I got 24:46 on an unsupported GTX 460M, with 1.5 GB VRAM. Much slower than the big cards, but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than CPU. 

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:

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 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