"It has come to our attention that you may have received an early build of a benchmark based on the upcoming Ubisoft title H.A.W.X. 2. I'm sure you are fully aware that the timing of this benchmark is not coincidental and is an attempt by our competitor to negatively influence your reviews of the AMD Radeon™ HD 6800 series products. We suggest you do not use this benchmark at present as it has known issues with its implementation of DirectX® 11 tessellation and does not serve as a useful indicator of performance for the AMD Radeon™ HD 6800 series. A quick comparison of the performance data in H.A.W.X. 2, with tessellation on, and that of other games/benchmarks will demonstrate how unrepresentative H.A.W.X. 2 performance is of real world performance. AMD has demonstrated to Ubisoft tessellation performance improvements that benefit all GPUs, but the developer has chosen not to implement them in the preview benchmark. For that reason, we are working on a driver-based solution in time for the final release of the game that improves performance without sacrificing image quality. In the meantime we recommend you hold off using the benchmark as it will not provide a useful measure of performance relative to other DirectX® 11 games using tessellation."
Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
>> Unigine might as well be called TesselationMark.
Except that unlike FutureMark, there are actual games being developed on the Unigine platform. At least one of which (http://oilrush-game.com) will be released in about a month.
What's wrong with Unigine?
>> For that reason, we are working on a driver-based solution in time for the final release of the game that improves performance without sacrificing image quality.
I.e. "We're going to make the driver recognize this game, discard the developers code and substitute our own highly-optimized-for-only-our-own-platform code, so that future reviews will be comparing apples and something that looks exceedingly like an apple but won't at all be indicative of the relative power to run the same code."
I can't see Ubisoft discarding ATI/AMD's suggested 'fix' code unless it hurt performance for the Nvidia cards or had some other negative aspect.
Wow. I feel like we are in 2003 again with all the benchmark scandals. Think it is kinda low on both sides to suggest or ask to avoid certain benckmarks to reviewers.
"What's wrong with Unigine?"
Nothing.. There's nothing wrong with 3DMark, either. In both cases, however, it's important to know how they function and what they test. Over at Tech Report, Scott W has a piece on why Unigine's use of tessellation isn't all that great: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18682/10
On modern cards, the one performance factor that makes Unigine run smoothly is tessellation capability. If you want to test tessellation performance by itself, Unigine may be right up your alley. Similarly, games that employ the Unigine engine might turn out to be fantastic benchmarks.
Not really a big deal since HAWX 2 isn't really as graphic heavy and even the 6850 does 70fps avg in the benchmark with tessellation on at 1080p, although the min frames are lower.
AMD is probably poo-pooing this more becaues the 5800 tessellation performance vs the 6800 tessellation performance is next to no improvement on this game, meaning their "smart tessellation" implementation isn't providing enough muscle.
>> There's nothing wrong with 3DMark, either.
I actually would have sided with you even if you said there were: It seems like all the card manufacturers have chided them in the past for doing things in a manner that was unrealistic for a game engine and therefore not so comparable to real games. At least that's how I remember it.
Thanks for the link! I'll have to check that out.