OTOY Forums

acc24ex wrote:of course - the heat being another issue - but I think we are talking about performance here - performance wise - no speed gain compared to a cheaper 590 - but a gain in more RAM, less power consumption, less heat..

- anyway I also have a 480GTX, two 580s, and a 590 - this was all in one machine - the 480 was flaming hot - so I am aware of the issue - yup it's a real pain in the ass
- without any additional cooling it reaches over 100C with no problem - resulting with a PC shutdown (you should really be extra careful running a bunch of GPUs on a remote machine like this - I think it should be obvious) - there is (almost) no way you could run 4x590 gtx packed tightly in a closed PC case without extreme cooling - I couldn't even run a single 480 without a fan right on top of it in a closed pc case

- cheaper than getting a Titan

lol, I love it nice job you are dedicated I actually was doing great with 4 GTX580 Classified in this same closed case, no overheating and I was even slightly overclocking. The GTX580 Classified edition is great for heat. And I am in Florida with no air conditioner in this room. The GTX590 is just a hot card http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcVxZgbpts

It sounds like there have been some nice speed increases with 1.12...

Have there been improvements to Kepler performance - to where they
are now faster than Fermi?... specifically, are 680's now faster than 580's?

Thnx bros

17,61 with 2* Titan, 2* 680 cards

3 GTX 690 1 GTX 590
PT 27

680 >= 580?...

Still waiting for someone to tell me if the newer versions (1.11 - 1.13)
have given Keplers a boost - so that 680's are now as fast or faster than
580's...

Please bros - help me out here.. I really want to pounce on a couple cards
on eBay in near future. I either want two 580's or two 680's. If it does not
look like 680's are ever going to be as powerful as 580's, I am going with
580's. I'd prefer 680's (provided that 680 can best a 580) if only for a lower
electric bill...

FrankPooleFloating wrote: 680 >= 580?...

Still waiting for someone to tell me if the newer versions (1.11 - 1.13)
have given Keplers a boost - so that 680's are now as fast or faster than
580's...

Please bros - help me out here.. I really want to pounce on a couple cards
on eBay in near future. I either want two 580's or two 680's. If it does not
look like 680's are ever going to be as powerful as 580's, I am going with
580's. I'd prefer 680's (provided that 680 can best a 580) if only for a lower
electric bill...

Dude. Problem solved. Just buy one Titan card. Faster than two 680s, quieter, and cheaper. Plus more room for upgrades later.

Good luck!
Alec

ASyme1 wrote: Dude. Problem solved. Just buy one Titan card. Faster than two 680s, quieter, and cheaper. Plus more room for upgrades later.

One or more Titans are going in next machine.. not this one.

Anyone else?.. Does anyone have a 680 and a 580 - and can benchmark
each with 1.13?

Titan+560ti

about 9

Just a follow up on the GTX 690 quad results, and a note for those wondering about GPU processing. Benchmark was 31.64 early in the render. Max score was 31.70 a little later in the render it leveled off at 29.9.

All cards are operating at acceptable heat levels at full throttle, highest temp was 95C on one GPU throughout the render. This is in a closed case with default fans and no exotic cooling. The 4 GTX590's (though having a benchmark score of 27) we formerly had were way too hot, and for all practicality were unusable for prolonged use in this same system reaching temps of over 100C before we would shut down the test.

How does this translate to the real world? Total time for this benchmark scene 5:39. When I compare the time this took out of my schedule with one card rendering this scene this was the right choice for us. Arguably a lot of money to spend on cards, but it is a good argument in favor of OctaneRender when you consider the cost comparison in render time. (4 used GTX690 on Ebay avg. price $820.00 ea., you will spend more on having the right Mobo, Power Supply, UPS, PSU, and case.) Before Octane you would spend this amount on the software alone and still need to take a small vacation while rendering a scene of this complexity. Advantage? We did not just make an investment to own the rendering software, we also have the hardware that benefits the entire computer system.

I speak from the perspective of those wanting to get in to this field and may have been turned off not only by the costs but by the time investment. In all honesty I was pretty disappointed after getting C4D and seeing the amount of time it took to render a photo real VR scene and there was no way I had the time to learn the software and wait for the painful render to complete while I experimented with settings. (1 change in a scene with a 2 hour rendering time = 4 changes in a period of 8 hours. Really?) In short my investment was simply impractical and C4D sat on the computer more as a curiosity. OctaneRender now puts it all back in the realm of possibility and with the cloud rendering option coming it puts professional animation into the hands of consumers. I really feel this is the future of industry. I have no affiliation with Otoy, just glad we got in at the right time. (and yes I will stop over-posting here in this topic, we have arrived.) Thanks for a great program!