Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4980260 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:58:17 +0100 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hm14so5164266wib.10 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:04:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/mCgZyRPqklQbbmQ0AQ2Q46+tGibPpmUEUOtPQ/M+mw=; b=VeQAKHohUzGvwSfuGySCdWoiuZ3MkQlLptSu1Nn1JwtEM2kJJgTbiIE65EkVDLW29b P6CrwYVbG74PQrnHlqAwqs+KLH7P/yRk9PjiPeTaJQjw9QV2gN2Y0aT2oKFPcrG9SsHh zEmRRUDOU3J57yb9VbW6C+zEHVMjHgMykQ1Q1Jp1KI45tXt8lZFQRb475Aeb5mBAVuog 0gMTLper4YONaHxkLe63z5gddlgZ5wzt12za+F3axAEmgv415Dc54GdUFLDrRbvuhA5e mtcCbqCpuVF0MhAHqCCbh81PTT1Q5ZozQD13o4LUakPW07zm1WJt/gLinodiL6V3l4W5 WnIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.131 with SMTP id hs3mr22159334wib.18.1361297077241; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:04:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.83.99 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:04:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:04:37 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] New Video Board? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3baee7b907fd04d617ac91 --e89a8f3baee7b907fd04d617ac91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 so far im told *as far as AE* and raytracing goes the Titan should benchmark very similarly to the 690, and the 690 might even have a slight edge, unless u have a scene that really needs the extra memory of the titan On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > 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 > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8f3baee7b907fd04d617ac91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
so far im told as far as AE and=A0raytracing=A0goes= the Titan should benchmark very similarly to the 690, and the 690 might ev= en have a slight edge, unless u have a scene that really needs the extra me= mory of the titan




On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygag= e@gmail.com> wrote:
Depends on overclocking, because the "s= peed boost" of the 6xx series actually limits maximum OC, which isn= 9;t true on the 580, which you can push farther. Anyway I'm dying to se= e 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 th= e 6xx series. Have you had anyone test a k20 on your render benchmarks? Vra= y has a really nice gpu renderer 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 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 prod= uces much less 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 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 & Editorwww.teddygag= e.com
Brooklyn




--
Animator = & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn



--
= danny princz

exposedideas.com --e89a8f3baee7b907fd04d617ac91--