Hi everyone! I just read what AnandTech published : http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvid ... -review/17 - what stunned me in second graph is low power of GTX680 in SmallLux test! This looks very bad! Could anyone check GTX680 performance in Octane? Thanks in advance.
Seems that Nvidia now not using hardware sheduling and therefore more shader's doesn't necessarily mean more power.
GTX 680 capabilities ???
Forum rules
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit, GeForce 275, Core2Quad, 6 GB Ram
- Kevin Sanderson
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:34 pm
But SmallLux is Open CL. We will have to see CUDA core performance. Maybe it will be good because the fluid simulation performance was very good.
Hmm wow, GTX 680 with 1536 cores
. That’s like having another 580 with my 590. That means if I were to hold out till the 690 comes that means that it will be 3072 cores
. Since that card will be around 700 to 800 $$, if I get two for 1900 or 2000 $$ I will have 6144 cores
at my disposal
In terms of cost that would be 6 x 580s which today would be around 500 x 6 $$, pretty cheap when you think about it like that
(taking out all of the over times at work at such lol)



In terms of cost that would be 6 x 580s which today would be around 500 x 6 $$, pretty cheap when you think about it like that

Win8 Pro 64bit ULT|Intel Core i7 3930K|3.20 GHz|32 GB RAM|GTX 590|UD5 2011 socket||2x TB HD||Master Cooler HAF X||Blender 2.6||Maya 2012||Octane|
GTX 580 cores are different to the GTX 680 cores... They are not as powerful in the new generation but there is more of them... Still awaiting someone to test out octane with cuda performance.... but as the opencl performance shows, the 680 may be a step back in terms of GPU Compute performance compared to the 580
Convergen | Adelaide Australia
Windows 7 x64 | GTX 580 1.5GB | 12GB DDR3 | Core i7 920 @ 3.6ghz
Windows 7 x64 | GTX 580 1.5GB | 12GB DDR3 | Core i7 920 @ 3.6ghz
Seem's that NVidia will try to earn some money on us, differentiating products:
- gaming
- compute (eg. Tesla)
It could have opposite effect for them, if AMD OpenCL implementation will be as fast as it is with 7970 and there will be more shift to OpenCL (as Ivy Bridge and Intel will no doubt go in OpenCL direction), then it may be end bad for NVidia.
In other tests with OpenCL 680 is 3x times slower than 7970: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1881/15/
- gaming
- compute (eg. Tesla)
It could have opposite effect for them, if AMD OpenCL implementation will be as fast as it is with 7970 and there will be more shift to OpenCL (as Ivy Bridge and Intel will no doubt go in OpenCL direction), then it may be end bad for NVidia.
In other tests with OpenCL 680 is 3x times slower than 7970: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1881/15/
Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit, GeForce 275, Core2Quad, 6 GB Ram
They had this "policy" of "differentiating" gamer / pro cards since Fermi, 4xx line.
At least Cycles will fly on AMD cards. Blender users should wait and see where Octane is going, before they rush in stores for Kepler.
At least Cycles will fly on AMD cards. Blender users should wait and see where Octane is going, before they rush in stores for Kepler.

SW: Octane 3.05 | Linux Mint 18.1 64bit | Blender 2.78 HW: EVGA GTX 1070 | i5 2500K | 16GB RAM Drivers: 375.26
cgmo.net
cgmo.net
The most interesting thing is that EVGA makes a GTX 680 FTW 4GB !
It is so far the graphic card with the higher amount of VRAM in GTX series.
It is so far the graphic card with the higher amount of VRAM in GTX series.
French Blender user - CPU : intel Quad QX9650 at 3GHz - 8GB of RAM - Windows 7 Pro 64 bits. Display GPU : GeForce GTX 480 (2 Samsung 2443BW-1920x1600 monitors). External GPUs : two EVGA GTX 580 3GB in a Cubix GPU-Xpander Pro 2. NVidia Driver : 368.22.
... lets read on here, just in case you skipped the public forum 
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... 882#p86882

http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... 882#p86882
„The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply ‟
1x i7 2600K @5.0 (Asrock Z77), 16GB, 2x Asus GTX Titan 6GB @1200/3100/6200
2x i7 2600K @4.5 (P8Z68 -V P), 12GB, 1x EVGA GTX 580 3GB @0900/2200/4400
1x i7 2600K @5.0 (Asrock Z77), 16GB, 2x Asus GTX Titan 6GB @1200/3100/6200
2x i7 2600K @4.5 (P8Z68 -V P), 12GB, 1x EVGA GTX 580 3GB @0900/2200/4400
Sill it will be less than GTX 590? Plus 590 is more capable with FP64. Right?
Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit, GeForce 275, Core2Quad, 6 GB Ram
it looks like it will be better than a 590, but in fp32 only (much worse in fp64, but this seems to be just true for gaming cards). for octane guite sufficient anyway...x3studio wrote:Sill it will be less than GTX 590? Plus 590 is more capable with FP64. Right?
„The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply ‟
1x i7 2600K @5.0 (Asrock Z77), 16GB, 2x Asus GTX Titan 6GB @1200/3100/6200
2x i7 2600K @4.5 (P8Z68 -V P), 12GB, 1x EVGA GTX 580 3GB @0900/2200/4400
1x i7 2600K @5.0 (Asrock Z77), 16GB, 2x Asus GTX Titan 6GB @1200/3100/6200
2x i7 2600K @4.5 (P8Z68 -V P), 12GB, 1x EVGA GTX 580 3GB @0900/2200/4400