Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4734743 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:59:52 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so7952614obb.28 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:02:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=d5pyO5Y8cOZdOJ5PnWnTG97e0Mwt0qh9mkTogb/B92o=; b=REMl0KG9lebq7AgQRwrPLpePSpn7mm+fzV4yoA0TGiFAxbRKX6DmNCg3QSTFs2s1xe trdewdDVAtg5VOm3ve2KQEJWKGDdvi2P+GRjsdV/O51EWH2exiKge4jvL5KLtorC40r6 99bJbXb+IDPdjmpO9VnhteEkrKUbV2VrVLKQXEGwaERDmnAqQoKU8gmLI0rq03QcG3cy PbXcxYXBB/UDAK953QYXFDoP+hXfKfSezBIvyM84z/jVL9Vwl3yXs+X189JXg7uSVKAT /x49MTBpmhSm9C9WJn3Va7kLWmcZbf5tQ7E9Po35TaIX5n89otHFFLZgbUV3OqDSiUVY paPw== Received: by 10.182.46.104 with SMTP id u8mr12890488obm.74.1338836535947; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:02:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.80.167 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:01:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - SHOCKING RESULTS To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044518192330cc04c1aa2cdf --f46d044518192330cc04c1aa2cdf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 oh and additionally, if you download the manufacturer's overclocking suite, you can easily get another 20% render boost on the 580. On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > No, it's because they fundamentally changed the architecture of the gtx > 680, my tests confirmed this on multiple machines. The 680 is much more > power efficient and is optimized for openGL and directX performance, > whereas the 580 has better compute performance even though it has fewer > CUDA cores. I'm not sure of the technical reasons why, but it makes sense > to extrapolate that two of the fastest GPUS (ie the 590) on one card would > be faster than two slower cards (ie the 690). > > I would definitely go for a 3GB 580 or the 6 GB 590 if it's in your price > range. Just about the best card for CUDA that's (well) under $4,000 > > > 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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn > > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --f46d044518192330cc04c1aa2cdf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oh and additionally, if you download the manufacturer's overclocking su= ite, you can easily get another 20% render boost on the 580.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygag= e@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it's because they fundamentally chan= ged the architecture of the gtx 680, my tests confirmed this on multiple ma= chines. The 680 is much more power efficient and is optimized for openGL an= d directX performance, whereas the 580 has better compute performance even = though it has fewer CUDA cores. I'm not sure of the technical reasons w= hy, but it makes sense to extrapolate that two of the fastest GPUS (ie the = 590) on one card would be faster than two slower cards (ie the 690).

I would definitely go for a 3GB 580 or the 6 GB 590 if it's in your= price range. Just about the best card for CUDA that's (well) under $4,= 000


On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
Why is the 590 beating everyone else out?
Could it be just a software support issue?

If that's the ca= se, 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 <rendernyc@gmail.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




--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn




--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn

--f46d044518192330cc04c1aa2cdf--