Return-Path: Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4734736 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:58:22 +0200 Received: by vbbey12 with SMTP id ey12so2808753vbb.28 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:00:47 -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=/VJHvOl4QqXwSZRNEIoObqpVVU0wvdnXvd3pRtZMA8E=; b=JS40PpLscL5mjjBNJOFRLn1CTuPUzpirDKTCGiv4vy3QMgHC6LbaEFG5kX7kIEJF7H bPTqxzAjJbUx9svtb9cZlVNzwOWvzY1mAZLX8EDPBsVhhg8+L3tLyaThRr8Nw1ISv+YB jzL6T8NRuWorMZM0NKnV0liEEK7lbLA03QLU2Eadd6kUjMd7/3bn1GqqspEYlKisA/3a rDCWYJMbCuCXW8k0VoWoFxc2GRhpEjTDSSxD1t+mI21e2WAF78vegglyWOpF4fqu6NeT 4QjN3D10n2W5NOMUOZ/qmfF4jTKwAC4/LUECKi0dhZkARgl4jcFiFh3w0PY7W1R40vXT AAPQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.221.1.82 with SMTP id np18mr13530629vcb.22.1338836446829; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.149.70 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:00:46 -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=bcaec54eeab6d35ad204c1aa2671 --bcaec54eeab6d35ad204c1aa2671 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 the 590 is 2 580s on one card. so it should be way faster than a 580 havent tested any multi card setups yet but am interested in seeing that. i would have thought the 590 would be much faster than it was in this test On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Embury wrote: > 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 >> > > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --bcaec54eeab6d35ad204c1aa2671 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable the 590 is 2 580s on one card. so it should be way faster than a 580
ha= vent tested any multi card setups yet but am interested in seeing that.
i would have thought the 590 would be much faster than it was in thi= s test


On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:47 PM, And= rew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
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<= /font>



On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gm= ail.com> wrote:
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





<= font color=3D"#888888">--
danny princz

exposedideas.com



--
= danny princz

exposedideas.com
--bcaec54eeab6d35ad204c1aa2671--