Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4734690 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:32:23 +0200 Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so2799816vcb.28 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:34:47 -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=52gffAABIcoEsQ7soLK4NppmF9dl2/GAfNo6dej2B24=; b=CWDYflvP+k/o9pMch8Pav0c0XG0BPVFrUS5KFgAcdhDyfxE9CX+/y3/umyPeghSeBH oDZ0DTq8kduSQwBfZh2+tAl3evqC1F4AHmRZaw7LiyjWMOT3SI6tnP1r1H8DrmJFBKTB /D6pvq9TLcdtuysMsfVKPfvWANxZ0KUSK6yZWXsusRvzWC520/rJH4174MjQ3sjK5lC4 Jt9Gt8s9x6L+cqTgclymfNXo7SRKuJN9c8uKLsjwEmThEHiKwsaKlY3q+PEBCZQK2lrc vamMSST0aI1c1qMcSoRVH6RQ8iJnPmqvBSPjy49Pb8lpPIu7C/CkRv1Enhl3+JBEswI/ C2ug== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.174.226 with SMTP id bv2mr11578833vdc.32.1338834887186; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.149.70 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:34:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:34:47 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - SHOCKING RESULTS From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51b17c9dd1a6004c1a9c966 --bcaec51b17c9dd1a6004c1a9c966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 we did a little bit of testing on a raytrace scene with the q4000, GTX285 480 490 580 590 &680 heres a chart with some results so far https://twitter.com/rendernyc/status/208421894792298496/photo/1/large On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Embury wrote: > 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**** >> > > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --bcaec51b17c9dd1a6004c1a9c966 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable we did a little bit of testing on a raytrace scene with the=A0q4000, GTX285= 480 490 580 590 &680

heres a chart with some result= s so far
https://twitter.com/rendernyc/status/208421894792= 298496/photo/1/large


On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM, And= rew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Brooklyn





--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--bcaec51b17c9dd1a6004c1a9c966--