- May 27, 2009
- 81
- 0
- 18,640
Was not sure whether or not to post this in app's or GPU's so did both.
I was thinking about upgrading my 4x GTX Titan’s (2688 core) to 4x GTX Titan X for rendering with Iray, until I saw these benchmarks on TomsHardware Germany.
http://www.tomshardware.de/geforce-quadro-workstation-g...
The benchmark’s for Iray do not make sense?
The Quadro M6000 and Titan X are essentially exactly the same GPU, with exactly the same estimated single precision performance at 7 Tflops, so this does not explain why the M6000 is 3x faster than the Titan X in the iray benchmark?
It cannot be about drivers otherwise the Blender and Octane results would be exactly the same with the M6000 3x faster, but the results for Blender Octane etc are exactly as expected with the Titan X a little faster than the M6000 because of the higher clock rates.
So why is Iray different?
The Maxwell Patch must have been applied to 3ds max otherwise the Quadro M6000 and Titan X would not work in 3ds Max at all.
This can have only two possibilities,
One that the test is a rotten egg and needs to be performed again in 3ds max 2016.
or
Two, Nvidia are purposefully crippling Desktop Maxwell GPU’s in Iray to promote their Quadro Cards! Nvidia Develop Iray, so cannot manipulate the results in Blender or Octane, only in Iray they can do this because they make the GPU’s and the software.
The Iray test should have very similar results to the Blender / Octane / RatGPU and Luxmark tests, with the Titan X slightly faster than the M6000 because of the higher clock rates.
If this is the case, that Nvidia have decided to cripple Maxwell desktop cards in iray to force people to buy their extortionate Quadro cards, then I for one will not be upgrading.
Do Nvidia think that freelancers like me are going to spend around $24500 ( £16400 ) on Quadro cards instead of approx $5200 (£3500) on Titan X‘s? The majority of freelancers and small studios cant afford it, so if Nvidia are crippling the Titan X in iray, I am sure they will end up loosing tens of millions in sales from potential new sales / upgrades from people like me.
I am not going to spend an extra $19300 (£12900) on what is essentially the same GPU’s just because Nvidia want to force people to buy Quadro’s by crippling performance in Iray, so if the benchmark is not a rotten egg, and Nvidia have crippled the Desktop Maxwell cards in iray, they have lost my money, and I’m sure once the word gets around, tens of millions of other potential sales. Freelancers and studios will just stick to their older Titans.
I am not sure what the exact statistics are, but I am sure that the millions of freelancers and small studios out there out weigh the larger studios that can afford M6000’s in their workstations and render nodes, so this would be a very bad business move from Nvidia.
Does anyone else know of any benchmarks in iray comparing the Titan X to the M6000? Hopefully this benchmark is wrong, but I would not put it past Nvidia to do this.
Anyone upgraded their old Titan with a new Titan X and run benchmarks against new and old in Iray to see what the time improvements are?
If you are unhappy about Nvidia doing this, spread the word!
Update
Because the post went unsolved, I am guessing a moderator selected Shneiky answer as the solution thinking that Quadro's are optimised better for 3ds max performance, but we are talking about Cuda rendering, so Shneiky's answer is not the solution and is completely wrong.
The Titan X is the fastest card currently available at writing for Iray rendering with 3ds max. This problem was solved with a software patch and driver updates, and the original benchmark on TomsHardware De was incorrect, and misleading.
There is a big difference between viewport performance which Quadro cards are usually best at because of the optimised drivers, and Cuda performance, (ask a Cuda developer!), and unfortunately Shneiky is wrongly putting the two together. The M6000 and Titan X are identical in hardware specs, and have the same single precision compute estimate at 7 Tflops. Iray currently only uses single precision, and the Titan X has higher clocks than the M6000 so renders fastest in iray.
Check the benchmarks here:-
http://www.migenius.com/products/nvidia-iray/iray-bench...
The Titan X has also been proved to be slightly faster in 3ds max for viewport performance this time around according to SpecPerf benchmarks, so the solution that I didn't pick is wrong on both counts!
