New GameTech GPU benchmark. Share your results! (STEAM page live now)

[lexluthermiester]

Hi all!

I have created a new benchmark I hope you like and enjoy! I'm quite proud of the result, even if it's still in its beta phase.

GameTech is a benchmark based on Unreal 5 that aims to measure performance and verify stability on today's and tomorrow's modern PCs. Utilizing the most cutting-edge and innovative gaming technology, it leverages Lumen, Nanite, Virtual Textures, Virtual Shadowmaps, Metahumans... to present an environment that is as realistic, demanding, and optimized as possible, while prioritizing visual quality.

View attachment 353829

What's Lumen? A new global illumination system implemented in Unreal Engine 5 that, preferably using Ray Tracing, allows for dynamically and realistically lighting entire scenes, generating diffuse and occlusion shadows. This achieves a quality similar to what was previously obtained by baking the lighting, but instantly, albeit at a much higher cost.

What's Nanite? A new mesh rendering system that allows for displaying meshes with millions of polygons without heavily overloading the scene, though it has a high base cost. The meshes only show the necessary polygons on screen based on the pixel surface they occupy, allowing for "infinite" completely smooth and partial transitions, even along a single mesh.

There are several benchmarking modes:

• Without Ray Tracing (Raster): Will use "Lumen Software" if the PC is not compatible with Ray Tracing, or if the user explicitly selects it. Included simply so that older or less powerful cards (within reasonable limits) can still be accommodated.
• Ray Tracing: Will use "Lumen Hardware." The default standard gaming mode.
• Path Tracing: Offline rendering of the highest quality. Will use a fixed resolution of Full HD so that VRAM size is less of a burden and focuses more on measuring performance itself. Additionally, this standardizes the result for all PCs.

(Very) minimum requirements for Lumen Software:

• Windows OS
• Internet connection
• 16GB RAM
• GPU compatible with SM6 and DirectX12
• GPU with 6GB of VRAM
• GPU equivalent to GTX 1660 (1080p @ 20fps)

Minimum requirements for Lumen Hardware and Path Tracing:

• Windows OS
• Internet connection
• 16GB RAM
• GPU compatible with SM6 and DirectX12
• GPU with 8GB of VRAM
• GPU equivalent to RTX 2060

Recommended requirements for Lumen Hardware and Path Tracing:

• Windows OS
• Internet connection
• 16GB RAM
• GPU compatible with SM6 and DirectX12
• GPU with 10GB of VRAM
• GPU equivalent to RTX 3060

DOWNLOAD :

GameTech benchmark by GameTechBench

The ultimate high-end PC benchmark

gametechbench.itch.io

C&C are welcome! I can't wait to see your results!

This looks interesting. You should consider hosting it on SourceForge or Github, something other than a GoogleDrive account. Also, consider dropping the internet connection requirement. A lot of people prefer benchmarking offline.

 

[AVATARAT]

9700x
7900 XT

2k+RT

 

[miguel1900]

This looks interesting. You should consider hosting it on SourceForge or Github, something other than a GoogleDrive account. Also, consider dropping the internet connection requirement. A lot of people prefer benchmarking offline.

Thank you! Unfortunately I'm not sure if it will be possible, as it will be distributed, probably, through Steam.

You can lock the resolutions to 16:9 format only or make a list taken from the connected monitor.

When I force it into 21:9 4k, I look at it this way.
And that's normal

I think you are just lucky! Probaly it's your monitor doing some kind of magic, simulating the specified resolution, and discarding the "dead" resolution.

For the rest of mortals, if not making tricks, Unreal will fill the screen until it arrives to the horizontal edges, or to the vertical ones (the ones it will reach firstly). The rest, will be filled with black bars. So, in a forced 1920x1080 to 2560x1080, it will maintain the original aspect ratio (16:9, with black bars on top and bottom) in fullscreen in the second resolution stretching it out; so weird!

Fortunately, I think I have created the formula to not deform the image and keep scores equivalent, even between different aspect ratio monitors. Please @AVATARAT , could you (I need to buy one ultrawide, again!) redownload and run it at your native resolution, selecting the 4k bench? It should perform similar to your "faked" 4k 16:9 resolution. Oh, please, take also a screenshot at any moment during the run, so I can see the side black bars.

Thank you very much!!

 

[lexluthermiester]

probably, through Steam.

Oh please don't do that exclusively. Not everyone uses Steam and some people actively avoid it. Not saying not to put it on Steam at all, just not exclusively.

 

[Launcestonian]

Oh please don't do that exclusively. Not everyone uses Steam and some people actively avoid it. Not saying not to put it on Steam at all, just not exclusively.

+1, I dislike BMs linked to steam.

The bench mark will not run on my system, clicking on the application from the extracted files folder does nothing. Even as admin.

