Thinking about buying a GTX 670 for the CUDA cores for 3D Rendering, anyone know much about CUDA? - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Thinking about buying a GTX 670 for the CUDA cores for 3D Rendering, anyone know much about CUDA?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-04-2012, 01:24 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,479
Rep: 113 (Unique: 90)
GTX 670's have 1344 CUDA Cores while my 550 Ti has 192. That's 7 times the amount.

I'd like to know if 7x the CUDA cores would get me 7x the performance rendering scenes with Blender, and if it would be faster per CUDA Core because the 670 is a better card or not.

I game a lot on this computer and I've been doing fine with the 550 Ti but I hooked up my 1050p TV and by that I know I'm going to need a new card for when I get a 1080p monitor. At the moment I'm playing around with Blender and the Render times are pretty long, if I want them to come out nice, I'm using the Cycles Renderer which uses the GPU to render with, and I want to know if upgrading to a card with 7x the CUDA cores will give me around 7x the performance for stuff that uses the CUDA cores.

I'm aware that most games won't benefit from more cores, so I do not believe I will get anywhere near 7x the FPS in games and I do not expect that. I do however expect that games with heavy PhysX will benefit from it though, but there aren't many of those out yet.

Shadow11377 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-04-2012, 02:36 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
McMogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,204
Rep: 56 (Unique: 55)
Nope.
Firstly, the CUDA cores in the 6xx range aren't the same as the CUDA cores in the 5xx range, also the 'Compute' ability of the GPU is a little bit crippled in Kepler. It is better to get a GTX 580 than a 680 for 3D rendering.
McMogg is offline  
post #3 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-05-2012, 12:47 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: WIndy City
Posts: 586
Rep: 45 (Unique: 40)
Like McMogg said, they're not the same CUDA cores. Two different architectures and they can't really be directly compared. Fermi had great compute performance, Kepler does not. Its slower than GTX 500 and AMD 7900 in almost every compute benchmark, other than compute shader programs I believe.
xxmastermindxx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-05-2012, 06:58 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,479
Rep: 113 (Unique: 90)
That's a surprise!
Could this maybe be improved with a driver update or do you think the 500 series will always be better for CUDA stuff?

If you can link me to some of the benchmarks you've seen that'd be nice, I like to know as much as I can before making a purchase.


Edit: I did very little googling before, and I read something about the amount of cuda cores is crippled due to the low VRAM on the cards out now, if I were to get a card with more ram, would that solve it?

Shadow11377 is offline  
post #5 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-05-2012, 07:00 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
kz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: University of Chicago
Posts: 2,187
Rep: 187 (Unique: 176)
If you're serious about 3D rendering, you'll need to go and do a bit of research and tell us what apps you'll be using. In addition, you'll want to be looking at Quadro workstation-class cards for this type of work.



kz26 is offline  
post #6 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-05-2012, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,479
Rep: 113 (Unique: 90)
I'm more serious about the gaming, I've only recently gained an interest in 3D so I'm looking to get good performance for gaming but I'd like to have good render times as well.

I have a spare computer I can use to throw my 550 Ti into and set it up to render as a slave to help once I've fully learned it and want to make some cool stuff, but as it is right now I'm looking for a card that will get me a nice performance increase from this 550 for rendering, and to keep good FPS while gaming when I get my new monitor.


Right now I am using Blender with the Cycles renderer, using my GPU to do the work. My scenes are rendered at low res with few textures as of now and low geometry to cut down on render times, I'd like to work at a faster pace with better models and textures.

I don't see myself moving away from blender because I'm not doing any professional work, nor am I getting payed. I don't have access to a cheap copy of any of the paid software either, so I'm kind of stuck with Blender and liking it.

When I get my monitor upgrade, it will be 1080P or preferably 1920x1200 and I want good performance at that res.

Shadow11377 is offline  
post #7 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-06-2012, 02:29 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
McMogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,204
Rep: 56 (Unique: 55)
Well that screams 'GTX 580!' at me..

Get the 3GB version, (heck, get it second hand and cheap!) and then it will hold its own for that kinda stuff.. the 500 series still has a good computer performance, that's why folders haven't moved to 6xx yet..
McMogg is offline  
post #8 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-06-2012, 10:18 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,479
Rep: 113 (Unique: 90)
I've read a little bit about the gk104 chip, and it appears that it's 1/24 of something while the 500 series fermi is 1/8, and the next line of the 600 series based on the GK110 will have a larger memory interface and be the 1/8 as fermi is, with 33% more CUDA cores.

To me it looks like they rushed into releasing the 680 to compete with AMD and the real kepler has yet to come out.

Can someone help me find some benchmarks comparing the 550 TI and the 580 in rendering tests, not gaming? All I can seem to find is gaming comparisons and although they look nice, it's not helping me :\

Shadow11377 is offline  
post #9 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-07-2012, 01:54 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
McMogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,204
Rep: 56 (Unique: 55)
that:s exactly what they did, they were producing GK104 to be used in the mid range (<660) and then realised it can compete with the 7970, so released it as the GTX680, whilst they were still finishing GK110.

I will try to find you some rendering comparisons asap smile.gif
McMogg is offline  
post #10 of 19 (permalink) Old 06-07-2012, 02:27 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,479
Rep: 113 (Unique: 90)
That'd be great.

I can find benches for games no problem but gpgpu stuff is tricky to find for me, best I found was a general statement with no proof stating pretty much the following: Workstation cards>580>680>570

I'm curious to see some numbers smile.gif


By the way, do you have any clue what AMD is up to in terms of their response to the coming GK110 other than factory overclocking their current cards?

Shadow11377 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off