Page 5 of 10
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:31 pm
by matej
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
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:48 pm
by Kevin Sanderson
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!
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:54 am
by freelancah
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:
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:36 am
by pixelrush
Octane uses single not double.
Performance is about 50% more with Kepler.
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:03 am
by Welti
How the HD 7970 is running away in the speed of light
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:39 am
by t_3
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
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:16 pm
by 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.
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:21 pm
by justix
So..I rather double my GTX470 with another one than going to a GTX580 instead...
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:27 pm
by 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.
Re: Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:30 pm
by justix
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?