Return-Path: <rendernyc@gmail.com>
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 4747427 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:21:15 +0200
Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so1404044vcb.28
        for <AE-List@media-motion.tv>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:23:59 -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=NdkwzlJoxqAQklLx/5l3JePX04jE2MmW/HbIOr0AV2M=;
        b=Y224kEZ0BRGPNvPaWWd1B+YIF+w27/ALq9jjdfz2dtbD4xVEMQHJMBG7PbTVw2DmlC
         s8nai/dIhggaUfouaqhFkWt/R02CZ9s3xeG671ACn9syA1yeudaM/iPf/12+C+IgSQcf
         LU5a0QPGZF3BzbeNnJknFBz6xkdksuDJ4Sip7wsQNCUhy5RDLPpc7/4nvR+XNapbuYoT
         lpLb0ESIjw8nP0Hm2QL4A5bh8/nhVnJEbxZO01BDhUvtUwrURmcaBiL2FS93hevRhyKU
         epuo5FQzXc7G4yxG1C3/Nuvx3xwBaevKGu3vGVlek4LCGxeQfWuUfCa7+j+4sCH4/C8N
         k2iw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.17.207 with SMTP id q15mr1626387vdd.49.1339712639166; Thu,
 14 Jun 2012 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.149.70 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <list-4725391@media-motion.tv>
References: <list-4725391@media-motion.tv>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:23:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOK1TeVKgHTbp0kmN+SRv+y2T4dCDeaqf5EMS4t3x8DegnJ13A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] Benchmarking AE CUDA on nVidia GTX 580 vs. GTX 680 -
 SHOCKING RESULTS
From: rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com>
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5040a4cf56a8304c27627bc

--bcaec5040a4cf56a8304c27627bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

ran your test on macpro3,1 with GTX 570 2.5GB at 6:47

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:

>      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 HERE<http://www.teddygage.com/AEBENCHCS6/>that 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

--bcaec5040a4cf56a8304c27627bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ran your test on macpro3,1 with GTX 570 2.5GB at 6:47<br><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote">On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Teddy Gage <span dir=3D"ltr">=
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:teddygage@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">teddygage@gmai=
l.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=A0=A0=A0=A0 Well, shocking if you care abou=
t this sort of thing. So after some struggles getting the GTX 680 to work w=
ith 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 1,50=
0 CUDA cores? <br clear=3D"all">


<br>Would it be worth upgrading if you already owned a 580? Would the extra=
 1 GB VRAM make a difference for the older card?<br><br>Well I came up with=
 a benchmark (228K) available <a href=3D"http://www.teddygage.com/AEBENCHCS=
6/" target=3D"_blank">HERE</a> 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).<br>


<br>Now a lot of figures are at play here but with the project using 100% G=
PU and 25% CPU I think it&#39;s a decent bench for comparing graphics cards=
. Here are the results:<br><br>GTX 680 (2GB) =3D 6 min. 11 sec to render<br=
>


GTX 680 (2GB) (overclocked) =3D 5 min. 52 s<br>GTX 580 (3GB) =3D 5 min. 42 =
s<br><br>So the GTX 580 with 3GB VRAM is faster. Now it&#39;s hard to say w=
hether that&#39;s because the architecture is more compute-friendly, or the=
 extra GB of VRAM makes that much of a difference.<br>


<br>Considering I got the 580 for about $415 shipped used on eBay, I&#39;d =
say for now nobody needs to rush out and buy a 680. It&#39;s performance is=
 nearly as good, and great if you are focusing on games, but not for purely=
 compute / cuda / mercury in CS6<br>


<br>I would love to hear some results on a 4GB 680, a 590 or a 690, let me =
know<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br><br>TG<br><br>-- <br=
><span style>Animator &amp; Editor</span><br style><span style><a href=3D"h=
ttp://www.teddygage.com" target=3D"_blank">www.teddygage.com</a></span><br =
style>


<span style>Brooklyn</span><br><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>danny princz<br><br><a href=3D"http://exposedideas.com">exposedideas.com<=
/a><br>

--bcaec5040a4cf56a8304c27627bc--