Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4924307 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:14:21 +0100 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so2189658oag.28 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:18:31 -0800 (PST) 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=Hfx4bE+xyM1xEGW6GigV767+0R8LtKz+k1eRIsbEFMo=; b=hbBWf/F/ombsdSdrY5wSn3cDUygvKoGwVRAGxrRiRQKiamsMEI7wy7/r900KJFRXw3 XoJ9/6SVTpeEsr+fJ8rrBvUvoWLvmyZUlrfSC7JZAs5Ta3oTv4x0Rhz6s2S+8L+0NQTR PpfthFo/csPqxMOdD1WAuEc5KUzQG5/zjtKdQKyknYjR0uEB98mKQ/OeYE7fkXUDUKTV TVyo0H+vJ4d9JHyEVXAeliGY1g+mw3EFwu4Dt0WJXw742TWbS/bn/PEGUmJ1tRy5XmOS gvWN2LIKqus23La/vt+FrQeKO5nfw6sx15s0Jrz+oHlZpjbiVB6cMRtqDuqmk+HPl6NQ NQnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.30.167 with SMTP id t7mr1833851oeh.44.1355411911052; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.240.102 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:18:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:18:30 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c7c67b8cf904d0bd6ddb --e89a8ff1c7c67b8cf904d0bd6ddb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Seems the CUDA performance of the K5000 is much lower than the GTX680 so far on Roberts test. Anyone else have a K5000 that can spare 15-20 minutes to run the test? On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Dave Bittner wrote: > On the issue of lower OpenGL performance from the GTX series of cards, I > did some research, and the conclusion seems to be that NVidia did some > internal bandwidth bottlenecking on the GTX cards to keep them from > competing with the much more expensive Quadro series. As gaming cards, the > GTX series is designed to get images rendered to the screen quickly, but > for OpenGL it is limited in getting those rendered images back to the CPU, > which is what we need for graphics work. The CUDA pipes are wide open, from > what I could find. > > This stuff came up as part of my blog post exploring where the bottlenecks > actually are in GPU accelerated rendering. > > > http://www.pixelworkshop.com/2012/05/02/slot-card-racing-mac-pro-gpu-speed-tests/ > > Dave Bittner - Pixel Workshop Inc. > www.pixelworkshop.com > 410.381.8555 > Twitter @bittner > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 4:44PM, Robert Kjettrup wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Just for fun i tried running my new 16core (32 threads) Z820 through > some of these tests, and comparing it there also seems to be some odd > numbers for your GPU in cineBench. I have the new Quadro K5000 that as far > as i know is a lower clocked version of the GTX680 you have in your > machine, but my OpenGL fps number are much higher. I only got the K5000 > because i have had some bad experience with my former GTX card that just > crashed the OpenGL driver when it was under load for longer periods. Would > have gone with the GTX680 if i trusted the gamer cards more, but "known" > stability was prioritised. > > > > CineBench scores: > > OpenGL 81.45 fps > > CPU 25.07 pts > > > > And running GeekBench (the free 32bit version) i can see that Teddy has > some impressive memory numbers, higher than i get. Is the memory linked to > the CPU clock frequency also? 4.5Ghz is a bit higher than my 3.1Ghz :-D > > > > Integer Processor integer performance 32414 > > Floating Point Processor floating point performance 42123 > > Memory Memory performance 7071 > > Stream Memory bandwidth performance 8585 > > Geekbench score: 28360 > > > > not to show off, but i thought some of you guys would like to see the > numbers of the current top of the line intel xeon > > well, but i also guess that this machine has cost ALOT more than what > you spent on yours. Intel/HP sure know how to price their current highend > stuff :-) > > > > - Robert > > > > > > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8ff1c7c67b8cf904d0bd6ddb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Seems the CUDA performance of the K5000 is much lower than the GTX680 so fa= r on Roberts test.
Anyone else have a K5000 that can spare 15-20 minute= s to run the test?

=A0
<= br>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Dave Bittn= er <dave@pixelworkshop.com> wrote:
On the issue of lower OpenGL performance from the GTX series of cards, I di= d some research, and the conclusion seems to be that NVidia did some intern= al bandwidth bottlenecking on the GTX cards to keep them from competing wit= h the much more expensive Quadro series. As gaming cards, the GTX series is= designed to get images rendered to the screen quickly, but for OpenGL it i= s limited in getting those rendered images back to the CPU, which is what w= e need for graphics work. The CUDA pipes are wide open, from what I could f= ind.

This stuff came up as part of my blog post exploring where the bottlenecks = actually are in GPU accelerated rendering.

http://www.pixelworkshop.com/2012/05/0= 2/slot-card-racing-mac-pro-gpu-speed-tests/

Dave Bittner - Pixel Workshop Inc.
www.pixelworksho= p.com
410.381.8555
Twitter @bittner

On Dec 12, 2012, at 4:44PM, Robert Kjettrup <robert@stvmayday.dk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just for fun i tried running my new 16core (32 threads) Z820 through s= ome of these tests, and comparing it there also seems to be some odd number= s for your GPU in cineBench. I have the new Quadro K5000 that as far as i k= now is a lower clocked version of the GTX680 you have in your machine, but = my OpenGL fps number are much higher. I only got the K5000 because i have h= ad some bad experience with my former GTX card that just crashed the OpenGL= driver when it was under load for longer periods. Would have gone with the= GTX680 if i trusted the gamer cards more, but "known" stability = was prioritised.
>
> CineBench scores:
> OpenGL 81.45 fps
> CPU 25.07 pts
>
> And running GeekBench (the free 32bit version) i can see that Teddy ha= s some impressive memory numbers, higher than i get. Is the memory linked t= o the CPU clock frequency also? 4.5Ghz is a bit higher than my 3.1Ghz :-D >
> Integer =A0 =A0 =A0 Processor integer performance =A0 32414
> Floating Point =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Processor floating point performance =A0= =A042123
> Memory =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Memory performance =A0 =A0 =A07071
> Stream =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Memory bandwidth performance =A0 =A08585
> Geekbench score: 28360
>
> not to show off, but i thought some of you guys would like to see the = numbers of the current top of the line intel xeon
> well, but i also guess that this machine has cost ALOT more than what = you spent on yours. Intel/HP sure know how to price their current highend s= tuff :-)
>
> - Robert
>





+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--e89a8ff1c7c67b8cf904d0bd6ddb--