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 4924484 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:56:55 +0100 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so2434062oag.28 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:01:06 -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=znXsRaZq5HeLkkaWWcGpMHpmptsYE0jLGclhi/QRLWk=; b=PhHfTGwaVwouYzOQ4Rh2oL9FdgFxFtQykMmTvYBli4kn4ZhvanM/n0vnf/jViWAqB5 h3tYXG/dgE0vBtfcuMNkOCrzQSa9PSc661jwwFBXO5WMvQlvqIqPrU8GnVMTgef8mBk5 mX8n2O2oFt4KbPCZEDAcGr73CgSKiifw4onAZs1Lee8Ns+4wvVRCq0czyVZWsv7HlklB 26Z0gZgxGPK7Z98rxfcw3mpEa5xVvFJq5+HuCRpDw08gcfeCqjTIvTRD3PMktuh794LS ULPIoqO9P/6d5bmr9kZEQkLzRk1/JUmZodv/1Z4l3aTCbiCy+1VmbD7ZbsNsRf0Cwc3u pqiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.29.66 with SMTP id i2mr2303359oeh.2.1355421665763; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.240.102 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:01:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:01:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff25656e8a1ae04d0bfb2c0 --e89a8ff25656e8a1ae04d0bfb2c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 another 680 came in at 17:34 in a z800 so thats not super far off but a little slower than average On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM, lsslss wrote: > my card did it in 18min 43sec. Not to good then.**** > > I've got a Asus 680 GTX with 4 Gb of ram.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > kind regards,**** > > ** ** > > Marcel van Berk**** > > ** ** > > *Hoge Bomen/LSSLSS* > > info@lsslss.nl**** > > ** ** > > www.lsslss.nl**** > > ** ** > > *Van:* After Effects Mail List [mailto:AE-List@media-motion.tv] *Namens * > rendernyc > *Verzonden:* donderdag 13 december 2012 17:24 > > *Aan:* After Effects Mail List > *Onderwerp:* Re: [AE] 32core benchmarks**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8ff25656e8a1ae04d0bfb2c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable another 680 came in at 17:34 in a z800 so thats not super far off but a lit= tle slower than average


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM, lsslss <info@lsslss.nl> wrote:

my card did it in 18min 43sec. = Not to good then.

I've g= ot a Asus 680 GTX with 4 Gb of ram.

=A0

=A0

kind regards,

=A0

Marcel van Berk=

=A0=

Hoge Bomen/LSSLSS

info@lsslss.nl

=A0<= /p>

www.lsslss.nl<= u>

=A0<= /p>

Van: After Eff= ects Mail List [mailto:AE-List@media-motion.tv] Namens rendernyc
Verzonden: donderdag 13 december 2012 17:24


Aan: After Effects Mail List
Onderwerp: Re: [AE] 3= 2core benchmarks

= =A0

heres the chart

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

= 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 th= e GTX680 is about ~15min, so that does tell that the K5000 is a underclocke= d 680. at least the openGL performance in Cinebench (and Softimage that i u= se) is good :-D


- Robert

=A0

2012/12/13 rendernyc <<= a href=3D"mailto:rendernyc@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">rendernyc@gmail.com= >

Seems the CUDA performance= of the K5000 is much lower than the GTX680 so far on Roberts test.<= u>

Anyone else have a K5000 that can spare 15-20 m= inutes to run the test?

= =A0

=A0

=A0<= u>

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Dav= e Bittner <d= ave@pixelworkshop.com> wrote:

On the issue of lower OpenGL performance from the GT= X 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 c= ards, the GTX series is designed to get images rendered to the screen quick= ly, but for OpenGL it is limited in getting those rendered images back to t= he CPU, which is what we need for graphics work. The CUDA pipes are wide op= en, from what I could find.

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

http://www.pixelworkshop.com/2012/05/02/slot-card-racing-ma= c-pro-gpu-speed-tests/

Dave Bittner - Pixel Workshop Inc.
www.pixelworkshop.com
410.381.8555
Twitter @bittner


On Dec 12, 2= 012, 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 p= ts
>
> And running GeekBench (the free 32bit version) i can see= that Teddy has some impressive memory numbers, higher than i get. Is the m= emory linked to the CPU clock frequency also? 4.5Ghz is a bit higher than m= y 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 =A070= 71
> 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 li= ne intel xeon
> well, but i also guess that this machine has cost ALO= T 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 mess= age to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0

--
danny princz

exposedideas.com<= u>

=A0

<= /div>



<= div>

=A0

--
danny princz

exposedideas.com<= /a>


<= br clear=3D"all">

--
danny princz

exposedideas.com
--e89a8ff25656e8a1ae04d0bfb2c0--