Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)

[bepeg4d]

+1
very good job, thanx t_3
ciao beppe

[t_3]

thanks for all the thanks :)

@Refracty: i don't think there is any solution else then watercooling or getting a more powerful single card (what i did in the end ;)... i had that problem myself; 2 cards within 4 slots, but the heat dissipating form the board of the 2nd card directly to the heat sink of the 1st card was to much to bring it away. even with strong fans blowing directly inbetween the cards (and even without a case) my cards went up to 105°C till they crashed ;)

afaik, the gf100/110 chips have a maximum rating somewhere between 95 und 105°C, but it doesn't feel all to well running them just close to those temps. and you don't know how accurate the temperature sensors are, and if they really show the max. temperature on the die, since there may be some hot spots where even higher temps could arise. so 80-85°C feels like a save range to me (and most comments elsewhere tend to suggest similar), and i haven't had any problems while keeping that range...

[DayVids]

My Dual GTX260's with 216 cores each seem to be pretty decent then, because I'm getting 4.40 Megasamples/sec.

Which I think cost me a total of $230 over the course of a year or so. So not a bad way to go for me till the next line of cards comes out.

THANKS FOR THE CHART!

[t_3]

My Dual GTX260's with 216 cores each seem to be pretty decent then, because I'm getting 4.40 Megasamples/sec.

Which I think cost me a total of $230 over the course of a year or so. So not a bad way to go for me till the next line of cards comes out.

THANKS FOR THE CHART!

sounds amazingly much at first, but after looking at the specs, the 260 seems to have a 448bit ram interface - what is even more than what the new high end cards have. another evidence, that the interface bandwidth is very important for the performance...

ps: looks like the 216 cores of a gtx 260 are as fast as the 384 of a gtx 560, just because of the wider ram interface (nearly doubled) - and at a much lower speed. almost unbelievable

[areyal]

Thanks for the info, super interesting!

I made some tests and I noticed also that memory speed is very important too

[pumeco]

.
Great post, I wish I'd seen something like it before I bought my two GTX460's, but then again, the speed is still totally amazing so I can't grumble

I'm currently looking forward to seeing the CUDA stuff sorted out so that I can dedicate the screen redraw to the motherboard SLI and free-up both GTX460's for Octane Rendering.
Currently the motherboard Hybrid-SLI lies idle.

[illidsch]

Thanks guys - this thread is a BIG help.

One problem that occurs when choosing cuda cards is the bad description concerning the amount of cores.
For example http://www.amazon.de/GigaByte-NVIDIA-Ge ... 83&sr=1-36
After one hour of searching online I couldn´t find any exact definition on the amount of the cores. Seems there is an older GTX 560, a newer model, and a modified GTX 560 TI with 448 cores. But even on the manufactures site there is no clear comparison in terms of cores between this cards possible.

Is there a good reliable side where the cards are compared?


Edit 03.01.2012:
Here I found a nice sum up by nvidia:
http://www.nvidia.de/object/graphics_ca ... ow_de.html
But, for example, this card with 448 cores doesn´t show up nvidias side. Strange, but it seems the nvidia side itself isn´t complete with all models...

[areyal]

Thanks guys - this thread is a BIG help.

One problem that occurs when choosing cuda cards is the bad description concerning the amount of cores.
For example http://www.amazon.de/GigaByte-NVIDIA-Ge ... 83&sr=1-36
After one hour of searching online I couldn´t find any exact definition on the amount of the cores. Seems there is an older GTX 560, a newer model, and a modified GTX 560 TI with 448 cores. But even on the manufactures site there is no clear comparison in terms of cores between this cards possible.

Is there a good reliable side where the cards are compared?

The best is nvidia.com, there you have all the models and spec

[acc24ex]

my setup
590
2x580
480

590 has the same speed as 2x480 not 2x580
that's it
580gtx actually has the fastest gpu of the bunch

two PSUs working close to overkill (950W+750W corsair), had some wild errors but reinstalling drivers usually works (SLI in battlefield eg. produces wild reboots and crashes though so I didn't manage to use them for gaming in full potential)

4 cards side by side > solution to overheating 3 huge case fans and a smaller one pointed strategically all around cards and controlled via manual speedcontrol for reduced noise when not rendering > temps around 80C

you don't really notice the speed improvement until you switch to a single card, than it hits you
it's not likes it's super crazy fast (sometimes it is)

- the technology runs great, only the hardware is expensive that's the whole deal /
oh how we will laugh at all of this in a couple of years time

[areyal]

I've noticed it too. Doubling cards is not very noticeable in the moment, but when comparing how time it takes to obtain a crisp image (with no fireflies), it is noticeable that rendering last half

Yes, i agree, in some time all this cards will be as prehistoric... maybe unbiased rendering in real time...