There was a subject on Redshift Forum about having two grapphic cards.
It seems to be possible to keep a quadro for dispaly (as it is
significantly better at displaying), and have a Titan dedicated to
rendering only (in Redshift you select which card is rendering) as they
have a huge amount of cores and faster memory.
I think I've red somewhere that Titan has 2600 cores against 256 for the
Quadro 4000.
After chating with Nicolas the Titan could be around 4 time faster than
the Quadro4000 ...Which is huge :)
Le 27/03/2013 09:26, Tim Leydecker a écrit :
Personally, I´m hesistant to using two or more cards with SLI
because of micro stuttering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_stuttering
If there would be a solution to that, I´d go with two GTX670 w/4GB VRAM,
as they are the same GK104´s with a 915MHz chipspeed instead of a 1006Mhz
chipspeed as in the reference design GTX680. That could save another
15-35%
percent of investment compared to two single chip GTX 680 cards or one
GTX Titan.
Overclocked versions may use slightly different chip/shader speeds.
In any case, as much VRAM as available, as that always helps in many
progamms
like Mudbox, Redshift and isn´t much of an added cost (comparing 2GB
vs 4GB).
At a company I worked Mari 1.5.x behaved bitchy unless it was given a
Quadro
or forced to ignore the actual card´s game heritage. But that may have
been
solved with 2.0...
Cheers,
tim
On 27.03.2013 08:59, Mirko Jankovic wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]>**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 <[email protected]
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 <
[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]
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
