On the other hand Titan is more expensive than 2 gtx680 if I'm not mistaken... and i bet that with two 680 in SLI, when multi GPU is supported you will have better performance than with 1 titan right?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Tim Leydecker <bauero...@gmx.de> wrote: > The GTX Titan is not a gimmick but uses the successor to the chip series > used in the GTX 680, e.g. the GT(X) 6xx series uses the GK104, while > the GTX Titan uses the GK110. You can find the GK110 in the Tesla K20, too. > > You could describe the GTX690 as a gimmick, as it uses two GK104 on one > card > to maximize performance at the cost of higher powerconsumption, noise and > heat. > > The performance gain between a GTX680 and a GTX Titan is roughly 35% > and can be felt nicely when using it with higher screenresolutions like > 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 and higher antialiasing in games. > > That´s where the 6GB VRAM of the GTX Titan come in handy, too. > > Cheers, > > tim > > > > > > > On 27.03.2013 05:24, Raffaele Fragapane wrote: > >> Benchmarking is more driver tuning than it's videocard performance, and if >> you want to look at number crunching you should look at the most recent >> gens. >> >> The 680 has brought nVIDIA back up top for number crunching (forgetting >> the >> silver editions or gimmicks like the titan), and close enough to bang for >> buck best, but AMD's response to that still has to come. >> >> Ironically, though, the 6xx gen is reported as a crippled, bad performer >> in >> DCC apps, although I can't say I noticed it myself. It sure as hell works >> admirably well in mudbox, mari, cuda work, and I've had no issues in maya >> or soft. I don't really benchmrak or obsess over numbers much though. >> >> When this will obsolesce, I will considering AMD again, probably in a >> couple years. >> >> For GPU rendering though, well, that's something you CAN bench reliably >> with the engine, and AMD might still win the FLOP per dollar run there, so >> it's not to be discounted. >> >> Would be good to know what the redshift guys have to say about it >> themselves though if they can spare the thought and can actually disclose. >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Mirko Jankovic >> <mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>**wrote: >> >> well no idea about pro cards.. really never got financial justification >>> to >>> get one, quadro 4000 in old company didn;t really felt anything much >>> better >>> than gaming cards so... >>> but in gaming segment.. >>> opengl scores in sinebench for example: >>> gtx 580: ~55 >>> 7970: ~90 >>> >>> to start with.... >>> not to mention annoying issue with high segment rotating cube in viewport >>> in SI. >>> 7970 smooth at ~170 fps >>> with gtx580 bfore that.. to point out that the rest of comp is identical >>> only switched card... for the first 30-50sec frame rate was stuck at >>> something like 17 fps... and after that it kinda jump to ~70-80fps... >>> >>> in any case with gaming cards ati vs nvidia there is no doubt. and if you >>> are not using CUDA much then no need to even thing which way to go. >>> Now redshift is game changer heheh but I'm still hoping that OpenCL will >>> be supported and I'm looking forward to test it out with two of 7970 in >>> crossfire :) >>> >>> btw I'm not much into programming waters but is it really >>> OpenCL programming that as I understood should work on ALL cards, is >>> that >>> much more complex than for CUDA which is limited to nvidia only? Wouldn't >>> it be more logical to go with solution that is covering a lot more market >>> than something limited to one manufacturer? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Arvid Björn <arvidbj...@gmail.com >>> >wrote: >>> >>> >>>> My beef with ATI last time I tried FirePro was that it had a hard time >>>> locking into 25fps playback in some apps, as if the refresh rate was >>>> locked >>>> to 30/60. Realtime playback in Softimage would stutter annoyingly IIRC. >>>> Plus it seemed to draw text slightly differently in some apps. >>>> >>>> Nvidia just feels.. comfy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < >>>> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> These days if you hit the right combination of drivers and planet >>>>> alignment they are OK. >>>>> >>>>> Performance wise they have been ahead of nVIDIA for a while in number >>>>> crunching, the main problem is the drivers are still a coin toss >>>>> chance, >>>>> and that OCL isn't anywhere as popular as CUDA. >>>>> >>>>> With win7 or 8 and recent versions of Soft/Maya they can do well. >>>>> >>>>> nVIDIA didn't help with the crippling of the 6xx for professional use, >>>>> and pissing off Linus. They are still ahead by a slight margin, for >>>>> now, >>>>> but I wouldn't discount AMD wholesale anymore. >>>>> >>>>> If the next generation is as disappointing as Kepler is, and AMD gets >>>>> both Linux support AND decent (and properly OSS) drivers out, I'm >>>>> moving >>>>> time come for the next upgrade. For now I recently bought a 680 >>>>> because it >>>>> was kind of mandatory to not go insane with Mari and Mudbox, and >>>>> because I >>>>> like CUDA and I toy with it at home. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Dan Yargici <danyarg...@gmail.com >>>>> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Ati was tested over and over and showing a lot better viewport >>>>>> results >>>>>> in Softimage than nvidia... " >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? I don't remember anyone ever suggesting ATI was anything >>>>>> other >>>>>> than shit! >>>>>> >>>>>> DAN >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
