Performance comparsion of various GTX cards (including oc)

[smicha]

gtx 580 3GB

[t_3]

gtx 580 3GB

now tested twice: not for me, at least not with the old benchmark scene: 306.23 is about 10% slower for 2.59b and 3.01b - the 3.85ms/s per card were indeed already overclocked, with 301.42 i have 4.2ms/s...

[smicha]

I tested it 3 times - I have 5% speed up (pathtracing).

t_3 - did you overclock your 580's core clock and memory clock to 1000 and 2300 respectively? Under what voltage?

[smicha]

Here are the scores for GTX 580 3GB with 306.23 and 285.62 drivers - about 4.5% speedup.

[t_3]

Here are the scores for GTX 580 3GB with 306.23 and 285.62 drivers - about 4.5% speedup.

ah. up from 285.62 - but what if you try 301.42? if i'm right, this will give you another 3-4%

btw, the cards are the classified ultra versions, with 900mhz stock clock. 1000/2300 was the best i did get with 1.24v. for 24/7 the stock 1.2 still allows 950/2250...

[Jaspi]

for me something doing wrong

[Jaspi]

560ti
driver version 306.23

[t_3]

for me something doing wrong

this is a side effect of the new realtime geometry engine in 3.x. at least for the time being, you can still use 2.59, if you don't need instancing...

[marchermitte]

Strangly, no one seems to have notice the GTX 660 Ti (1344 cores @915mzh) with 3 go RAM for a rather reasonable price... any reason for this?
I have a dual GTX 480 setup and have ben advised not to go for two 660 Ti because It would be slower. (Keppler and fermi beeing different beasts) but after reading through this post It all became very foggy all a sudden...

[smicha]

I posted a form and live scores with performance of our gpus. We lack of 680 and 660 too. But 670 looks really promising especially that the Kelper version is being developed. Please fill out the form if you find couple of minutes.

http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23616