Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4980242 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:42:00 +0100 Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g10so1963852qah.18 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=OIKUdDuTiEyzR2s+9ntR1fqknEyvJELIVtM3Ut3iBM8=; b=eyKxUqyeWoNb/llfumtbMc88BQ+ihwaZVK8znNBQSFQoB67q+dDHJ/gv7vLYZNtWYn 86LHJrpkZ+XxiSvzMbG9DJ05LeqhwqPVLlRVghDhJZzf/kDM+yMLkVJlCcrFZyVE6fCv iFUquBgstmiQduDwLpNTDeIXGKQ6A6GFf4wJX2Cu5QGAOO5kC4PqIOzQm1SKcpNoxy4w HGMHCyjhFZvZrHQw13e8ksIf3a0SDvhN1Te5/HpQDigZLj4ZLv1m5LEUyxaUYtkwi2FL Qa4QD+nLG2azVKFY8KOpLABj+cngOxgTk//CoWZsZhAAxcodAiawK+CXuOb5OQ25rkB/ hwfw== X-Received: by 10.49.96.234 with SMTP id dv10mr7676956qeb.48.1361296098730; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.106.226 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:47:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:47:38 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] New Video Board? To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0464a6621da04d61772fa --047d7bb0464a6621da04d61772fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Depends on overclocking, because the "speed boost" of the 6xx series actually limits maximum OC, which isn't true on the 580, which you can push farther. Anyway I'm dying to see some AE benchmarks on the GTX Titan, it's basically a consumer tesla K20, I hope they didn't gimp the CUDA performance like they did with the 6xx series. Have you had anyone test a k20 on your render benchmarks? Vray has a really nice gpu renderer too. On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Rendernyc wrote: > The 580 is probably closer to 20% than 50% faster CUDA wise than a 680 > from what I've seen. It also uses more power. And are getting harder to > find. The 690 is nice if you have the budget for multiple cards but it only > takes the space of one card and produces much less heat and energy > requirements if any dual 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. Furthermore, while the 680 / 690 do support four monitors, the 3gb gtx > 580 (which only supports two simultaneous) actually has 150% of the CUDA > 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 all. >> 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 >> > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn > > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --047d7bb0464a6621da04d61772fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Depends on overclocking, because the "speed boost" of the 6xx ser= ies actually limits maximum OC, which isn't true on the 580, which you = can push farther. Anyway I'm dying to see some AE benchmarks on the GTX= Titan, it's basically a consumer tesla K20, I hope they didn't gim= p the CUDA performance like they did with the 6xx series. Have you had anyo= ne test a k20 on your render benchmarks? Vray has a really nice gpu rendere= r too.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Rendernyc = <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
The 580 is probably closer to 20% than 50% faster CU= DA wise than a 680 from what I've seen. It also uses more power. And ar= e getting harder to find. The 690 is nice if you have the budget for multip= le cards but it only takes the space of one card and produces much less hea= t 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 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, drawin= g around 300 watts i think? it means you need at least a 1000 watt psu.=A0F= urthermore, while the 680 / 690 do=A0support four monitors, the 3gb gtx 580= (which only supports two simultaneous)=A0actually has 150% of the CUDA per= formance of the 6xx series, due to nvidia gimping the Cuda processing in fa= vor of quadro line. It's also even cheaper, although hard = to find.=A0

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?


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


--
Animator &a= mp; Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn



--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn
--047d7bb0464a6621da04d61772fa--