I have 4 workstations that I can put a titan in but not sure about
multiple titans since the power supply supply and the motherboard may
not handle it.
The titan is twice the price of a 770/780, is it better to have 1 titan
or 2x770/780? Sorry if this have been asked before.
On 23/03/2014 1:08 PM, Paul Griswold wrote:
The performance isn't a 1:1 gain, but it's still better to have
multi-GPUs than not since licensing isn't based on the number of GPUs,
but on the number of physical machines. It's much more cost-effective
to put 4 GPUs in a single machine than spend the money on 4 machines
with a single GPU per machine.
-Paul
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Leoung O'Young
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We are interested in Redshift too, just wondering what is the
performance different between having 2 titan in one machine vs 2
machines with 1 titan each?
On 23/03/2014 12:05 AM, Ed Manning wrote:
On the economic advantages of redshift or other gpu renderers.
My current workstations are Mac Pro 3.1s which are left over
from the company I shut down in 2009 (bootcamped into
Windows). Essentially worthless from a CPU standpoint.
Putting a single $1000 titan gpu into one of them makes it
more efficient at rendering than any modern 16-core $8,000
workstation running any CPU ray tracer. Putting 2 titans in
them is like having my old 162-core blade server renderfarm
without the $5000/month electric bill. Not to mention all the
IT overhead and license costs.
I have never seen a single piece of software (in concert with
the astonishing graphics hardware that is now so cheap and
still getting cheaper) have such a cost-reducing impact.
Plus they are fanatically hard workers and great communicators.
