NenaMark is an independent graphics benchmark made to test the performance of embedded GPU systems. It uses the industry standard OpenGL|ES 2.0 API to push GPUs to their limit in a setup that resembles that of games.
Developed during the spring of 2011 NenaMark2 continues where NenaMark1 left off with more geometry, tougher shaders and more high definition content. A significantly upgraded version of the scene that was used in NenaMark1 was created and tuned until it reached about 20-25 fps on current state-of-the-art devices. It was not optimized for any specific architecture but uses a sensible approach that should work well on all systems.
The NenaMark2 benchmark scene averages about 45k triangles, with a span between 26k and 68k triangles. It averages 96 batches per frame and contains about 15 Mb of texture data (non-packed). A large set of graphical effects were deployed to test different aspects of the GPU's profile:
- Skeletal Animation (Bones Matrix Animation)
- The trees.
- Morph Target Animation (blend vertex sets)
- Sun flowers along house wall.
- Bump Mapping (using normal map)
- Stone walls on house.
- Water (reflections, normal animation, fresnel effect)
- The lake.
- Cloud System(advanced particle system)
- Animated clouds in sky.
- Cube Map Reflections (w/ dynamic cube map generation)
- Windows on house.
- Smoke(advanced particle system)
- Smoke from chimney.
- Shadow Mapping (dynamic shadow mapping)
- Texture Channel Animation
- Sparkling sun.
- Smooth Gradient Animation
- Sky hemisphere.
- Dynamic lighting (per vertex diffuse lighting)
- Entire scene.
- Lens flare
- Lens flare from sun at low altitude.
Other new features in NenaMark2 includes a useful fps meter to monitor a device's change in fps pace over the benchmark run.
NenaMark1 vs NenaMark2
NenaMark1 was designed to run around 10-15 fps on what was state-of-the-art the spring of 2010, meaning the Nexus One / HTC Desire which used the Adreno 200 GPU. It averaged around 10k triangles and had, with a few exceptions, very simple shaders. Light was pre-computed from a static light source.
NenaMark2 on the other hand has dynamic lighting all around and about 5 times as much geometry. Popular effects such as bump mapping, cube map reflections etc have been deployed and all content upgraded to higher resolution.
These are typical values from popular devices, comparing NenaMark1 and NenaMark2.
Note that a benchmark such as NenaMark is fairly irrelevant once it reaches 60 fps, the update frequency of most LCDs. Since several devices are now approaching that limit on NenaMark1 we highly recommend running and comparing the more relevant NenaMark2 instead.