[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: HgotSLI.jpg (126 KB, 602x452)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
witch would be the best opition ?

buy another gtx 680 4gb

or upgrade to a gtx 1070 or 1080

would it even be worth getting a 1070/1080 over 2 680s for cycles and vray rendering and 1080p gaming ?
>>
>GPU rendering

okay bud
>>
depends on the cuda cores.
search whatever card has most cuda cores
>>
>>544723
cycles and vray support cuda
>>
>>544723
>hurr durr crap gpu render
>>
>>544724
That's not a very good idea. Some older cards have more cuda cores than current models, yet they are obviously significantly slower.

I switched from a 780 (2304 cores) to a 1070 (1920 cores), and it cut my render times in FStorm in half.
>>
what cards are good for rendering? I got a gtx 960 2gb it does alright.

what's the ideal?
>>
680 is equivalent to a 1050ti, so putting them in SLI is not going to get you near the same performance as a 1070 or 1080.
>>
>>544801
I dun goofed. Have 980, bought used 780 because COOOOOORES. It does seem to render almost fast as the 980 at least.
>>
File: laughing normalsmaps.png (352 KB, 449x401)
352 KB
352 KB PNG
>Cycles
>>
>>544731
CUDA OUT OF MEMORY
>>
>>544721
http://blenchmark.com/gpu-benchmarks
>>
>>544721

those are gaming cards. sell them and buy a pair of quadro M4000's, a pair of quadro M4000's costs less than a M5000 and is faster. M6000 is like 5 grand anyways. you can later on add a maxwell Tesla compute card if you need yet faster spedz.
>>
File: 132162019581.jpg (22 KB, 391x343)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>Not having one computer for gaming and one or two for rendering.

That's my goal one day.
>>
>>546862
save up a thousand bucks and you'll be good.
>>
>>546835
Quadros aren't really any faster for GPU rendering than the generation equivalent GeForce or Titan cards. For example current Pascal cards:
>Titan X 12GB - $1,200
>Quadro P6000 24GB - $5,000

The extra vram is nice if you're rendering huge scenes, but that price/performance makes no sense. And a Quadro M4000 is not even half as fast as a 980 Ti in octanebench. Nor do you get any better interactive viewport performance from Quadros.


>>544721
Upgrade to a 1070. You'll want the extra vram for GPU rendering and the 1070 is the price/performance sweet spot for 8GB cards.
>>
>>546460
>ideal
A render time of zero seconds.

>>544721
It would be a waste to get a 1080 for 1080p. Consider how much gaming you actually do and what kinds of games. Can't say much for its rendering performance vs other cards though.
>>
>>546869

The only reason to get a quadro is to have reflective materials in solidworks viewport.
>>
>>544721
According to blenchmark.com/gpu-benchmarks , two 680's are objectively 33% faster than a single 1070 or 1080, and a 1080 is almost equivelant to a 1070.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.