Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)

Generic forum to discuss Octane Render, post ideas and suggest improvements.
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
Post Reply
User avatar
matej
Licensed Customer
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:54 pm
Location: Slovenia

These cores are not comparable 1 : 1 with Fermi family (ie. they won't give you the same performance), so be a bit less excited to avoid bigger disappointment afterwards :)
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
Top
User avatar (Default)
Kevin Sanderson
Licensed Customer
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:34 pm

If it still turns out that even with new drivers that there's no improvement, then at least the older cards will be less expensive!
Top
User avatar (Default)
freelancah
Licensed Customer
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:39 am

Anyone who can tell me weather the double floating point performance is a defining factor when looking how well Octane performs? I'm just wondering because I haven't seen any comparisons to tesla/Quadro cards here and also in this graph that I linked below the GTX 680 64 bit floating point performance looks very bad:


Image
Top
User avatar
pixelrush
Licensed Customer
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:11 pm
Location: Nelson, New Zealand

Octane uses single not double.
Performance is about 50% more with Kepler. ;)
i7-3820 @4.3Ghz | 24gb | Win7pro-64
GTS 250 display + 2 x GTX 780 cuda| driver 331.65
Octane v1.55
Top
User avatar
Welti
Licensed Customer
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:39 pm
Location: Germany

How the HD 7970 is running away in the speed of light :lol:
Core2Quad Q6600 | Gigabyte GTX470SOC | 7GB DDR2-667 RAM | 580W SuperFlower | Asus P5QLD Pro
Top
User avatar
t_3
Posts: 2871
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:37 pm

freelancah wrote:Anyone who can tell me weather the double floating point performance is a defining factor when looking how well Octane performs? I'm just wondering because I haven't seen any comparisons to tesla/Quadro cards here and also in this graph that I linked below the GTX 680 64 bit floating point performance looks very bad:
like pixelrush said, double precision dosn't count for octane. looks like nvida's strategy is a little bit different with kepler to distinct gamer cards from pro cards, because the gk110 chip to be released in q3/q4 might paint a whole different picture (with an again different design).

btw, i did some synthetic cuda benchmarks with the gtx 680 and they look promising: 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
Top
User avatar
mainframefx
Licensed Customer
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:52 pm
Contact:
Contact mainframefx

Kepler only has 8 SIMD units, the GTX 5x0 cards had 16 units the current AMD card have 32 of those. I think it's obvious why Kepler is slower even though it has way more shader units.
i7-3930K@4,8GHz | 64GB RAM | 2x GTX 560 Ti 448 | Windows 7 x64 SP1
i7-3930K@4,2GHz | 32GB RAM | 1x GTX 560 Ti 448 | Windows 7 x64 SP1
i7-2600K@4,4GHz | 16GB RAM | 1x GTX 560 Ti 448| 1x Quadro 2000D | Windows 7 x64 SP1
Top
User avatar
justix
Licensed Customer
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:01 pm

So..I rather double my GTX470 with another one than going to a GTX580 instead...
Win 7 64 | 2 X MSI AERO GtX 1070| Intel I7-6850K| 32 GB DDR4 RAM | Asus X99 II-A
Top
User avatar
glimpse
Licensed Customer
Posts: 3740
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:17 pm
Contact:
Contact glimpse

justix wrote:So..I rather double my GTX470 with another one than going to a GTX580 instead...
Cheaper, slightly faster..but on the othe side less of vRam =) though enough for learning pupose and small scenes.
Top
User avatar
justix
Licensed Customer
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:01 pm

glimpse wrote:
justix wrote:So..I rather double my GTX470 with another one than going to a GTX580 instead...
Cheaper, slightly faster..but on the othe side less of vRam =) though enough for learning pupose and small scenes.
Slightly? I thought I could speed my renders quite a lot as the 448 x 2 = 896 Cuda cores isn't it?
Win 7 64 | 2 X MSI AERO GtX 1070| Intel I7-6850K| 32 GB DDR4 RAM | Asus X99 II-A
Top
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”