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 4734712 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:45:02 +0200 Received: by wefh52 with SMTP id h52so3205559wef.28 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:47:28 -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=KxN8S++gy9dG6maRE0XxTaUfdVpEAaYPOpUggYkuKzM=; b=Os56CoH8v7vjcvLl2MICXPy+Il83t6twOQvqFkH/0LDJoFeY4C1ldiL+CAiu+G4C38 Guzhv6FUrwu3NCIckvxH4Mm61AZyohRrxYnG7vCSMLuyK4UDc3bPsyyWDQ9XNi7LInug T91KOfgmyAvd4Zhz+TwyCQn2tkMLAvY3UMDA+SFWHJsBKIIAlTYeWcWn3dPjxrNCUTyA IRmwl4no6ejIpuCaj4l4qjXomtLFnaw7dx92dAGJtL3MlN3q3R3dik2b63t/g7xSnRe/ vtsW4KSE23GkFBSJnrdcVi3KxcTH/CYslb8+QyZxRXBQEr+0qbrouKeSVftf97IPCJlP Ytrg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.202.160 with SMTP id d32mr8769282weo.147.1338835647562; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.215.79 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:47:27 -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=0016e6dab0bc2f85e304c1a9f724 --0016e6dab0bc2f85e304c1a9f724 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Why is the 590 beating everyone else out? Could it be just a software support issue? If that's the case, should I wait for the 680 to catch up or just splurge on the 590? Thanks guys for the time and patience. Cheers. - Andrew On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, rendernyc wrote: > 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 > --0016e6dab0bc2f85e304c1a9f724 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why is the 590 beating everyone else out?

Could it be just a softwar= e support issue?

If that's the case, should I wait for the 680 t= o catch up or just splurge on the 590?

Thanks guys for the time and = patience.

Cheers.

- Andrew


On Mon, J= un 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wro= te:
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 results so far
https://twitter.com/rendernyc/status/20842189= 4792298496/photo/1/large


On Mon, Jun = 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andrew 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 &= amp; Editor
www.t= eddygage.com
Brooklyn





--
danny princz

exposedideas.com

--0016e6dab0bc2f85e304c1a9f724--