We don’t make it a point to seek out automated gaming benchmarks, but we do like to get a couple in that anyone reading this can run themselves. Of these, Futuremark’s name leads the pack, as its benchmarks have become synonymous with the activity. Plus, it does help that the company’s benchmarks stress PCs to their limit – and beyond.
While Futuremark’s latest GPU test suite is 3DMark, I’m also including results from 3DMark 11 as it’s still a common choice among benchmarkers.
Given what we’ve seen this entire review, it should come as no surprise that 3DMark highlights EVGA’s card as being a bit faster than the reference model. In some ways, it almost feels pointless to compare the two here, but at least these charts allow you to see how the cards fall into place amongst all of the others I’ve tested in our most up-to-date test suite (the GTX 770 and R9 280 will be added in the next GPU review).
Unigine might not have as established a name as Futuremark, but its products are nothing short of “awesome”. The company’s main focus is its game engine, but a by-product of that is its benchmarks, which are used to both give benchmarkers another great tool to take advantage of, and also to show-off what its engine is capable of. It’s a win-win all-around.
The biggest reason that the company’s “Heaven” benchmark is so relied-upon by benchmarkers is that both AMD and NVIDIA promote it for its heavy use of tessellation. Like 3DMark, the benchmark here is overkill by design, so results are not going to directly correlate with real gameplay. Rather, they showcase which card models can better handle both DX11 and its GPU-bogging features.
Cheers, Unigine, for backing up the fact that EVGA’s card is a bit faster than reference, and much faster than the 750 Ti.