Over at gfxspeak they have results from Jon Peddie’s recent evaluation of NVidia’s new Kepler cards with some CAD benchmarks like Cinebench and Cadalyst. The results are most impressive when comparing the new Quadro K5000 to the older Quadro5000.
The Cadalyst 2012 results proved a good showcase for the C30 and both new Quadro K-series cards. We have a limited history with the 2012 update of the benchmark, but suffice to say that these scores were well beyond what has been reported by third parties in the past year. Furthermore, the K5000-equipped C30 eclipsed the marks set by the C30 with the Fermi-generation Quadro 5000 … and by a substantial margin: 18.6% on the 3D index, 52.6% on the 2D index, and 18.1% on total index. The 18.1% total score is an impressive generation-to-generation gain for a graphics card running a system-level benchmark on the same system as its predecessor.
I was a little disappointed, I had expected bigger improvements. It could be that the results from a benchmark suite aren’t actually representative of what you’ll see in day-to-day use, or perhaps better drivers will improve things even further.
FireUser.com has a user-contribution from Antonio Fontenele benchmarking a Quadro 1800FX against the AMD FirePro v5800 in a variety of tests. In an interesting twist he compares the various vendor “optimized” drivers against their counterparts provided by Autodesk (Both of these cards are Autodesk approved), and finds a startling different in performance.
In Cadalyst Systems Benchmark 2011 test, Quadro a little faster than FirePro while using AutoCAD default drivers due c2011_8.dwg file score, but it was slower than FirePro in the other files (where FirePro was 102.32% faster). However, using AutoCAD optimized drivers, Quadro earned 613 points while FirePro earned a higher score equal to 2060 points. This is means about 336.05% faster in AutoCAD 2011.
AMD’s newest promotional video shows CATIA through their benchmark suite “CATBench” on a new AMD FirePro V7900 with GeometryBoost and the NVidia Quadro 4000. The results are startling.
The CATbench benchmark uses a number of different models ranging in size from an engine block to an entire nuclear submarine assembly. It performs a set number of pans, zooms and rotations in shaded plus edges graphics mode.
The video speaks for itself – basically a 2:1 performance advantage for the V7900 overall. Where the difference is really apparent is with the complex large models. That is in part GeometryBoost in action.
The Quadro does a good job of keeping up until the final test of an extremely tessellated model, where the Quadro really lags.
Now, there are many many questions about these benchmarks and I wish I had a FirePro to repeat them with (*hint hint*, anyone from AMD reading?) Issues like Screen Resolution and possible configuration options in CATIA itself could be impacting the results. Also, I’ld like to see a higher-end Quadro put through the test (Like the Quadro 5000), but does show that GeometryBoost is a huge benefit to the FirePro line.
So Nvidia’s newest card has hit the street, the new GeForce GTX590 dual-GPU card. Meant to compete against AMD’s Radeon 6990 offering, it simply can’t keep up. NVidia makes some excellent single-GPU chips but once you start packing multiples onto a PCB, the heat and power dissipation become a liability, letting their competitors take the lead.
NVIDIA’s new flagship graphics card, the GeForce GTX 590 3GB, is without a doubt the fastest NVIDIA product we have ever tested and competes in the super-high-end market very well against the Radeon HD 6990 4GB. The downside to this release is that quite clearly the GTX 590 isn’t up to the task of beating the performance of the HD 6990 at the highest resolution tested, 2560×1600. At both 1680×1050 and 1920×1200, the GTX 590 was either better than or equal to the results from AMD’s new flagship. The problem as I see it is that most users willing to shell out the $700 for either option are more likely to be planning for a 30-in panel or an Eyefinity/Surround monitor configuration than they are comfortable sticking at the 1080p single display resolution. If my hypothesis is true, then most will lean towards the Radeon HD 6990 than the GeForce GTX 590, all else being equal.
Check out their video review below, and hit their website for all the charts and details.
Triple-GPU systems are still a fair rarity in the consumer space, but frequently discussed and coveted by hard-core gamers all over. In a recent benchmark by Toms Hardware, they put NVidia’s Triple-SLI against AMD’s Crossfire 3-way to see which one performs better. Much to my own surprise, the AMD solution not only yields slightly better performance, but much better efficiently with a vastly lower power consumption and heat output.
CrossFire came out with a huge overall scaling lead over SLI, and removing the one title that didn’t reflect that average would have made the lead even bigger. Superior scaling allowed two mid-priced Radeon HD 6950s to approximate the performance of two higher-cost GeForce GTX 570s, while three HD 6950s took the performance win over three GTX 570s.
If these figures cross over into the Multi-GPU/single-PCB space like the basis of AMD and NVidia’s newest announcements, AMD could have a big win on it’s hands in CrossFire Scaling.
