Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4734643 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:35:47 +0200 Received: by wefh52 with SMTP id h52so3159235wef.28 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pJimXKEV8z0fJisjx8pMr7QQw1UOYUkwFK2gFANoj8M=; b=nwhy9D+93fkRLbGjTmg7tItI9V2Kj+YK322ZTM1gfNQEesa0B33HFdfViwjl3Ur37/ ki9039YabZhW+LIEw4NfzKDK+6VmqgWk9CfiOWxWPpZ6GVKSqVKa/wp+wpzkSJ2yK9Re GbFTMFLnp95ZqiJOaXRk56236FndUi4AQlWp9j1XT8wqGt9HHlZj0c6W83xW1/hRJVzL 8rL/XqaSJCKxgjjI3995WEvmOgC+JphKTHwmyOkN+cjiHuxf+RVkEsvsXcQc/UqYIhos DWgRxwUZBNlZ0EfnePMy8v51LaLozh8K3+Ab/d4dzF6rOz1O/qdeklCztWb+nvxND55o wVBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.194.23 with SMTP id l23mr10981882wen.121.1338831492266; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.215.79 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:38:12 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - SHOCKING RESULTS From: Andrew Embury To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db6c4a82b97804c1a8ff9e --0016e6db6c4a82b97804c1a8ff9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hey Teddy, Anything more to report? I'm looking at building my new PC for the sole purpose of AE/ C4D work and I'm curious to know if you have anything more to report between the GTX 680 and the GTX 580. Thank you ever so much, - Andrew On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote: > I'd be curious to see a test with an animated environment map, since that > will tax the VRAM and the memory bus to the same.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* After Effects Mail List [mailto:AE-List@media-motion.tv] *On > Behalf Of *Teddy Gage > *Sent:* 26May2012 11:50 > *To:* After Effects Mail List > *Subject:* [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - > SHOCKING RESULTS**** > > ** ** > > Well, shocking if you care about this sort of thing. So after some > struggles getting the GTX 680 to work with AE CS6 11.0.1 I finally got it > working. How would the 3 GB VRAM GTX 580, with 500 CUDA cores stack up to > the brand new 2 GB VRAM GTX 680 with 1,500 CUDA cores? > > Would it be worth upgrading if you already owned a 580? Would the extra 1 > GB VRAM make a difference for the older card? > > Well I came up with a benchmark (228K) available HEREthat maxes out the GPU and tests your CUDA processing ability. You will > need about 900 MB local space for the output and the new 11.0.1 patch > (probably). > > Now a lot of figures are at play here but with the project using 100% GPU > and 25% CPU I think it's a decent bench for comparing graphics cards. Here > are the results: > > GTX 680 (2GB) = 6 min. 11 sec to render > GTX 680 (2GB) (overclocked) = 5 min. 52 s > GTX 580 (3GB) = 5 min. 42 s > > So the GTX 580 with 3GB VRAM is faster. Now it's hard to say whether > that's because the architecture is more compute-friendly, or the extra GB > of VRAM makes that much of a difference. > > Considering I got the 580 for about $415 shipped used on eBay, I'd say for > now nobody needs to rush out and buy a 680. It's performance is nearly as > good, and great if you are focusing on games, but not for purely compute / > cuda / mercury in CS6 > > I would love to hear some results on a 4GB 680, a 590 or a 690, let me know > > TG > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn**** > --0016e6db6c4a82b97804c1a8ff9e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Teddy,

Anything more to report? I'm looking at building my n= ew PC for the sole purpose of AE/ C4D work and I'm curious to know if y= ou have anything more to report between the GTX 680 and the GTX 580.

Thank you ever so much,

- Andrew


On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Todd Kopriva <= kopriva@adobe.com> wrote:

I'd be cu= rious to see a test with an animated environment map, since that will tax t= he VRAM and the memory bus to the same.

=A0<= /p>

=A0

From:= After Effects Mail List [mailto:AE-List@media-motion.tv] On Behalf Of= Teddy Gage
Sent: 26May2012 11:50
To: After Effects Mail List
Su= bject: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - S= HOCKING RESULTS

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0 Well, shocking if you care about this s= ort of thing. So after some struggles getting the GTX 680 to work with AE C= S6 11.0.1 I finally got it working. How would the 3 GB VRAM GTX 580, with 5= 00 CUDA cores stack up to the brand new 2 GB VRAM GTX 680 with 1,500 CUDA c= ores?

Would it be worth upgrading if you already owned a 580? Would the extra= 1 GB VRAM make a difference for the older card?

Well I came up with= a benchmark (228K) available HERE that maxes out the GPU and tests your CUDA p= rocessing ability. You will need about 900 MB local space for the output an= d the new 11.0.1 patch (probably).

Now a lot of figures are at play here but with the project using 100% G= PU and 25% CPU I think it's a decent bench for comparing graphics cards= . Here are the results:

GTX 680 (2GB) =3D 6 min. 11 sec to render GTX 680 (2GB) (overclocked) =3D 5 min. 52 s
GTX 580 (3GB) =3D 5 min. 42 = s

So the GTX 580 with 3GB VRAM is faster. Now it's hard to say w= hether that's because the architecture is more compute-friendly, or the= extra GB of VRAM makes that much of a difference.

Considering I got the 580 for about $415 shipped used on eBay, I'd = say for now nobody needs to rush out and buy a 680. It's performance is= nearly as good, and great if you are focusing on games, but not for purely= compute / cuda / mercury in CS6

I would love to hear some results on a 4GB 680, a 590 or a 690, let me = know

TG

--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Br= ooklyn


--0016e6db6c4a82b97804c1a8ff9e--