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 4924357 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:19:57 +0100 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so2292865oag.28 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:24:08 -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=zGSu27d56Fy7Qqz79ok26xTkgob6vCgPW6k9Oz7D19M=; b=0IA1o3GyWsSyBQPk3bIWCsIQfy0LJNdHzjgj8FblZnBxlEZmLcK3rrVMkFuXb9KBNa oTtxnZDN1p0ZCiwnCE9ltUAGCvGn+KWet+PceTq2tffBTs5daf53+IXT0NVGS914DXLT 6i5yh34Iv7HCBgI/VnBxD97OLpq9Q9fpOFfxkabj3pRg6Z1S1hNyYT40gYUQ0BjvEmdC 5dodHIO18zXH8zJgZdeYrcwic3RTL7z0smIkNHYRQPntsGzquqTSN6EjR7cWnrFQ2OxL HEr4fAu3WLqQmz1KgnkecHYczmtay+gmoe287iGysYxNQbrY99YVy+SLT5YZhfdWEDt7 Pw1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.169.171 with SMTP id af11mr1931059oec.92.1355415847835; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.240.102 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:24:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:24:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54d476622191804d0be5889 --bcaec54d476622191804d0be5889 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 heres the chart https://twitter.com/rendernyc/status/279254301510090752/photo/1 On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Robert Kjettrup wrote: > Yes, my K5000 took ~22 min and according to Danny the GTX680 is about > ~15min, so that does tell that the K5000 is a underclocked 680. at least > the openGL performance in Cinebench (and Softimage that i use) is good :-D > > - Robert > > > 2012/12/13 rendernyc > >> 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 >> > > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --bcaec54d476622191804d0be5889 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable heres the chart





On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Robert= Kjettrup <robert@stvmayday.dk> wrote:
Yes, my K5000 took ~22 min and according to Danny the GTX680 is about ~15mi= n, so that does tell that the K5000 is a underclocked 680. at least the ope= nGL performance in Cinebench (and Softimage that i use) is good :-D

- Robert


2012/12/13 rendernyc &= lt;rendernyc@gmail= .com>
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


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
410.3= 81.8555
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>



<= font color=3D"#888888">--
danny princz

exposedideas.com




--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--bcaec54d476622191804d0be5889--