Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4924400 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:46:47 +0100 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v19so2190887obq.28 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:50:57 -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=Y2XcDWnNIzHl6h3vGmfEs30k85H3pSnlk9T72G5t1ek=; b=pRwv5BgjLx4nv33CeyvYDymUheuTp8nD6u9iSusIBWHwMZeoVEXh6P1oBMfDrpKTM8 4hG4qKSpENgiB4FrcwGaVGOu7qf5RH3c1mpKJea46SHj6SfQc113s8+yeOfqbwAUEqOS vr8kWYMyrrbuH3M5DmvIVR35H62p5TxiwAvuTvd0WBezXgoLIH2ZnAjqtTkXtX7xEwC3 4oaiYaCK1rEs81vVq7Wea4JDa7gNKAnxJLRZFctNlVSRaNbj/HZz/o8JHDhJ4l3ZZhej 8EEC+Eg1dyRQZr7ydd0S9ckVRsfFlEtCqDEcp7YtUYGqoHGS/JeLMWvK9U+la7NRYtOK XYRw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.154.70 with SMTP id vm6mr2103400obb.50.1355417457333; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.240.102 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:50:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:50:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04479f0b1114df04d0beb8d6 --f46d04479f0b1114df04d0beb8d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 you guys have one up there perhaps? :) i would hope its performance is close to careys dual 680 That it only takes 2 slots while some lower end single 6XX cards takes 3 is amazing On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Todd Kopriva wrote: > 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 >>> >>>> 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 > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --f46d04479f0b1114df04d0beb8d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable you guys have one up there perhaps? :)
i would hope its performance is = close to careys dual 680
That it only takes 2 slots while some lo= wer end single 6XX cards takes 3 is amazing


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Todd K= opriva <toddkopriva@gmail.com> wrote:
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&= gt; 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&g= t;



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

exposedideas.com




--
danny princz=

exposedideas.= com


--
--------------------------------
Todd Kopriva
1510 E Alde= r St
Seattle, WA 98122
(206)437-2296
--------------------------------
"Ultimately, all knowledge is self= -knowledge."
=A0=A0 - Bruce Lee



-- danny princz

exposedideas.com<= /a>
--f46d04479f0b1114df04d0beb8d6--