-
AE CS6 11.0.1 CUDA BENCHMARK PROJECT – test your graphics cards!
-
On my system (see sig below) I get 4min11s. Not too bad for a $300 second hand 590!
/*—————————————————-*/
System: Win7 64bit – i7 920@3.6Ghz, p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb (6x8gb RipjawsX), ATI 7970 3gb, EVGA 590 3GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560×1440, HP 1920×1200 in portrait mode -
-
Using one to three GTX 580 1.5GB cards, all set to 800/2010/1600 core/RAM/shader
(these cards will run at over 900 no problem, but not on this mbd, there isn’t
enough room for proper cooling):3x 580/800: 2 mins 55 secs
2x 580/800: 3 mins 31 secs
1x 580/800: 5 mins 36 secsSystem:
ASUS Maxiumus IV Extreme
i7 2700K @ 5.0GHz
Thermalright Venomous-X with 2x Coolermaster Blademaster fans
32GB DDR3/2133 CL9 (GSkill TridentX 2400 4x8GB kit)
1kW Thermaltake Toughpower PSUCPU-Z: https://valid.canardpc.com/2829919
I’ll test with 4x 580 later, using two other motherboards with different
CPUs: ASUS P9X79 WS + 3930K, and an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer + i7 870.I’ll also be testing with one to four GTX 460s, and retesting with 3x 580
using a different board which will permit better cooling and thus the cores
increased to about 900 or so (Asrock X58 Extreme6 with a XEON X5570).Ian.
SGI Guru
-
You’re insane! Nice results on the 3x gtx 580, that’s the fastest render recorded so far. but I’m surprised to see the gains offered by a third card are pretty modest. Although if it comes to rendering long projects it could be handy, I think 2x GTX 580 SLI is best price point to performance ratio.
-
Teddy Gage writes:
> You’re insane! …In today’s world I’ll take that as a compliment. 😀
These are the four cards I bought btw:
https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=151052818493
https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130916895940
https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200925198261
https://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=171044128930Total cost: 530.40 UKP. Reasonably good value I reckon; a little more
than half the cost of a Titan yet quite a bit quicker even with just
3 cards. Power consumption probably sucks of course (not checked yet),
but then that’s the tradeoff between cheaper multi-old-used vs. fewer
expensive new. However, I only bought these for AE/CUDA research and
general 3D benchmarking, so power consumption doesn’t really matter atm.I also won a 3GB GTX 580 which I’ll be sending to someone to upgrade
the AE system I built for them back in Feb (see this thread).> … Nice results on the 3x gtx 580, …
Thanks!!
> … that’s the fastest render recorded so far. …
It is? I’m surprised. Nobody here with two Titans? That ought to
beat three 580s. Speaking of multiple Titans, have a look at this:https://www.randomcontrol.com/arionbench
Anyone know what kind of systems they’re using which can hold that
many GPUs? Or are they using water cooling so as to only use single
slots? Either way, talk about OTT…> … but I’m surprised to see the gains offered by a third card
> are pretty modest. …Doesn’t surprise me TBH, I’ve seen this effect before. Of course one
shouldn’t expect it to be more than a 3rd better anyway, but just like
going from 2-way to 3-way SLI, the gains are often less due to the extra
overhead processing required. Indeed, for some types of render in AE
(those involving a lot of particles, or scenes that are not so optimally
constructed), it’s possible for one GPU to render faster than 2+ GPUs
(bad GPU thrashing occurs).Games show similar effects – unless the drivers have game-specific
optimisations, often 3-way SLI can be slower or more erratic than 2-way,
and even when 3-way does work ok if one then jumps to 4-way SLI the effect
can be abysmal. Experimenting with the different SLI rendering modes then
becomes necessary, which is a pain. At least rendering in AE doesn’t need
SLI mode to be active. Similar effects plague the use of CF for games.> … Although if it comes to rendering long projects it could be handy, …
That’s true, on a long render the speedup will be significant; useful for
looming deadlines, etc. 8)Since a system can’t really be used while a render is in progress, I
reckon the optimal setup would be one system designed for strong
interactive performance (single Titan or whatever), plus a separate
system with as many powerful GPUs as possible, eg. Asrock X79 Extreme11
with seven water-cooled 1-slot 3GB 580s (or Titans) would be good, but
not cheap. 😀Of course that doesn’t help CPU-limited tasks like Classic3D render.
Stepping up from a well oc’d 3930K is tricky; multi-socket is costly,
while a compatible 8-core XEON for a 1-socket board has a much lower
base clock and thus less oc potential (3930K is probably faster overall).
Hmm, anyone know of a good quad-socket board? I doubt those offer much
in the way of oc’ing functionality though.> … I think 2x GTX 580 SLI is best price point to performance ratio.
Note that SLI mode is not necessary for AE. I tested using two GTX 280s
using a different scene (takes about 5.5 mins), render time was only
0.004% different for SLI vs. no-SLI.Ian.
SGI Guru
-
i7- 4770k
GTX 680 4GBRAM
Crucial SSD
-
That doesn’t sound right – 78s with a single 680?? An earlier
post gave more like 7 mins for one 680 card. 78s is like 2X
faster than a Titan.Can you post more details of your system please? Perhaps a
screenshot from GPU Shark? Or a CPU-Z submission? If you’re
somehow getting magic speed from a 680, I’m sure others would
love to know how.Ian.
SGI Guru
-
… obviously test was conducted through Classic 3D renderer instead of Ray-traced 3D
3930K @4.6GHz
32Gb @ 1866MHz RAM
GTX680……
48s 🙂 -
Check the title of the thread – it’s GPU accelerated results
that people are expecting to be posted here, ie. a CUDA test.
Classic3D uses the main CPU.Ian.
SGI Guru
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up