If toms is letting people choose solutions that have not been solved for other people, at least make sure those people know that facts!
I was thinking about upgrading my 4x GTX Titan’s (2688 core) to 4x GTX Titan X for rendering with Iray, until I saw these benchmarks on TomsHardware Germany.
http://www.tomshardware.de/geforce-quadro-workstation-g...
The benchmark’s for Iray do not make sense?
The Quadro M6000 and Titan X are essentially exactly the same GPU, with exactly the same estimated single precision performance at 7 Tflops, so this does not explain why the M6000 is 3x faster than the Titan X in the iray benchmark?
It cannot be about drivers otherwise the Blender and Octane results would be exactly the same with the M6000 3x faster, but the results for Blender Octane etc are exactly as expected with the Titan X a little faster than the M6000 because of the higher clock rates.
So why is Iray different?
The Maxwell Patch must have been applied to 3ds max otherwise the Quadro M6000 and Titan X would not work in 3ds Max at all.
This can have only two possibilities,
One that the test is a rotten egg and needs to be performed again in 3ds max 2016.
or
Two, Nvidia are purposefully crippling Desktop Maxwell GPU’s in Iray to promote their Quadro Cards! Nvidia Develop Iray, so cannot manipulate the results in Blender or Octane, only in Iray they can do this because they make the GPU’s and the software.
The Iray test should have very similar results to the Blender / Octane / RatGPU and Luxmark tests, with the Titan X slightly faster than the M6000 because of the higher clock rates.
If this is the case, that Nvidia have decided to cripple Maxwell desktop cards in iray to force people to buy their extortionate Quadro cards, then I for one will not be upgrading.
Do Nvidia think that freelancers like me are going to spend around $24500 ( £16400 ) on Quadro cards instead of approx $5200 (£3500) on Titan X‘s? The majority of freelancers and small studios cant afford it, so if Nvidia are crippling the Titan X in iray, I am sure they will end up loosing tens of millions in sales from potential new sales / upgrades from people like me.
I am not going to spend an extra $19300 (£12900) on what is essentially the same GPU’s just because Nvidia want to force people to buy Quadro’s by crippling performance in Iray, so if the benchmark is not a rotten egg, and Nvidia have crippled the Desktop Maxwell cards in iray, they have lost my money, and I’m sure once the word gets around, tens of millions of other potential sales. Freelancers and studios will just stick to their older Titans.
I am not sure what the exact statistics are, but I am sure that the millions of freelancers and small studios out there out weigh the larger studios that can afford M6000’s in their workstations and render nodes, so this would be a very bad business move from Nvidia.
Does anyone else know of any benchmarks in iray comparing the Titan X to the M6000? Hopefully this benchmark is wrong, but I would not put it past Nvidia to do this.
Anyone upgraded their old Titan with a new Titan X and run benchmarks against new and old in Iray to see what the time improvements are?
If you are unhappy about Nvidia doing this, spread the word!
Update
Because the post went unsolved, I am guessing a moderator selected Shneiky answer as the solution thinking that Quadro's are optimised better for 3ds max performance, but we are talking about Cuda rendering, so Shneiky's answer is not the solution and is completely wrong.
The Titan X is the fastest card currently available at writing for Iray rendering with 3ds max. This problem was solved with a software patch and driver updates, and the original benchmark on TomsHardware De was incorrect, and misleading.
There is a big difference between viewport performance which Quadro cards are usually best at because of the optimised drivers, and Cuda performance, (ask a Cuda developer!), and unfortunately Shneiky is wrongly putting the two together. The M6000 and Titan X are identical in hardware specs, and have the same single precision compute estimate at 7 Tflops. Iray currently only uses single precision, and the Titan X has higher clocks than the M6000 so renders fastest in iray.
Check the benchmarks here:-
http://www.migenius.com/products/nvidia-iray/iray-bench...
The Titan X has also been proved to be slightly faster in 3ds max for viewport performance this time around according to SpecPerf benchmarks, so the solution that I didn't pick is wrong on both counts!
If toms is letting people choose solutions that have not been solved for other people, at least make sure those people know that facts!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram