Return-Path: Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com ([64.18.1.183] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4734777 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:28:44 +0200 Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT80M+/soslsfNAfhKG/eb4FofLoDcEYD@postini.com; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:31:09 PDT Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q54JV6X9024311 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q54JV5Yr025182 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambx09.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.47]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:31:04 -0700 From: Todd Kopriva To: After Effects Mail List Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:29:08 -0700 Subject: RE: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - SHOCKING RESULTS Thread-Topic: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 - SHOCKING RESULTS Thread-Index: Ac1ChG06thYu4v27QjSOD9X1vC40ZQAA+KcC Message-ID: <3087C3EE109D634A82116DB24F8B48450C9DD81D@nambx09.corp.adobe.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Danny, what can you tell us about your test? I'd be curious to see results for two different tests: one with an animated= environment layer and one with a static environment layer. The animated en= vironment layer will tax the bandwidth to the VRAM, which can be the bottle= neck rather than CUDA cores in some real-world uses. ________________________________________ From: After Effects Mail List [AE-List@media-motion.tv] On Behalf Of render= nyc [rendernyc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:00 PM To: After Effects Mail List Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 -= SHOCKING RESULTS 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 o= n 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 4= 80 490 580 590 &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 pur= pose of AE/ C4D work and I'm curious to know if you have anything more to r= eport 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 w= ill 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 - SHO= CKING RESULTS Well, shocking if you care about this sort of thing. So after some str= uggles getting the GTX 680 to work with AE CS6 11.0.1 I finally got it work= ing. How would the 3 GB VRAM GTX 580, with 500 CUDA cores stack up to the b= rand 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 G= B 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 processing abil= ity. 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 a= nd 25% CPU I think it's a decent bench for comparing graphics cards. Here a= re 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 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 g= ood, and great if you are focusing on games, but not for purely compute / c= uda / 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