Today’s modern PC games require a pretty beefy machine, and adding 3D to the mix can push the requirements even higher. Try doing triple-monitor 3D and you wind up with requirements only the most decadent of computers can require. ArsTechnica got their hands on one of these monster machines, the Digital Storm Black|Ops Assassin, and once they got over the initial “whoa” they put it through the paces.
When the system arrived, I had trouble walking the box to the living room to get everything set up. The packaging for the system itself—this is before the three ASUS VG247 3D monitors, mind you—weighed 80 lbs. Some of that was packing material, but not much of it. If you’re interested in a LAN party box, this is not your system. Let’s take a look at what happens when you put God’s own system to work in the harshest conditions gaming can currently offer.
It shows the kind of hit even the biggest of PCs can take when enabling 3D, but also shows that it is technically possible. Of course, the machine he’s using costs around $5k (with the 3 monitors included).
TechReport takes the current “state of the art” in high-end video setups, AMD CrossFire and NVidia SLI, and runs them in some gaming benchmarks with hardware from several vendors. The goal is to find out not just whether AMD or NVidia is better, but which cards pair up the best for the buck. No surprise really which ones wins right now:
Finally, the performance of two GeForce GTX 580 cards in SLI is well and truly bitchin’. The power draw and noise levels are at least reasonable for this class of setup, too. There are few substitutes for a GTX 580 SLI rig at this very moment, although as we’ve noted, some potential competition from AMD is imminent.
Perhaps what I found most surprising was this:
The easiest call we can make is that the Radeon HD 6850 CrossFireX setup does indeed offer performance comparable to a single GeForce GTX 580 at a lower price. That combo adds up to a very nice value proposition, provided you are willing to sacrifice four expansion slots worth of space in your PC for graphic cards—and provided you’re willing to live with the occasional compatibility and performance pitfalls one will inevitably encounter with a multi-GPU solution.
It’s surprising in two ways, to me:
Bad thing for AMD: That a single GeForce GTX580 is powerful enough that it takes 2 Radeon’s to match it.
Good thing for AMD: That the two Radeons are cheaper than the GeForce.
News of NVidia’ GTX580 is all over the internet today, but one of the better reviews comes from the Jon Peddie Report who takes it through a series of popular benchmarks. So what makes the card so great? Well, compared to the 480:
Now all 512 cores and all 16 polymorph engines are running, and at a higher clock with the same or less wattage than the crippled 480. Super good tessellation, great ROPS, and 192 GBytes/sec high-speed memory transfers.
They took the card and pitted it against the GTX480, along with the AMD Radeon HD5870 and 6870 in a collection of games, and ranked them (You should like this Jeff) by Framerate.
But that’s not the full story. The GTX480 easily beats all four cards in raw framerate, but only barely squeaks past the 6870 in Power Per Watt, and loses in Performance Per Dollar. In the end, the card winds up being the flat-out-winner in raw horsepower, but possibly not the best use of limited funds. Of course, all of these tests were performed on games, and not engineering applications. I’ld personally like to see some SpecViewPerf results, and I’m very curious to see how some CUDA codes would run with the additional cores enabled. In our Quadro5000 review we showed that Raw Core-count is not a good indicator of performance, as the Quadro’s could easily beat the GeForces, even though had a lower CUDA-core count.
Definitely read the review for all the gory details and graphs.
Rastergrid has a new OpenGL 4.0 demo released that shows dynamically generated mountains, valleys, and trees all using algorithms in DirectX10 and OpenGL4. They manage to do level of detail, culling, and and geometry instancing all on the GPU, leaving the CPU almost untouched.
The result is a renderer that does little to no scene management on the CPU, instead uses the GPU for visibility determination that is, in most cases, able to reduce the scene’s geometric complexity from over 400 million triangles under one million triangles providing an interactive experience on a Radeon HD5770 with around 200 frames per second.
Scroll to the bottom to see his performance figures. It looks amazing, although they test it solely on AMD Radeon cards.
The NVidia GeForce GTX460 has really become popular for it’s low price and stunning performance, but with so many out there how do you choose between them? Toms Hardware takes 9 different cards and gets down to the gritty details for you.
Awarded for its position as the best bang-for the buck graphics solution in both single-card and SLI configurations, the only question in the minds of hopeful buyers of Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 460 1 GB card is: which particular board to buy? Over a dozen manufacturers offer a vast array of clock speeds, accessory packages, and support. So, we asked that question for you.
In the end, it looks like the tradeoff is performance vs warranty. The cost is nearly identical on all the cards, but the highest-performing ones seem to have the worse warranties. They try out :
VizWorld.com We cover visualization and graphics news from around the internet, including Scientific Visualization, Visual Effects, and Graphics Hardware. Read more on our About Page or learn about our Advertising Options Get updates via twitter from @VizWorld.