- Oct 11, 2015
- 198
- 0
- 4,760
Hey everyone. I've always been curious as to what is more important to a GPU: CUDA cores or Speed.
I noticed earlier that the GTX 660 has 960 CUDA cores, which is far more than my GTX 750 TI. That itself confused me because I thought lower series has much lower CUDA cores and speeds. Anyways, even though the GTX 660 has more CUDA cores than the GTX 750 TI, it has a lower clock speed than the 750 TI. That got me wondering, what is more important? And what has more of an impact on overall performance? I also noticed that one of the best GPU's out there happens to have a base speed of 705 mhz (Titan Z). But with a somewhat lower clock speed, it comes with a whopping 5760 CUDA cores! That leads me to think that CUDA cores have more of an impact, but what are some flaws of having more CUDA cores with a lower speed? Do GPU's with more cores and lower speed get work done more efficiently but slowly? How does that all play out? And is there a balance between the two specs that create the "ideal" GPU?
I noticed earlier that the GTX 660 has 960 CUDA cores, which is far more than my GTX 750 TI. That itself confused me because I thought lower series has much lower CUDA cores and speeds. Anyways, even though the GTX 660 has more CUDA cores than the GTX 750 TI, it has a lower clock speed than the 750 TI. That got me wondering, what is more important? And what has more of an impact on overall performance? I also noticed that one of the best GPU's out there happens to have a base speed of 705 mhz (Titan Z). But with a somewhat lower clock speed, it comes with a whopping 5760 CUDA cores! That leads me to think that CUDA cores have more of an impact, but what are some flaws of having more CUDA cores with a lower speed? Do GPU's with more cores and lower speed get work done more efficiently but slowly? How does that all play out? And is there a balance between the two specs that create the "ideal" GPU?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram