The TITAN is not a gimmick with respect to Redshift. It's almost twice as fast as a GTX 670 on all the tests we've run. We don't have a GTX 680 so I don't have the numbers to compare against. Pricing wise, there TITAN costs $1K and the 680 4GB is $550 so the 680 wins for price/performance ratio (but probably not by a whole lot). For performance/watt, the TITAN wins by a lot.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Don't call it a gimmick then (although it is with all the fashion and hype > elements around it), call it a singularity, but if you're looking at > benching and sorting videocards for performance and bang for buck you > should exclude it. Unless you also want to include that massive liquid > cooled asus radeon that is sold in a military grade carrying case and other > things like that :) > > I've tried it btw as a friend's shop had a review return they kindly lent > me for a week (they work closely with GB since one of the partners is an ex > employee and another moonlights reviewing hardware). > It was hardly a noticeable improvement over the GB OC 680 4GB I had (and > still have) in there. > > The practical performance gains are far, far inferior to 35%. Only the > added ram is nice, but nothing justifies a price tag that is more than > doubled compared to the 680. It's a gimmick because you need a serious > hardware fetish to justify forking out 1250-1400$ out for it compared to a > benched OC 680 with 4GB that you can have for 550$ and have chances to > trivially overclock and narrow the gap again. > > I run a dell 2711 and an additional 1980x1200 monitor with it btw. > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Tim Leydecker <bauero...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> The GTX Titan is not a gimmick but uses the successor to the chip series >> used in the GTX 680, e.g. the GT(X) 6xx series uses the GK104, while >> the GTX Titan uses the GK110. You can find the GK110 in the Tesla K20, >> too. >> >> You could describe the GTX690 as a gimmick, as it uses two GK104 on one >> card >> to maximize performance at the cost of higher powerconsumption, noise and >> heat. >> >> The performance gain between a GTX680 and a GTX Titan is roughly 35% >> and can be felt nicely when using it with higher screenresolutions like >> 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 and higher antialiasing in games. >> >> That´s where the 6GB VRAM of the GTX Titan come in handy, too. >> >> Cheers, >> >> tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 27.03.2013 05:24, Raffaele Fragapane wrote: >> >>> Benchmarking is more driver tuning than it's videocard performance, and >>> if >>> you want to look at number crunching you should look at the most recent >>> gens. >>> >>> The 680 has brought nVIDIA back up top for number crunching (forgetting >>> the >>> silver editions or gimmicks like the titan), and close enough to bang for >>> buck best, but AMD's response to that still has to come. >>> >>> Ironically, though, the 6xx gen is reported as a crippled, bad performer >>> in >>> DCC apps, although I can't say I noticed it myself. It sure as hell works >>> admirably well in mudbox, mari, cuda work, and I've had no issues in maya >>> or soft. I don't really benchmrak or obsess over numbers much though. >>> >>> When this will obsolesce, I will considering AMD again, probably in a >>> couple years. >>> >>> For GPU rendering though, well, that's something you CAN bench reliably >>> with the engine, and AMD might still win the FLOP per dollar run there, >>> so >>> it's not to be discounted. >>> >>> Would be good to know what the redshift guys have to say about it >>> themselves though if they can spare the thought and can actually >>> disclose. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Mirko Jankovic >>> <mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>**wrote: >>> >>> well no idea about pro cards.. really never got financial justification >>>> to >>>> get one, quadro 4000 in old company didn;t really felt anything much >>>> better >>>> than gaming cards so... >>>> but in gaming segment.. >>>> opengl scores in sinebench for example: >>>> gtx 580: ~55 >>>> 7970: ~90 >>>> >>>> to start with.... >>>> not to mention annoying issue with high segment rotating cube in >>>> viewport >>>> in SI. >>>> 7970 smooth at ~170 fps >>>> with gtx580 bfore that.. to point out that the rest of comp is identical >>>> only switched card... for the first 30-50sec frame rate was stuck at >>>> something like 17 fps... and after that it kinda jump to ~70-80fps... >>>> >>>> in any case with gaming cards ati vs nvidia there is no doubt. and if >>>> you >>>> are not using CUDA much then no need to even thing which way to go. >>>> Now redshift is game changer heheh but I'm still hoping that OpenCL will >>>> be supported and I'm looking forward to test it out with two of 7970 in >>>> crossfire :) >>>> >>>> btw I'm not much into programming waters but is it really >>>> OpenCL programming that as I understood should work on ALL cards, is >>>> that >>>> much more complex than for CUDA which is limited to nvidia only? >>>> Wouldn't >>>> it be more logical to go with solution that is covering a lot more >>>> market >>>> than something limited to one manufacturer? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Arvid Björn <arvidbj...@gmail.com >>>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> My beef with ATI last time I tried FirePro was that it had a hard time >>>>> locking into 25fps playback in some apps, as if the refresh rate was >>>>> locked >>>>> to 30/60. Realtime playback in Softimage would stutter annoyingly IIRC. >>>>> Plus it seemed to draw text slightly differently in some apps. >>>>> >>>>> Nvidia just feels.. comfy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < >>>>> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> These days if you hit the right combination of drivers and planet >>>>>> alignment they are OK. >>>>>> >>>>>> Performance wise they have been ahead of nVIDIA for a while in number >>>>>> crunching, the main problem is the drivers are still a coin toss >>>>>> chance, >>>>>> and that OCL isn't anywhere as popular as CUDA. >>>>>> >>>>>> With win7 or 8 and recent versions of Soft/Maya they can do well. >>>>>> >>>>>> nVIDIA didn't help with the crippling of the 6xx for professional use, >>>>>> and pissing off Linus. They are still ahead by a slight margin, for >>>>>> now, >>>>>> but I wouldn't discount AMD wholesale anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the next generation is as disappointing as Kepler is, and AMD gets >>>>>> both Linux support AND decent (and properly OSS) drivers out, I'm >>>>>> moving >>>>>> time come for the next upgrade. For now I recently bought a 680 >>>>>> because it >>>>>> was kind of mandatory to not go insane with Mari and Mudbox, and >>>>>> because I >>>>>> like CUDA and I toy with it at home. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Dan Yargici <danyarg...@gmail.com >>>>>> >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Ati was tested over and over and showing a lot better viewport >>>>>>> results >>>>>>> in Softimage than nvidia... " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? I don't remember anyone ever suggesting ATI was anything >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> than shit! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DAN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! >