 

[AVATARAT]

Fortunately, I think I have created the formula to not deform the image and keep scores equivalent, even between different aspect ratio monitors. Please @AVATARAT , could you (I need to buy one ultrawide, again!) redownload and run it at your native resolution, selecting the 4k bench? It should perform similar to your "faked" 4k 16:9 resolution. Oh, please, take also a screenshot at any moment during the run, so I can see the side black bars.

Thank you very much!!

I am sorry for the late result, here it is:
3840x1620p

 

[miguel1900]

Oh please don't do that exclusively. Not everyone uses Steam and some people actively avoid it. Not saying not to put it on Steam at all, just not exclusively.

+1, I dislike BMs linked to steam.

The bench mark will not run on my system, clicking on the application from the extracted files folder does nothing. Even as admin.

I will try to satisfy your petition! I suppose the same about Epic Games store, right?

About your issue @Launcestonian , it's the first time I have heard about it. It doesn't do anything at all? I don't know how it's possible... Have you tried with other UE5 games experiencing the same issue? Maybe your PC has deleted some of the files after extracting or something, but it has no sense for me.

I am sorry for the late result, here it is:
3840x1620p

Oh, that's absolutely great, it's working like a charm!!

You are getting the same performance VS when you ran it at native 'faked' UHD, but now, approaching your actual resolution and screen space, and image is not deformed, but maintaining the exact appeal!

I only need to fix the final "resolution" shown, as 1634p is the conversion for your aspect ratio, but it's the equivalent to 2160p, and this is what should be shown in the final summary.

Thank you very much!

 

[Launcestonian]

I will try to satisfy your petition! I suppose the same about Epic Games store, right?

About your issue @Launcestonian , it's the first time I have heard about it. It doesn't do anything at all? I don't know how it's possible... Have you tried with other UE5 games experiencing the same issue? Maybe your PC has deleted some of the files after extracting or something, but it has no sense for me.

.....

I don't use Epic game store ever. Do I have to have that installed to run the BM? & what about the itch.io app, do I need that to run it? Don't wanna have useless 3rd party software on my system unless necessary.
I've use UE5 via steam Ezbench benchmark & works fine.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I will try to satisfy your petition! I suppose the same about Epic Games store, right?

You don't have to aim exclusively at stores. Thus the suggestion of Github or SourceForge. However, there are reputable file download sites like our own TPU, MajorGeeks and the like that would likely would be happy to host your files, as long as they're freely downloaded.

 

[miguel1900]

I don't use Epic game store ever. Do I have to have that installed to run the BM? & what about the itch.io app, do I need that to run it? Don't wanna have useless 3rd party software on my system unless necessary.
I've use UE5 via steam Ezbench benchmark & works fine.

Currently, anything else is required to run the game (except internet connection during the start, to check the actual date and time). Just download from Drive -> Uncompress -> Execute.

I don't know why it doesn't work for you. If you want, you can record and show me the steps you are following (showing the properties of the main folder too, to check the filesize is correct and you PC didn't delete anything).

You don't have to aim exclusively at stores. Thus the suggestion of Github or SourceForge. However, there are reputable file download sites like our own TPU, MajorGeeks and the like that would likely would be happy to host your files, as long as they're freely downloaded.

Thank you @lexluthermiester , I will absolutely have this in mind. Right now, there are still 'business' things to be resolved, as possible partnerships. I want this benchmark to be as complete as perfect as I can, so this is becoming quite serious and time demanding, and funds are needed to continue growing so, maybe I will gain some partnerships (are anyone reading an interested partner? Contact me privately) and I could maintain this for free, if enough, but maybe I will need to sell this (or each additional map, as DLC) for a couple of bucks. In that case, it would be distributed through stores only, unfortunately (I also love the world of standalone and free softs). So, internet connection would be required to prevent, at least, easy copy-paste piracy, even if in a (non-invasive) very basic way. Currently, that connection is only used to stablish an expiration date for this beta, so to be disconnected when final release happens.

Other path could be to keep this for free and stop development now, but I don't want it and prefer to keep improving this as much as I can, by adding updates to latest Unreal technology, adding new stunning maps, new features as leaderboards or databases, etc. This pretends to be not only an overclocking/stability test but an enjojable and curated bechmarking tool, with high artistic sense and visuals to serve as top level demonstrations too. For this purpose (being free), I will probably re-release my previous UE4 benchmark, really reliable as an overclocking checker tool, and/or will release a limited version of this UE5 bench.

Of course, and as always, I'm totally open to suggestions and feedback and to C&C. I thought about opening a new thread (not now, but in a near future) to ask you all for advices about this 'business' side, but where could I do it? Anyway, what do you all think?

Thank you very much an apologizes for any inconvenience!

 

[the54thvoid]

@miguel1900 - editing time unlocked.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Nice Work @miguel1900 !!!

Here is my results on 1440p resolution with my RX 6900XT slightly OC and undervolted

1440p RTX/OFF

1440p RTX/ON

 

[Launcestonian]

I manged to get this working... somewhat, but the resolution is downgraded from my monitor's native 3440x1440.

 

[miguel1900]

I manged to get this working... somewhat, but the resolution is downgraded from my monitor's native 3440x1440.

Hi @Launcestonian , thank you!

Is it possible you selected 1440p in the Menu, or left it by default? The resolution of the benchmark seems to be the equivalent, in ultrawide, to the 1440p in 16:9. But it should show "1440p @100% (1089p)" in that summary screenshot, which I think (I can't test it myself) it's fixed in new 0.987, uploaded some days ago, if you want to try.

Why this equivalencies happen? It's by design:

• The camera has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 to be more cinematic and realistic.
• As FHD, QHD, etc, are 'named' based in 16:9 monitors, this means that a 2560x1440p (for example) is really rendering 2560x1089 pixels with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (this are around 2,8 millions pixels) with black bars on top and bottom.
• If you run it in a monitor with a higher aspect ratio than the camera's one, the benchmark will automatically convert the resolution to render the same pixels as an equivalent 16:9 monitor, so a 2.37:1 (for example) monitor will render an image of 2560*1089 + the remaining space at sides, with black bars, which are not rendered. So the resolution is, coincidentally, again, 2560x1089 = 2,8 mill. pixels, and the image preserves it proportions without being deformed. This way, any aspect-ratio-user can directly compare their performance with different ones.

Thanks!

 

[Launcestonian]

Hi @Launcestonian , thank you!

Is it possible you selected 1440p in the Menu, or left it by default? The resolution of the benchmark seems to be the equivalent, in ultrawide, to the 1440p in 16:9. But it should show "1440p @100% (1089p)" in that summary screenshot, which I think (I can't test it myself) it's fixed in new 0.987, uploaded some days ago, if you want to try.

Why this equivalencies happen? It's by design:

• The camera has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 to be more cinematic and realistic.
• As FHD, QHD, etc, are 'named' based in 16:9 monitors, this means that a 2560x1440p (for example) is really rendering 2560x1089 pixels with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (this are around 2,8 millions pixels) with black bars on top and bottom.
• If you run it in a monitor with a higher aspect ratio than the camera's one, the benchmark will automatically convert the resolution to render the same pixels as an equivalent 16:9 monitor, so a 2.37:1 (for example) monitor will render an image of 2560*1089 + the remaining space at sides, with black bars, which are not rendered. So the resolution is, coincidentally, again, 2560x1089 = 2,8 mill. pixels, and the image preserves it proportions without being deformed. This way, any aspect-ratio-user can directly compare their performance with different ones.

Thanks!

Thanks, I leave it all on default. Had to drill down in the BM's directory to get the executable to work. Will give the updated version a try.

 

[miguel1900]

Thanks, I leave it all on default. Had to drill down in the BM's directory to get the executable to work. Will give the updated version a try.

Oh, very interesting! Shouldn't exist that difference between both exe files. I will keep this in mind.

I'm waiting for your new run! Thanks

 

[venturi]

 

[miguel1900]

View attachment 364427

Hi @venturi , thank you for trying! (He is testing a secret MultiGPU capability I integrated a couple of updates ago).

Theoretically, MultiGPU is only available for Offline Path Tracing mode, according to Unreal documentation. So, being that the realtime RT Lumen mode, I see you got the same average FPS than your single-GPU test, but with much more higher minimums, so I don't know if it's due to MultiGPU support or not. Have you run a test in multiGPU and also in singleGPU to directly compare with the same version, same drivers, and definitely, same day and same scenario?

Thank you very much!

 

[venturi]

Hi @venturi , thank you for trying! (He is testing a secret MultiGPU capability I integrated a couple of updates ago).

Theoretically, MultiGPU is only available for Offline Path Tracing mode, according to Unreal documentation. So, being that the realtime RT Lumen mode, I see you got the same average FPS than your single-GPU test, but with much more higher minimums, so I don't know if it's due to MultiGPU support or not. Have you run a test in multiGPU and also in singleGPU to directly compare with the same version, same drivers, and definitely, same day and same scenario?

Thank you very much!

I agree, I’ll send the single path tracing single and the multti gpu path tracing

 

[Launcestonian]

Oh, very interesting! Shouldn't exist that difference between both exe files. I will keep this in mind.

I'm waiting for your new run! Thanks

Here you go, ran with default settings in new version. As you can see only a frame diff in performance, but the lows are higher however system RAM bandwidth has been upped by 200MHz from before.

 

[Kminek]

 

[Launcestonian]

View attachment 364587

Score should be higher for X3D chip, have you got PBO enabled?

 

[ir_cow]

+1, I dislike BMs linked to steam.

The bench mark will not run on my system, clicking on the application from the extracted files folder does nothing. Even as admin.

Your probably missing a .Net runtime. Try installing all of them

 

[Launcestonian]

Your probably missing a .Net runtime. Try installing all of them

Thanks but the new version is running from the executable now without drilling down into the directory.

 

[Kminek]

Score should be higher for X3D chip, have you got PBO enabled?

I have only set -30 in curve optimiser, nothing else.