no point in rushing a new rendered out the door.

It's also good to point out there was another renderer called XopenGL in 227J_20. But I decided to ignore it sinds it is supposed to be in an even LESS finished state than D3D10.

Other stuff
Most renderers look pretty similair but D3D seems to have issues with rendering TrailEmitters on every one of my tested pc's except the one with the Go 7400.


Ofcourse does D3D also has no support for fog on meshes. But that is something already known.

Another thing to notice is that the game seems to speed-up when the FPS goes above something around 150-200. Which causes issues with music playback aswell.


If there are any ideas on how I can improve my benchmarks then please tell me. I also have the idea there are more settings that need to be changed to create a completely fair battlefield.

To Smirftsch: I got it to work by using the DX webinstaller. I think the pc was missing the DirectX SDK files which could explain the error on compiling the FX.
« Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2014 at 3:41pm by Skywolf »  

I hate it when people ask me what my favorite game is. Just try to explain you're not talking about Unreal Tournament Roll Eyes.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smirftsch
Forum Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 7935
Location: at home
Joined: Apr 30th, 1998
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #1 - Oct 9th, 2014 at 2:59pm
Print Post  
wow! +1 for this report. Thank you very much!

For the more uninvolved people:
The major problem with D3D10 (and for new OpenGL alpha) is that the way how Unreal delivers the data is most unusual an unhandy for modern renderers.
I will continue working on the new OpenGL renderer and see what I can do about the fog issue in D3D10 (I think I know already why it does it in my port), but I have no timeline for this yet.
In any case this topic should answer the question about D3D10 usage.
However, on a mid or high end system the FPS should be obviously more than enough to play Smiley - and if anyone prefers the advanced features and effects of D3D10 it's surely an option although I won't make any promises here if it will be included in 227j, I have not much of a clue about D3D10 coding, so debugging it is pain for me and I need to ask Kentie yet as well.
  

Sometimes you have to lose a fight to win the war.
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
Hellkeeper
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Soulless Automaton

Posts: 2815
Location: France
Joined: May 21st, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #2 - Oct 9th, 2014 at 7:03pm
Print Post  
From the look of it, smirftsch, you either took the time to make a benchmark or found someone to make one for you. I'm glad of that, I hope you're not too agnry/dissapointed I gave up.
  

You must construct additional pylons.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Blu3Haz3
Senior Member
****
Offline


Oldunreal member

Posts: 257
Joined: Apr 30th, 2010
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #3 - Oct 9th, 2014 at 7:09pm
Print Post  
I mainly wouldn't ask for d3d10 unless we had an updated shader model which I don't think we're going to get, but I do however want to have bump map\parallax occlusion.  I could see Unreal looking pretty detailed with some textures bumped out... like the ship textures or the rocky walls.  Or even the bricks on skytown\sunspire.  As for d3d10-11 shaders, I guess it doesn't really matter.  I think you guys are right about the performance on this old game.  It most likely wouldn't run well... but my desire was to see Unreal graphically enhanced without having to rely on Epic Games to make an anniversary.  Smalls things can make it go a long way!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Skywolf
Betatester
Offline


Just placeholding...

Posts: 829
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2009
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #4 - Oct 9th, 2014 at 7:46pm
Print Post  
Well, DX9 should be capable of doing bumpmapping but I haven't seen anything about that either. So don't get you hopes up for DX10. Although there exist tools like ENBseries that hooks themselfs to the DirectX renderer and allows new effects to be added to games. I believe there is some version out there that works with Unreal but only bloom and color correction are working at the moment. Still looks pretty neat in combination with a High-res texture packs.

The thing I want the most (that I think is reachable) is better support for meshes. If these would run a little better I would have already made a bunch of jungle-ish maps with tons of vegetation all over the place. Performance really holds back the potential of static-meshes.

Didn't know you where actually looking for people making benchmark maps though. I just did this out of curiosity for the most part Cheesy. The map Smirftsch send me is really nothing special though. Just the Unreal flyby modified by someone who loves vegetation a little too much (although I would love to know where these meshes come from sinds they look really nice). But it does do the job very well so I'm not complaining for one bit.

