AE CS6 11.0.1 CUDA BENCHMARK PROJECT – test your graphics cards!

[Ian Mapleson]

You’ve already posted the GPU result? I think that just
highlights my point even more. 😀 Posting a Classic3D
time aswell is just going to confuse people. Kinda
meaningless too since it doesn’t result in the same output.

Ian.

SGI Guru

[Andrei Chukin]

… my post was just an illustration to explain such a “fantastic” result by Maurizio Schmidt on Jun 14, 2013 at 11:15:23 am https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019120#1038327

BTW https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019120#1025648 … another “record”.

[Ian Mapleson]

My goof!! Brain not engaged – saw your gfx listed as a 680,
didn’t realise you were a different poster. 😀

Apologies…

Ian.

SGI Guru

[Maurizio Schmidt]

to clarify my results:

raytraced:

classic3d:

is it normal that neither the CPU or the RAM is at its max and still its so slow ?

[Andrei Chukin]

You have uploaded the same screenshot (Ray-traced 3D) twice)))

[Ian Mapleson]

What do you mean slow? Instead of using Classic3D (which
does not produce a comparable result anyway), switch the
processing to CPU-only and see how long it takes – then
you’ll see slow. 😀

Remember this is supposed to be a GPU test. I don’t see
the relevance of discussing Classic3D results.

NOTE: in time, it’s likely your image links will no longer
work. I recommend including text in your post to summarise
the processing times. Don’t rely on image inclusions.

Ian.

SGI Guru

[Paul Roper]

A rather sluggish 10:24 on my Mac Pro:

2x 3.06GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
64GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM

2x Nvidia Quadro 4000 (2GB RAM each).

It’ll be interesting to see if After Effects CC makes any improvement.

– Paul

[Ian Mapleson]

Paul, don’t worry, that’s perfectly normal for a couple of Quadro 4000s.
Testing one Quadro 4000 with my 5GHz 2700K gave 17 mins 53 secs, but this
dropped to only 8 mins 35s with the addition of just one GTX 460. Quadro
cards are much faster than gamer cards for most pro apps (Ensight being
the exception) because of optimised drivers, etc., but they don’t have
that many cores for CUDA.

Ian.

SGI Guru

[Teddy Gage]

Ian, Quadro cards are not faster than consumer gaming cards. In fact many are more or less the exact same hardware as much older gaming cards. I think these benchmarks, being a raw test of computing power, prove this.

What you are paying for in the quadro cards is:

– better drivers
– greater viewport accuracy
– better binned chips. ie. the quadros are tested much more rigorously for faults
– they typically run cooler, have smaller form factors and draw less power
– 24/7 customer support

but they are definitely not “faster”.

IMO the GTX Titan is actually the sweet spot between CUDA performance, viewport accuracy, raw processing power and gaming performance. If you can find one, the GTX 580 is also a great deal. People believe they are faster because they have paid thousands of dollars for the quadro name.

[Ian Mapleson]

Teddy Gage writes:
> Ian, Quadro cards are not faster than consumer gaming cards. …

Nope, that’s wrong. Whether it’s the hw or the drivers,
simple fact is performance for most pro apps is by far
and a way much quicker with a Quadro. Otherwise, care
to explain my Viewperf results?

https://sgidepot.co.uk/misc/viewperf.txt

> In fact many are more or less the exact same hardware
> as much older gaming cards. I think these benchmarks,
> being a raw test of computing power, prove this.

Not necessarily much older, they just have a lot fewer
cores (deliberately so).

> What you are paying for in the quadro cards is:
>
> – better drivers

Exactly, and optimised drivers too, which leads to
better performance for pro apps, because games use functions
which pro apps don’t need at all, and vice versa. The sw
optimisations are criticial. For similar reasons, Quadro
cards are terrible for gaming.

> but they are definitely not “faster”.

My results prove otherwise. I’ve seen this argument rage
so much on different forums, but the numbers don’t lie.

> IMO the GTX Titan is actually the sweet spot between CUDA

Titan is dreadfully overpriced and deliberately crippled,
just like the 780. Both cards could easily be massively
faster than they are, if given a quicker mem bus (512bit),
but NVIDIA won’t do that because they know it would eat into
Tesla sales.

> … If you can find one, the GTX 580 is also a great deal.

See my earlier post, I have four. 😀

> … People believe they are faster because they have
> paid thousands of dollars for the quadro name.

😀

One of my Quadro 600s only cost me 25 UKP. It’s 50% faster
than a GTX 580 for Catia/Lightwave, about the same for Maya,
more than 2X faster for SW, 4X faster for SNX, 5X faster for
ProE (which is CPU-bound anyway), and 14X faster for TCVis.
A quadro 4K leaves the 580 in the dust.

Ensight is the exception. Gamer cards do well for this in
raw performance terms.

Ian.

SGI Guru