|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|06-24-2012 04:00 PM|
Don't have the money for a workstation card, not going for optimal rendering specs, just the best available to me.
|06-24-2012 12:55 AM|
Nevermind, got it working. Needed to drop a file in place Kernel_sm_30.cubin in 2.63\scripts\addons\cycles\lib
Dual evga GTX 580 UC 3GB = 2min12sec
Single evga GTX 670 SC 4GB=3min30sec
Triple evga GTX 670SC 4GB=1min32sec
Stock clocks for SC 670's were not stable with 3 cards, but were fine with two, was getting red screen buzzing crashes. Stuck a 92mm Scythe fan(I had lying around) on the end of the 3 cards pushing air between them. Resulted in about -5 degrees C and no crashes since.
|06-23-2012 04:13 PM|
|She loved E||From what i understand to optimize rendering, you need a workstation card (Quadro). Even though architectually GeForce and Quadro are similar, drivers for the GeForce cards prohibit GPU compute for rendering tasks.|
|06-23-2012 01:59 PM|
I just ran the blender benchmark from here:
Resulting in a black image in 00:00.27.
Wanted to see how 3 evga 670 SC 4GB stack up to 2 evga 580 UC 3GB. The dual ultra classifieds complete the 3 monkey head render in 02:12.40.
|06-07-2012 09:55 PM|
I do some cuda programming. There are three big differences between the 5xx and 6xx architectures:
1) 5xx shaders run at 2x speed, but there are fewer of them...this is a good for some applications, bad for others, but the 6xx chips use less power
2) the 6xx chips have reduced double-precision arithmetic units. Games do not (for the most part) use doubles, so cutting this for gaming cards again reduces the power consumption and allows other parts to run faster
3) the 6xx has new compute capabilities (look up "cuda compute capability level") mostly around scheduling. This is definitely a good thing, but most software doesn't take advantage of it yet.
I don't know how much Blender depends on double precision, so that may or may not be an issue (if I had to guess, I'd say "not"). For future, the new compute capabilities may make a big difference...there are certainly some nice tricks I'd like to try out.
Sum: you will not get a 7x speed up, but you will probably 2-3x or more.
I'd get the 6-series, though it may take a while for drivers and other software to stabilize.
|06-07-2012 03:07 PM|
Sorry for the double post, but here's the table
specific attention paid to entry 331 and 340.
Same processor (i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, improved build of Blender, yet the 670 is 10 minutes slower at the task.)
|06-07-2012 11:06 AM|
typical of me!
sorry, I'm not on my computer currently (phone browsing), but when I get to it I'll find the link again and post it xD
|06-07-2012 09:44 AM|
|Shadow11377||Looks like you missed the link, still not seeing any benchmark.|
|06-07-2012 05:05 AM|
Here's something right up your street, a 'cycles' benchmark on Blender:
It compares 5xx cards to 6xx cards, and as far as I can see it's more like
and I have no idea as to ATi's plan for the GK110 response, probably the 8xxx series
|06-07-2012 02:27 AM|
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
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?
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|