+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102

Thread: Any news on Kepler rendering yet?

  1. #11
    Andy,
    LOL (I am the boss, which makes justifications all but useless)...but thanks!
    Yes I render in CPU only mode (12 Core x 2.44GHz + 16GB Ram) so I tend to time-limit my renders to around 15 minutes.
    It would certainly not be a stretch to conservatively (I hate that word) imagine that 1 minute's time could deliver the same or better render quality.
    And your point about real-time is stunningly important.
    I do believe that my CAD vendor is skewed towards the "Pro" (Quadro) versions, but I will look deeper into that issue, as I would dearly like to be blown away with 2 GTX680s!
    Thanks!
    Walter

  2. #12
    Senior Member andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    781
    Lucky! Being the boss is the Best. And looking at those numbers, you Will be asking yourself, "Why didn't I have this before?"

    If you are using proE with some sort of Mech module or something, then it requires the Quadro cards.

    You could probably just pick up a $200 card over at a big box store (so you can return it for only wasting $20) and see how your CAD software runs. At my last job I secretly through in a gaming card and it ran everything just fine other than one little overlay issue on occasion. The CAD vendors will Always tell you to get the Quadro cards. I've never talked to anyone at Autodesk that didn't run a Quadro or Fire workstation. That doesn't mean they don't work just as good at what you use it for. There's usually some obscure thing that they work better on. It use to be much larger of a gap. Maya, for example, ran an overlay feature that only the quadros had. So brushes and pointers that worked on the 3D object would flicker if you didn't have a quadro. To Alias, that meant that it didn't work. For us students, that meant that it flickered. lol

    I haven't seen problems like that in quite some time with the entertainment stuff and I have to take our engineers word for it when they say they need the quadro cards.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Aselert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    447
    David, the GTX680 is only 30% faster than a 580?
    That disappoints me a little ... In gross figures, although the procedure in the 680 chip is different and slower than in the 580 chip, the number of core cuda is 3x higher, their frequency is nearly 1.5 x more elevated and finally in pure computing speed (Tflops), it's doubled!

    How can we explain such a difference?

    I think I will keep my Triple GTX580 3Gb during a little while... Or wait fo a GTX690 8Gb, or GTX 780 (???) with the GK110

  4. #14
    Administrator david.randle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Yes, this can easily be explained....the 680 uses the "small" kepler chip, where the 580 used the "large" fermi chip. So, techinically, comparing a 680 to a 580 isn't fair as they arn't apples to apples. Also, you cannot compare a Fermi CUDA core linearly to a Kepler CUDA core. Frequency and counts are higher with Fermi, but power consumption is waaaaay less with Kepler so the end performance isn't the same. Power per watt is waaaaay up though. Again, to compare apples to apples, we will have to wait until the "large" Kepler chip is released.

    Its really quite amazing actually that a Kepler small chip is already faster than the fermi big chip though. That is a good indication for when the big chip comes out...
    David Randle / General Manager / Bunkspeed

  5. #15
    Senior Member andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    781
    I wonder if you can get away with putting 4 Kepler cards in 1 computer with less power and less concern for heat then?

    And Dave, I still didn't see anything about the 680's 4GB being split up. Were you referring to the 690? Because it looks like there is a 4GB version of the 680 for an extra bill, which would Definitely be worth the Franklin.

  6. #16
    Administrator david.randle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Andy - There are rumors that a 4GB of dedicated memory 680 is available or will be very soon. The 690 has always shipped with 4GB but its not dedicated. It is 2GB per GPU for a total of 4.

    Make sense?
    David Randle / General Manager / Bunkspeed

  7. #17
    Senior Member andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    781
    NewEgg compare (hopefully that link doesn't expire)

    Other than that last one being out of stock, I'd say that takes it well past rumor. Those have actually been on their site for a little while now. Of course, they might only Appear in stock, but newegg is usually pretty good about that.
    But it also looks like there is a 4GB 670 if you are looking to save a bill, or if you need a slightly shorter card. I left of the Galaxy cards. I use evga cards or pny cards. I've had best luck with the evga ones. Actually, come to think of it, the only cards I've ever had fail are the PNY Quadro cards, which are suppose to be more durable. Support was good though, and they took care of it without questions of warranty.

    Those are definitely the ones I'd aim for. My choice would probably be the slowest 680. I know it seems odd to choose the slowest, but you won't really get That much extra performance gain by only a few Mhz, but you might get noticeably more heat output. All of these cards hover right around 1Ghz though, and that's significantly faster than my 600Mhz.

    I'm pretty excited to see some actual benchmarks with these in comparison to the current Quadro/Tesla cards, and with the GTX 580. It's pretty easy to show everyone why you want to spend something like $1300, or so, if I can put your render machine's cards into upgrading 1 or 2 other computers, then upgrade that to make the renders significantly faster. But it's nice to know How significant that might be. 30% is pretty good. 10% would be getting a bit weak.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Aselert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    447
    Thank you for the clarification David. Indeed we have to compare what is comparable.
    I thought that by comparing the raw numbers we could get an idea of ​​performance, but this is not the case if the technology, as you said, is not the same.
    There are currently GTX 680s with 4Gb, as the Zotac, EVGA, Gainward or Galaxy.

    On temperature and consumption Andy, I'm not sure it is a very big problem with Kepler slightly overclocked because techno is thinner and more efficient. And for the "calculation" of the onboard memory is very simple: simply divide the total memory by the number of graphics chips: 1 or 2

    Currently the Asus Mars III would be the most powerful with 2xGTX680 overclocked (or a GTX 690 overclocked) and 8Gb of memory (2x4GB actually) but it is an limited edition and expensive. Although compared with a Tesla ...

    In all cases, the mere fact that Bunkspeed 2012.5 can accept technology Kepler is good news!

  9. #19
    Senior Member artem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    259
    Just to pitch in my 2cents,

    I have a GTX 580 card in a custom built computer and I am able to run Solidworks just fine. The occlusion in SW "only" works with workstation cards but a small registry tweak took care of that.

    Thanks!
    Artem.

  10. #20
    Senior Member andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    781
    My thoughts on temperature still apply. These new cards don't run as hot, and are more power efficient, but they also set the clock speed almost twice as fast. Running a clock faster than it was designed for without the proper upgrades in cooling is not a good idea, especially if you run more than one card. Overclocking Usually runs a processor to it's max. Adding another card adds more environmental heat, so now you might be running Past the "max" tested temperature.
    That may not be the case, but I wouldn't recommend the risk for such a small increase in speed and an added cost.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts