Paul Forcier
Forum Replies Created
-
Stable OC 3.6 with a new bios and the 2 GTX 690 got me 3 min 22 sec
-
Not to add confusion but I get great results (real time) from the Matrox Compress HD – its another $500 expense but handy if time is money…they have also fused the function with some of their I/O & monitoring solutions as well…
-
You might even consider another NVidia card with the same cuda compute capability as your existing card to give you a little more oomph for ray tracing in After Effects if you use that…
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
-
3.6 wasn’t stable – moved the OC back to 3.4…all good now.
Turned off 4-way SLI and got 3 min..35 seconds.
-
Hey there – I bumped up my OC using the Blk to 3.6 ghz…
I also added another GTX 690 and engaged 4 way SLI…
My benchmark is now 3 mins and 46 seconds
Cinebench was 18.57 and without SLI for some reason it was 19.48…
-
Hey there, also, as a new Quadro (k4000?) and the old one will have a different compute level, I’m not sure that the new and old card will work together with cuda in the way you my be thinking…
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
-
Hey Ian you nailed it. My CB 11.5 64 bit is:
CPU – 17.13
GPU – 37.27 -
Hi Ian, I’m using the Xeon e5645’s which were less expensive and easily overclocked, unlike the current generation of Xeon which are locked out in that regard.
After the seven stages of grief over the EOL of Final Cut Pro 7 I moved back to a PC from my 1st Gen Mac Pro…to the CS6 suite – I originally was on Premiere Pro before going to Mac several years ago so it wasn’t completely unfamiliar to me.
Anyhoo I did a great deal of research and found the enthusiast EVGA SR-2 board and investigated the overclock capabilities as well as those Xeon chips. Many have had great success overclocking to over 4 Ghz with even better chips of that generation like the 5690, though they were a great deal more expensive.
My system has been very stable with this OC and have had no issues. This effectively has given me 12 Cores at 3.4 Ghz easily and 24 threads with multi-threading.
I am using Kingston non ecc ram 12 X 4 GB for 48 total or 4 gb per CPU core. They are 1600s. I’d have to check to see how fast I have them running with the OC.
There are i7s out there with 6 cores that will provide a higher benchmark on the benchmark test, with a high OC well over 4 ghz,…my 12 core gives me great performance running multiple applications spread across the PLP setup.
I am considering adding another GTX 690 for SLI with some games for my kids (ok, maybe me too, such as Battlefield 3 which responds well with 4 way SLI on the two 690s) and add more cuda at the same compute level for After Effects CS6 in relation to the ray tracing….If I do this I will run the benchmark again and report in….
The short lived EVGA SR-X replaced the SR-2 but, no fault of EVGA, the compatible Xeons could no longer be overclocked. The performance difference in my eyes led me to the older SR-2 which can still be found out there…
Regards – P
-
You may get better performance from the GTX series of cards and take a much lighter hit on the wallet.
May have to check the capacity of the power supply in the Mac Pro and the number of power leads as well.
Do a search through the posts…in terms of After Effects me thinks you ll get more bang for the buck with GTX….
I believe another poster or two mentioned the Quadro would be necessary for higher than 10 bit with a proper monitoring solution though…
-
Thanks for starting this thread I have been very curious about cuda performance.
I got 4 min and 3 sec
EVGA SR-2 Xeon X2 at 2.4 OC to 3.4 with H80 water-cooling
48 Gig ram
480 SSD Boot drive with a 3-way Raid for writing files 600 gig each Velociraptors
2 256 gig ssd raid for a performance cache on a Apricorn Solo X2
1 128 GB for source files (have to do something with that)
1 128 Gb older cache drive
4 TB USB 3 drive for offloading dataGTX 690 Primary driving a 30″ Dell
GTX 670 Secondary driving two 20″ Dells for a PLP setupBoth cards have the same cuda compute level so they appear to both be recognized by AE CS6
