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 <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 produces 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, 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 <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn

--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn