Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4980159 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:35:26 +0100 Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id gb23so4319211vcb.24 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:41:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=L+WPmMGrpF58GipCTksHOaC8yYhq1LRHNYRkM2Bak7M=; b=O4Cb3KwZgBVbVu/vMtnjRIp/FDCH6mdwFrQKXOlRI3r1/eS7krz6lYYe7FqdlWDADH COcz6DM9HCnAdOfSO0MthfbhyVOItvcgPxvxLSo/FpE/hHLcxYHVcKZcG+thzJOKhO1d C7u0UHLzj0Xhn0PbsY/+gO+ors+b/ZdvRZb7jiGkeXARlFVVbBs3ZBNvAU6CGzhOEpTX xZeZGmYCRwg3PNKU+ScRmEiuXhu/E49D6tpJBJobr4b+bB6JLbdv3h7dXaFk/anUi4Oq 8ibsOV9gf+P+YWFnNFXSKBZROx1xiQO8zB9zqS1dE8UXbKplMKYbhQcaVNzDmQCYPyUG qrlA== X-Received: by 10.58.245.200 with SMTP id xq8mr22248128vec.21.1361292104720; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:41:44 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [97.32.82.145] (145.sub-97-32-82.myvzw.com. [97.32.82.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x9sm102185719vel.4.2013.02.19.08.41.42 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:41:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [AE] New Video Board? References: From: Rendernyc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-C8FE6E72-AEEA-45B4-9EDA-5A8595DE0B30 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B145) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:41:38 -0500 To: After Effects Mail List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-C8FE6E72-AEEA-45B4-9EDA-5A8595DE0B30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The 580 is probably closer to 20% than 50% faster CUDA wise than a 680 from w= hat I've seen. It also uses more power. And are getting harder to find. The 6= 90 is nice if you have the budget for multiple cards but it only takes the s= pace of one card and produces much less heat and energy requirements if any d= ual cuda cards On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Teddy Gage wrote: > Similar situation for the 690 vs 680. A lot more expensive for not a whole= lot more bang, unless you are pushing millions of polys in maya / zbrush or= have a gaming addiction (guilty). Its also a pretty big power suck, drawing= around 300 watts i think? it means you need at least a 1000 watt psu. Furth= ermore, while the 680 / 690 do support four monitors, the 3gb gtx 580 (which= only supports two simultaneous) actually has 150% of the CUDA performance o= f the 6xx series, due to nvidia gimping the Cuda processing in favor of quad= ro line. It's also even cheaper, although hard to find.=20 >=20 > On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, Evan Fotis wrote: >> cost effective big time at the moment unless money is no issue at all. >> On 19-Feb-13 16:57, Angie-Taylor wrote: >>> And please remind me, why choose i7 over Xeon? >>=20 >>=20 >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn >=20 --Apple-Mail-C8FE6E72-AEEA-45B4-9EDA-5A8595DE0B30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The 580 is probably closer to 20% than= 50% faster CUDA wise than a 680 from what I've seen. It also uses more powe= r. And are getting harder to find. The 690 is nice if you have the budget fo= r multiple cards but it only takes the space of one card and produces much l= ess heat and energy requirements if any dual cuda cards

On Feb= 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:

=
Similar situation for the 690 vs 680. A lot more expensive for not a wh= ole lot more bang, unless you are pushing millions of polys in maya / zbrush= or have a gaming addiction (guilty). Its also a pretty big power suck, draw= ing around 300 watts i think? it means you need at least a 1000 watt psu.&nb= sp;Furthermore, while the 680 / 690 do support four monitors, the 3gb g= tx 580 (which only supports two simultaneous) actually has 150% of the C= UDA performance of the 6xx series, due to nvidia gimping the Cuda processing= in favor of quadro line. It's also even cheaper, although hard= to find. 

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, Evan Fotis wrote:
cost effective big time at the moment unless money is no issue at a= ll.
On 19-Feb-13 16:57, Angie-Taylor wrote:
And please remind me, why choose i7 over Xeon?


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


--
Animator & E= ditor
= www.teddygage.com=
Brooklyn

= --Apple-Mail-C8FE6E72-AEEA-45B4-9EDA-5A8595DE0B30--