Hey guys,
Any idea about how the upcoming 780 (to be released in just four days, now!) will compare to the older 580 and its GK110 counterpart, the Titan? Will it be much better than the 580, or will it be a flop for Cycles like the 680 was? Am I right in assuming that anything based on the same chip as the Titan has got to be at least pretty awesome, if not really awesome, or is Nvidia artificially limiting it? Anybody know?
I would not call it better than a 1000 $ Titan but it will have 5 GB V-Ram and it will be faster than the 680 probably lower TDP too. Waiting for reviews and benchmarks !
No one knows yet, but it probably wont be faster than 580 as its based on the 600 series. We`ll just have to wait and see.
EDIT: Turns out I`m behind the curve as the GTX780 is based on Titan which means that it should be awesome for Cycles (less awesome as the Titan itself though). The GTX770 is just a higher clocked 680 so no expectations there.
It’s basically the same chip as the Titan with a few cores less, so it’s going to be slightly slower. However, contrary to previous rumors it will unfortunately only come with 3GB of VRAM, not 5GB. There might be 6GB versions down the line (just as there are 4GB versions of the 680), but nothing is announced yet.
Hello there,
Does anybody know how the GTX 780 will perform with CUDA?
Are they an improvement over the 600 series that is slower than the 500 series?
The GTX780 is a Titan with about 15% less cores, which translates into about 15% lower performance (for Cycles). However the Titan comes with 6GB of VRAM, whereas the GTX780 currently only comes with 3GB.
Looks like based on those charts that for Cycles the 780 is not really a good or better deal considering the price.
Sigh, another crippled overpriced card. Current options for cycles rendering really suck! You either get an ancient used card while they are still around, or you pay a high premium for a crippled one. Except if you consider paying top $$$$ for a Titan (not an option for most).
Being able to use AMD cards with cycles couldn’t come at a better time!
There has got to be some flaw in that benchmark, they probably forgot to adjust tile size. It’s certainly inconsistent with the results from Octane.
Sigh, another crippled overpriced card.
It’s not crippled. People just love saying that, don’t they? Yeah, NVIDIA is just out to screw you poor Cycles users! sigh
(Never mind that the 1000$ Titan is faster than the 3500$ Tesla in Cycles…)
@Zalamander: Well the Cycles kernel is AFAIK still compiled with toolkit 4.2 which was released when the GK110 didn’t exist yet, so it’s likely running inefficiently.
Here are some more benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/18
It doesn’t really make sense for it to be half as fast in Cycles when every other benchmark is consistent with the 15% lower core count figure.
EDIT:
Zalamander: Well the Cycles kernel is AFAIK still compiled with toolkit 4.2 which was released when the GK110 didn’t exist yet, so it’s likely running inefficiently.
It certainly did exist, whether newer CUDA toolkits are better at producing binaries for the GK110 warrants investigation. However, that doesn’t explain why performance should be wildly different between two GK110 chips. Again, my bet is that they simply forgot to adjust tile size.
People just love saying that, don’t they? Yeah, NVIDIA is just out to screw you poor Cycles users!
Relax please!
I am out for a new gfx card and would like a current generation one that can do GPU rendering with cycles and do it fast. I do not care if it comes from nvidia or amd. The only option atm is the Titan but it is way too overpriced for my pocket.
It’s not crippled.
“However, Nvidia told us that the GTX 780 would only have about a quarter of the double precision floating point performance of Titan. In other words, the GTX 780 will be a great gaming card, but won’t come close to Titan for high end GPU compute.”
Compute performance does seem to be crippled unfortunately, if review sites are to be believed. I am very interested to hear more about the Octane results.
“However, Nvidia told us that the GTX 780 would only have about a quarter of the double precision floating point performance of Titan. In other words, the GTX 780 will be a great gaming card, but won’t come close to Titan for high end GPU compute.”
Fair enough, I didn’t know that. Then again, it doesn’t matter. The Titan was also “crippled” in DP versus the Tesla, so was the GTX580, and so on. Practically nobody in CG cares about double-precision and it makes no impact on Cycles performance.
I might be wrong but for me it seems Cycles renders not as fast as Octane. That might explain some of the speed differences.
The Titan was also “crippled” in DP versus the Tesla, so was the GTX580, and so on. Practically nobody in CG cares about double-precision and it makes no impact on Cycles performance.
Good point. I’ll keep my fingers crossed and wait to see what the first gtx780 owners report.
Until cycles moves to cuda toolkit 5, the kepler and beyond cards will not perform as well… octane is using the cuda toolkit 5 so thats why it gets better performance… the only problem is that some of the kernel will need to be reworked to get the same performance for gtx 5xx series… otherwise theres a ~20% slowdown.
Until cycles moves to cuda toolkit 5, the kepler and beyond cards will not perform as well… octane is using the cuda toolkit 5 so thats why it gets better performance…
I remember vaguely that CUDA 5 has been tested and not shown to bring any significant improvement with Cycles and Kepler GPUs.
*** MODERATION ***
Two similar threads merged