Return-Path: Received: from mail-ia0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4924396 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:32:07 +0100 Received: by mail-ia0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r4so2109551iaj.28 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:36:17 -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=QzfMdkTiDWzJcPMUfyJLfrckqp0tP406yDhe/hMyH78=; b=tBTmELJxi+rwxGqSEGVc9RUARfNi0KohF/k8LbGx3TIxVcHkx8SS3ESQ488a5K3SpN q/m1a9p2R+DUlDA8QFmSe3vkCZd0uAG6g2fE4ZNgygIhVP82O9Nxp8La4pyomSLQ76b5 oqchMLF8d2RjLNOCmhTiLGaO/KDCR7wdhO2SBTrcU/HSP14Xlkti2ICLhjxToU8Qccws efNvdWYY/xu3OOH6J//+IyFDdgJcZlHADybmHoQH7bXWIO5nRgvJASTa0GJ9DjGPUE55 YSQX1sICrCNH0dnlZCGBYCxeU30jQ412FTk8aB+wqwT1kYWwRgSGkjBHQUQYSZNXPlmQ P8/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.42.169 with SMTP id p9mr2267494igl.17.1355416577762; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.150.69 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:36:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:36:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks From: Todd Kopriva To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93410b9a3e71a04d0be83dd --14dae93410b9a3e71a04d0be83dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It seems that no one has submitted results for the GTX 690 yet. How is that card working for folks? On Thursday, December 13, 2012, rendernyc wrote: > 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 > 'rendernyc@gmail.com');>> >> >>> 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 > -- -------------------------------- Todd Kopriva 1510 E Alder St Seattle, WA 98122 (206)437-2296 -------------------------------- "Ultimately, all knowledge is self-knowledge." - Bruce Lee --14dae93410b9a3e71a04d0be83dd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems that no one has submitted results for the GTX 690 yet. How is that= card working for folks?

On Thursday, December 13, 2012= , rendernyc wrote:
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


--
--------------------------------
Todd Kopriv= a
1510 E Alder St
Seattle, WA 98122
(206)437-2296
-------------= -------------------
"Ultimately, all knowledge is self-knowledge.&q= uot;
=A0=A0 - Bruce Lee
--14dae93410b9a3e71a04d0be83dd--