I’m currently using URP for most of my projects, but recently upgraded one to HDRP.
While I like what I see, I was wondering if there is actually a performance difference with them?
I know URP is better with performance than Standard RP, and I know that HDRP has features which may cause a loss in performance (more complicated shaders, more light options etc).
But, for example, if I have exactly the same scene in both pipelines, and I only use the URP lit shader for the URP version , and I only use the HDRP lit shader for the HDRP version, does the URP still rune better in terms of fps and ms?
OK. So, I just bit the bullet and did a couple of decent tests myself.
I created 2 empty projects, one URP and one HDRP. I imported exactly the same scene created with another software (daz studio). No special shaders used. Just the standard lit ones for each pipeline. No special post processing, just what the default camera has.
Results are in the attachment below.
In example 1, hdrp is 85.1% of urp.
In example 2, hdrp is 82% of urp.
So, it looks like URP is 15-18% more efficient than HDRP.
One of the main reasons I upgraded to URP from standard some time ago was that it increases my game performance from around 18ms to about 15.5ms. Looks like if I upgraded my projects to HDRP, I would loose what I gained there.
you’re a good man
i know that because i’ve been spamming the forum with tons of benchmarks too, it’s the only way
i didn’t expect hdrp to have the same perf as built in
hdrp might turn out faster than urp in scenes with tons of objects that are not onscreen: hdrp has compute culling
If you want to upgrade your performance then you should start with optimizing batches.
From what I have read on this forum, HDRP is slower by default than built in and URP, but scales better the more textures you use with the default material.
What are your results with Static Draw Call Batching turned on in your objects? Mark them as static.
Now, what happens when you turn on GPU instancing in the default shader? This has helped me in the past. You can use the Frame Debugger to check if instancing is actually used.
What do you see? Is HDRP better for you with those things in mind?
I think this comparison doesn’t make any sense. They are there to solve very different problems. It would perhabs make more sense to compare builtin pipeline to URP.
This comparison does make total sense. For some people a thin line can decide between URP and HDRP. In places like reddit you can read lines like “if you want to target desktop, mobiles and consoles, go for URP. If you want to target consoles and desktop mostly you can give HDRP a go”. But those lines a gross generalisations.
Not only that but HDRP is not entirely if you want to target consoles since it doesn’t support the Nintendo Switch. HDRP is basically “I want to make an AAA game in Unity”.
Yes and no. HDRP is currently the only renderer receiving support for AMD’s FSR and NVIDIA’s DLSS. With one of those technologies enabled you can very easily make up the difference and even surpass it without a significant loss in quality.
Below is a link to my first and currently only experiment with DLSS.
Any updated thoughts on this? My testing seems to be more or less in line with the findings above, but I do wonder how well URP will scale once scenes become more complex.
HDRPs extra features are welcome, but in my case not needed. Would it still be worth going HDRP, ex. to get access to DLSS etc?
But really, URP should also be able to support these features, and others, such as TAA and camera-relative rendering.
We should be asking why URP is missing these features and being allowed to fall further and further behind, when it’s the more scaleable, more cross-platform-friendly choice.
Considering they couldn’t even get the post-processing stacks right adding more HDRP features to URP would most likely make URP even less performant than it already is.
Until URP provides a significant advantage over BiRP for all usecases that BiRP targets (that HDRP does not already cover) I don’t think features should be our top concern.
The specific reasoning for doing this is making it easier to pick and choose things on the considerably more scalable URP instead of being forced into using the rather bulky HDRP, especially considering how some of these things are pretty standard features in most 3D renderers, even smaller scale ones.
An optional TAA or upscaling postprocess shouldn’t hurt performance unless you turn it on.
Ideally, the postprocessing system should be a standalone package that works with both render pipelines (and potentially with custom render pipelines too), and this should include any postprocessed AA/upscaling functionality.
Also, let us choose, for example, whether we want ‘HD Bloom’ or ‘Fast Bloom’, not be tied to one or the other based on the render pipeline choice. Better for scalability, better for artistic control.
URP is basicly targeting mobile devices/low end PCs/consoles. HDRP is targeting high end PCs (high fidelity), and the shaders are designed as to those targeted systems. Im not a mobile dev, but i will say HDRP is the worst choice for mobile game for many reasons.
If you dont like URP remember, BuiltIn is the next best choice, and the best “all around” version available, as BuiltIn can scale to both high end and mobile.
HDRP can be a bit faster under full load, lots of lights and post, volumetrics when paired with DLSS, something URP doesn’t really have. Trying to plug the missing stuff HDRP has like clouds and volumetrics with asset store can be punishing on performance as well, particularly as many effects don’t scale well to 4K.