And forgot to add a download link to the used benchmark maps so here it is (doesn't include the one that came with the 227J patch sinds I'm not sure if Smirftsch is ok with me uploading that): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6l1bpjdaw8cj4ps/Benchmark%20Maps.7z?dl=0

  

I hate it when people ask me what my favorite game is. Just try to explain you're not talking about Unreal Tournament Roll Eyes.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dr.Flay™
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChaosUT-333networks

Posts: 374
Location: Kernow, UK
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #5 - Oct 15th, 2014 at 3:22pm
Print Post  
I showed this thread to a programmer that is used to working at low-level.
His first comment about DX10 pipeline advantages not being accessed in an old engine, has been covered already by Smirftsch.
I pointed out the comment about DX9 also doing bumpmaps, but he said that yes it can, but slower than DX10.

So another rock and hard place.
It does seem though that if bumpmapping was a feature of a map or project, then either renderer may give similar results at that point.

Someone better bloody make use of DX10 if Smirftsch is going to the trouble of making it !
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2014 at 3:44am by Dr.Flay™ »  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Smirftsch
Forum Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 7935
Location: at home
Joined: Apr 30th, 1998
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #6 - Oct 15th, 2014 at 6:23pm
Print Post  
Doc, its: SmirftSch

The problem with Bumpmapping is, that it relies on lighting. For DX10 Kentie used some sort of hack to make it work although Unreal doesn't provide this information (at least not yet in older versions) and doesn't use hardware lights either- which I find a very cool idea how he did it btw. But that's mostly the reason it was never implemented before although already in 224 it was obviously planned.
  

Sometimes you have to lose a fight to win the war.
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
Victor Delacroix
Senior Member
Betatester
****
Offline


Lord of the Dark Glyphs

Posts: 435
Location: Poland
Joined: May 21st, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #7 - Oct 15th, 2014 at 6:37pm
Print Post  
You COULD update your nick to be easier to write without typos... and actually pronounceable in English :-P That would prevent further situations like this... <I'm writing this partially in jest, so take note of that, this isn't dead-serious>

UMS projects will defintely put any visual or audial technical novelty introduced into 227 to extensive use as we're aiming for maximizing the detail as part of our experience.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smirftsch
Forum Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 7935
Location: at home
Joined: Apr 30th, 1998
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #8 - Oct 15th, 2014 at 6:44pm
Print Post  
Victor Delacroix wrote on Oct 15th, 2014 at 6:37pm:
You COULD update your nick to be easier to write without typos... and actually pronounceable in English :-P That would prevent further situations like this... <I'm writing this partially in jest, so take note of that, this isn't dead-serious.

Pfft.
  

Sometimes you have to lose a fight to win the war.
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
Dr.Flay™
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChaosUT-333networks

Posts: 374
Location: Kernow, UK
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #9 - Oct 17th, 2014 at 3:46am
Print Post  
Actually it is "Pfftsch"
OK. fixed it with the appropriate offset Wink
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
V00D00
Full Member
***
Offline


Oldunreal member

Posts: 154
Location: England
Joined: Jan 15th, 2013
Gender: Female
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #10 - Oct 17th, 2014 at 5:43am
Print Post  

Dr.Flay™ wrote on Oct 17th, 2014 at 3:46am:
Actually it is "Pfftsch"

Good one - I like that, very funny! Smiley
  

Everything in moderation, including moderation.....
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smirftsch
Forum Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 7935
Location: at home
Joined: Apr 30th, 1998
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #11 - Oct 17th, 2014 at 6:56am
Print Post  
*sigh*
  

Sometimes you have to lose a fight to win the war.
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
strategy-(DOG)-
Full Member
***
Offline


-(DOG)-clan | Oldunreal
member

Posts: 142
Location: Austria
Joined: Jul 30th, 2012
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #12 - Oct 17th, 2014 at 11:55am
Print Post  
Quote:
Actually it is "Pfftsch"

that made my day!!  Grin *ROFL* very good one Smiley
  
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
Victor Delacroix
Senior Member
Betatester
****
Offline


Lord of the Dark Glyphs

Posts: 435
Location: Poland
Joined: May 21st, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #13 - Oct 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm
Print Post  
Smirftsch wrote on Oct 15th, 2014 at 6:44pm:
Pfftsch.


LOL!

(and yes, this LOL is clickable and shows my reaction)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sn260591
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 111
Location: Russia
Joined: Aug 17th, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: 227J_20 Benchmark galore
Reply #14 - Oct 19th, 2014 at 1:37pm
Print Post  
Skywolf wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 2:35pm:
D3D is pretty much useless to benchmark though. I refuses to go above 60fps even with vsync and framerate limiters disabled. Even turning Vsync off using Nvidia Control Panel yields no result.

In D3DDrv UseVSync option is broken, need set to true for disable vsync.
  

Sorry for my bad English
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo