Tuesday, August 7th 2012

NVIDIA Maximus Fuels Workstation Revolution With Kepler Architecture

NVIDIA today launched the second generation of its breakthrough workstation platform, NVIDIA Maximus, featuring Kepler, the fastest, most efficient GPU architecture.

The Maximus platform, introduced in November, gives workstation users the ability to simultaneously perform complex analysis and visualization on a single machine. Now supported by Kepler-based GPUs, Maximus delivers unparalleled performance and efficiency to professionals in fields as varied as manufacturing, visual effects and oil exploration.


Maximus initially broke new ground as a single system that handles interactive graphics and the compute-intensive number crunching required to simulate or render them -- resulting in dramatically accelerated workflows. With this second generation of Maximus, compute work is assigned to run on the new NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU computing accelerator, freeing up the new NVIDIA Quadro K5000 GPU to handle graphics functions. Maximus unified technology transparently and automatically assigns visualization and simulation or rendering work to the right processor.

"With the parallel processing capabilities enabled by NVIDIA Maximus systems, we can now be 10 times more creative," said Alan Barrington, a designer at the Mercedes-Benz Advanced Design Center California. "With the NVIDIA Maximus-powered environment, we can continue to refine and improve our design, right up to the last minute. We can stay efficient and multitask. We no longer have to settle for less or to compromise on our creativity."

NVIDIA Maximus: Boosting Graphics and Compute
Powered by the Kepler architecture, the second generation of Maximus improves both the visualization and computation capabilities of the platform.

Key NVIDIA Quadro K5000 GPU features include:

● Bindless Textures that give users the ability to reference over 1 million textures directly in memory while reducing CPU overhead
● FXAA/TXAA film-style anti-aliasing technologies for outstanding image quality
● Increased frame buffer capacity of 4 GB, plus a next-generation PCIe-3 bus interconnect that accelerates data movement by 2x compared with PCIe-2
● An all-new display engine capable of driving up to four displays simultaneously with a single K5000
● Display Port 1.2 support for resolutions up to 3840x2160 @60Hz

Key NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU features include:

● SMX streaming multiprocessor technology for up to a 3x performance per watt advantage
● Dynamic Parallelism and Hyper-Q GPU technologies for simplified parallel programming and dramatically faster performance

Transforming Workflows Across Industries, From Jet Engine Design to Seismic Analysis
Here are some examples of how Maximus is transforming workflows across industries:

● For the manufacturing and design industry, NVIDIA Maximus-powered workstations enable professionals to design without limits on size of assemblies, number of components, image quality, or resolution. Designers can use real-world physics, lighting, and materials during interactive design, and visualize with photo-realistic image quality.

"RTT DeltaGen offers custom features such as rapid raytracing, rendering and scalability, automated layer rendering, and computational fluid dynamics visualization and analysis," said Peter Stevenson, CEO, RTT USA, Inc. "Maximus second generation is remarkable, forward-thinking technology that will further empower our clients by providing them with the ability to do interactive design and simulation, which will accelerate their time to insight of their engineering data so they can make final design decisions even faster."

● For the media and entertainment industry, Maximus gives digital content creators more freedom and creative flexibility. Film editors and animators can work in real-time on their most challenging projects, create complex simulations and interactive visual effects, and work in 3D texture painting workflows without being constrained by a maximum number of textures.

Chaos Group provides state of the art rendering solutions for visual effects, film, media and entertainment, and design industries. V-Ray RT is a powerful, interactive raytracing render engine optimized for NVIDIA CUDA architecture that changes the way 3D artists and visualization specialists approach the lighting and shading setup.

"We're constantly working to ensure we create the best tools for customer workflows," said Lon Grohs, vice president, Business Development at Chaos Group. "Our CUDA based V-Ray plug-in for Maya is one of our latest developments to meet the needs of the most demanding VFX and film studios around the world, and with a Kepler-based NVIDIA Maximus system, 3D artists will spend less time waiting and more time being creative."

Home of some of the industry's most talented artists, a52 is an innovative visual effects studio located in Santa Monica, CA that has created many impressive effects through the seamless integration of 2D and photoreal CGI.

"We now have the opportunity to produce more iterations of color and lighting to get to where we want faster," said Chris Janney, VFX technical director, a52. "With faster turnaround, we can submit shots much sooner for client approvals. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a Maximus setup particularly for artists working in V-Ray RT -- the time savings alone are significant, but it's also allowing our artists a better workflow in the creative process, without long pauses for renders. That is where the Maximus setup really helps our look development process."

● For geophysicists and seismologists, NVIDIA Maximus-powered workstations give more accurate data, in less time, on the location of oil and gas deposits around the world.

Paradigm is a global provider of analytical and information management solutions for the oil and gas and mining industries. Paradigm software enables users to locate new oil and gas reservoirs, create dynamic digital models of the earth's surface, and optimize production from new and existing reservoirs.

Its Paradigm 2011.1, a comprehensive application suite of exploration, development and production applications, provides accelerated computation of seismic trace attributes through use of NVIDIA Maximus technology.

"Paradigm software leveraging Maximus technology is an innovative implementation that enables seismic interpreters to calculate seismic trace attributes at their desktop in interactive or dramatically reduced times," said Laura Evins, product manager of seismic attributes, Paradigm. "This provides huge benefits to our oil and gas clients, as they can now more quickly recover structural or depositional features from seismic data. We believe the second generation of Maximus will accelerate their time to discovery even further, making our combined technology even more cost effective."

Availability and Pricing
Second generation NVIDIA Maximus-powered desktop workstations featuring the new NVIDIA Quadro K5000 ($2,249 MSRP, USD) plus the new NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU ($3,199 MSRP, USD) will be available starting in December 2012. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 will be available as a separate discrete desktop GPU starting in October 2012.

ISV Certifications and Support
Leading software vendors certify and support NVIDIA Maximus-powered workstations, including Adobe, ANSYS, Autodesk, Bunkspeed, Dassault Systèmes, MathWorks and Paradigm.

Workstation OEM Support
The world's leading workstation OEMs -- including HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Fujitsu, plus systems integrators such as BOXX Technologies and Supermicro -- will offer second generation NVIDIA Maximus-powered workstations.

● New NVIDIA Maximus-powered HP Z Workstations will include the HP Z420, Z620 and HP's ultimate workstation, the Z820.

"HP customers lead their industries, pushing the limits of technology to help bring consumers the next big blockbuster, alternative energy resources and medical advancements that would otherwise not be possible," said Jeff Wood, vice president, Worldwide Marketing, Commercial Solutions, HP. "This next generation of NVIDIA Maximus technology will provide the crucial horsepower and productivity demands of compute-intensive modern workflows, increasing productivity and ultimately ROI for our customers."

● New NVIDIA Maximus-powered Dell Precision T3600, T5600 and T7600 tower, and R5500 rack workstations will be available worldwide early next year.

"Dell Precision workstations with the second generation of NVIDIA Maximus make the promise of designing at the speed of thought a reality for creative and design professionals," said Efrain Rovira, executive director, Dell Precision Workstations. "NVIDIA's fast Kepler GPU architecture combined with our most powerful tower and rack workstations provides unprecedented visual design and simulation performance for our customers."

● New NVIDIA Maximus-powered Lenovo ThinkStation S30, D30, and C30 workstations will be available worldwide.

"Mission-critical design applications and simulation workflows are being accelerated like never before with NVIDIA Maximus technology," said Rob Herman, director of Product and Vertical Solutions, ThinkStation Business Unit. "With new, next generation NVIDIA Maximus-powered ThinkStations, users have even more parallel processing horsepower to boost their productivity, creativity, and time-to-market. Our customers can look forward to improved computing and visualization capabilities that empower them to achieve results faster than ever."

● New Fujitsu CELSIUS M720 and R920 NVIDIA Maximus-powered desktop workstations will be available in EMEA, India and Japan.

"With the next-generation of NVIDIA Maximus technology powering our Fujitsu CELSIUS desktop workstations, we continue to provide the most innovative technology for accelerating modern workflows that utilize high-performance 3D modeling, animation, real-time visualization, analysis, and simulation applications," said Dieter Heiss, vice president, Workplace Systems Product Development Group, at Fujitsu Technology Solutions. "These new systems will provide the highest levels of performance that professionals need."
Add your own comment

66 Comments on NVIDIA Maximus Fuels Workstation Revolution With Kepler Architecture

#1
Steevo
by: TheMailMan78
Don't understand.


.
Farva: It doesn't matter cause I'm going to win ten million dollars.
Thorny: What are you going to do with ten million dollars, and you can't say buy the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Farva: I'd buy a ten million dollar car.
Thorny: That's a good investment but I'd still pull you over.
Farva: Bull Shit. You couldn't pull me over, and even if you did I'd activate my car's wings and I'd fly away.


Are we really arguing about a card that hasn't even seen the light of day as far as we know? Fanboyisim at its best worst.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Steevo
Farva: It doesn't matter cause I'm going to win ten million dollars.
Thorny: What are you going to do with ten million dollars, and you can't say buy the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Farva: I'd buy a ten million dollar car.
Thorny: That's a good investment but I'd still pull you over.
Farva: Bull Shit. You couldn't pull me over, and even if you did I'd activate my car's wings and I'd fly away.


Are we really arguing about a card that hasn't even seen the light of day as far as we know? Fanboyisim at its best worst.
I still have no clue what you just said. But I do like the idea of a flying car.
Posted on Reply
#3
Steevo
by: TheMailMan78
I still have no clue what you just said. But I do like the idea of a flying car.
I feel sorry for your soul.


Super Troopers, watch it.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: Steevo
I feel sorry for your soul.


Super Troopers, watch it.
I have a busy life man. I just saw Sling Blade for the first time this past week. But Ill check it out. :toast:

Anyway we should get back on topic.
Does anyone get the feeling NVIDIA and AMD charge more for "pro" parts for no good reason other then its a industrial product?
Posted on Reply
#5
Benetanegia
by: sergionography
Waaaat? Were in the world do you get your info from? I'm yet to see a compute benchmark with Fermi beating gcn, unless an app is heavily optimized for cuda its very unlikely, anything opencl is amd for the win.
Theoretical compute figures demonstrate the peak computational ability in a perfect world I understand that point, but I'm aware that gcn is more efficient in general compute than anything NVIDIA has, if anything is holding their professional business back is probably their customer support, but considering the fact they waited this long to release these cards even though they had the designs readily and selling in the mainstream tells me they made sure stability and drivers were optimized, but that part is my optimistic assumption.
First of all my comment was clearly not meant to say that Fermi rules or anything. Just that Tflops means next to nothing as can be seen by Fermi cards beating some GCN based cards with twice as high maximum theoretical flops. AMD HD6000 and HD5000 had very high TFlops too and were piss poor for compute.



As you can see above the Fermi card can beat every other card (AESEncrypt) and pwns HD5000 and 6000 cards, all of which have 2x or even 3x as high maximum theoretical flops. And in DirectX11 compute Kepler apparently pwns. We could try to conclude several things from this, but the only real thing is that GPU compute is still in its infancy and it heavily depends on which app has been optimized for which GPU or which architecture and most consumer level apps and benchmarks are simply not properly optimized for every card and architecture. It's a hit or miss thing.

The GCN that handily beats Fermi is not the $899 card, it's the $3999, big difference. Against the $899 the top Fermi card wins as many available benches as it loses, which demostrates that you just can't simply compare 2 architectures based on an arbitrary metric such as maximum theoretical flops. I could design a GPU with 200.000 very simple shaders and it would pwn everything on Earth in that metric, but it would mean nothing unless the ISA was complex enough to actually do something with those ALUs, unless I had a cache and memory system capable of feeding it etc, etc.

Comparing 2 different GPU architectures' compute capabilities based on TFLOPs is much worse than comparing CPUs such as Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer, because CPUs are much more efficient at reaching their maximum flops than GPUs and thus difference from optimitations are inherently smaller. And yet comaring 2 CPU architectures based on their maximum theoretical numbers is stupid and useless, comparing GPUs is simply the next level of bad.
Posted on Reply
#6
Xzibit
So in these charts, we can assume that your comparing.

GK104s FP32 1/24 to Tahiti FP64 1/4, SP & DP ?

I would assume so since these GPGPUs are aimed at professionals but i'd hate to find out your using these gaming charts/file encryption that dont take the benefits of a professional card in to account to exacerbate your point.

:toast:
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
by: Xzibit
So in these charts, we can assume that your comparing.

GK104s FP32 1/24 to Tahiti FP64 1/4, SP & DP ?

I would assume so since these GPGPUs are aimed at professionals but i'd hate to find out your using these gaming charts/file encryption that dont take the benefits of a professional card in to account to exacerbate your point.

:toast:
If you learn to read the OP. GK104 is used in Quadro and FP64 compute ability has little to no use here.

In fact, the cards mentioned/compared by both of you are visualization cards and not compute cards. Their value is weighted in their ability to render triangles and pixels, both tasks at which GK104 excels and in the case of triangles/primitives by a big big real big margin, so yes let's take the actual benefits into account shall we? Or we can continue making a false claim based on arbitrary numbers that mean absolute nothing in the real world and pretend the value of a card must be weighted based on that false principle.

GK110 the actual compute chip will have at least 1/2 FP64 rate (plus a shitton of Tflops), but 2/3 and 1/1 has been mentioned too. But the fact is that the position of the professional compute world has never been clearer than when they asked/requested for a GK104 based card, because you know, 64 bit is not something EVERYBODY needs or wants, professional or not. Having one chip with 64 bit is required if you want to compete, yes, and if you have only one suitable high-end chip, that chip will require FP64 performance, of course, but if you have 2 winners on the top, not all of your chips need to be. In the end reality wins and professionals have been chosing their prefered solution and THAT is the best indication of which platform is ultimately the better one.
Posted on Reply
#8
HumanSmoke
by: Casecutter
And Nvidia has fanciful old planes while no product till Q4, if… The saga of Kepler continues… dragging on!
Yup. Nvidia must be gutted.
The momentum AMD had been able to muster in the related market for professional graphics hardware has not only petered out, it's now turned backward. AMD's FirePro brand did not gain on Nvidia's Quadro in Q4'11, rather it went in reverse, coming in at 18.4%. Worse, in the first quarter of 2012, AMD's taken a bigger step backward, with FirePro now falling to just 15% of units.
[JPR workstation report]
by: Casecutter
As to compute for what business actual use such cards for, I’d concur AMD's GCN performance/Watt is hard to hard to be incredulous
Yup, and a top fuel dragster can cover a quarter mile in less than four seconds. They aren't first choice for picking up the kids from school or commuting to work. I suspect AMD could whup Nvidia for 2-3 generations of pro graphics on sheer performance (tho' I suspect they wont as AMD are still angling for the APU as their go-to product line) but it still wouldn't make a dent in the overall market share - too many off the shelf solutions that work, too many high powered/high dollar partnerships. AMD is playing catch-up from a long way behind- and the actual hardware is the least of the issues.
by: Casecutter
And yes let hope the driver team that was working monthly for the desktop updates has now been allocated to workstation and really succeeding in augmenting that software's support.
Ah, the $64,000 question. This is a company that habitually release desktop cards with unoptimized drivers (imagine if Tahiti had access to Cat 12.7 at launch), touted VCE as a major bullet point for the HD 7000 then took 7+ months to actually get it working. Add in the fact that AMD have never made a secret that they aren't a software company- whereas their competition has demonstratively shown that they are, and I suspect AMD are going to need to call on a lot more than their driver team. AMD when all is said and done, is still reliant upon third parties to weigh in for software integration.

Now, with Nvidia owning 85% of the pro graphics market (and likely more of HPC)- and a record of GPGPU prioritization, do you think it likely that they will relinquish their position? and that they don't have a solution in place to succeed existing Fermi/Tesla ?
Posted on Reply
#9
Xzibit
by: Benetanegia
If you learn to read the OP. GK104 is used in Quadro and FP64 compute ability has little to no use here.

In fact, the cards mentioned/compared by both of you are visualization cards and not compute cards. Their value is weighted in their ability to render triangles and pixels, both tasks at which GK104 excels and in the case of triangles/primitives by a big big real big margin, so yes let's take the actual benefits into account shall we? Or we can continue making a false claim based on arbitrary numbers that mean absolute nothing in the real world and pretend the value of a card must be weighted based on that false principle.

GK110 the actual compute chip will have at least 1/2 FP64 rate (plus a shitton of Tflops), but 2/3 and 1/1 has been mentioned too. But the fact is that the position of the professional compute world has never been clearer than when they asked/requested for a GK104 based card, because you know, 64 bit is not something EVERYBODY needs or wants, professional or not. Having one chip with 64 bit is required if you want to compete, yes, and if you have only one suitable high-end chip, that chip will require FP64 performance, of course, but if you have 2 winners on the top, not all of your chips need to be. In the end reality wins and professionals have been chosing their prefered solution and THAT is the best indication of which platform is ultimately the better one.
I'm sure you will correct me if i'm wrong ;)

AMD FirePro (W & S series)
*9000 - K20 (MSRP $3,999 vs $3,199)
*8000 - K10 (MSRP $1,599 vs $2,249) <- This is the comparison in question performance/price and if so the W8000 has 4x throughput then the K5000
*7000 - K10 & NVS (MSRP $899 vs n/a)
*5000 - NVS (MSRP $599 vs n/a)
*x00 - The hundred denotation will be Entry level (MSRP Sub $599 vs n/a)

So when i did my comparison i was being generous. I dont doubt the K20 will be better then *9000 if Nvidia does come through with what is said it would do but since they decided to use the GK104 in quadro its expectations can go either way.

For your assertion of FP64. Just cause you use FP64 doesnt mean your locked into it. Companies may need the efficiency of a FP64 DP for just One step of their development process where the margin of error needs to be of that standard and then do the rest of the work on FP32 SP. It be silly for them to have them seperate just for that purpose.

Can you provide resources to your big big real big margin & plus a shitton of Tflops referance. It sounds so scientific. :)
Posted on Reply
#12
Benetanegia
by: Xzibit
I'm sure you will correct me if i'm wrong ;)

AMD FirePro (W & S series)
*9000 - K20 (MSRP $3,999 vs $3,199)
*8000 - K10 (MSRP $1,599 vs $2,249) <- This is the comparison in question performance/price and if so the W8000 has 4x throughput then the K5000
*7000 - K10 & NVS (MSRP $899 vs n/a)
*5000 - NVS (MSRP $599 vs n/a)
*x00 - The hundred denotation will be Entry level (MSRP Sub $599 vs n/a)

So when i did my comparison i was being generous. I dont doubt the K20 will be better then *9000 if Nvidia does come through with what is said it would do but since they decided to use the GK104 in quadro its expectations can go either way.

For your assertion of FP64. Just cause you use FP64 doesnt mean your locked into it. Companies may need the efficiency of a FP64 DP for just One step of their development process where the margin of error needs to be of that standard and then do the rest of the work on FP32 SP. It be silly for them to have them seperate just for that purpose.

Can you provide resources to your big big real big margin & plus a shitton of Tflops referance. It sounds so scientific. :)
Bla bla bla you keep insisting on comparing them based on the arbitrary value of maximum theoretical Tflops or as you named it throughput. I don't want to spend any more time on you. The link by Recus is more than enough. Now continue on insisting that Tflops == performance all you want, all day long if you want. :laugh:

As to my comment saying "big big real big" margin in triangles/primitives I assumed I was speaking to informed people and it was not necessary to cite known numbers. Since you know the Tflops of each cards so well I think it was safe to assume you knew other specs too. But I should have realized you don't or you probably wouldn't insist on that single one metric so much.

Sigh... anyway, Gk104 and GF110 do 4 triangles per clock; Cayman, Pitcairn and Tahiti do 2 per clock. The result is this:

Theoretical:


On practice. One implementation, for other examples look at Recus' link.


I'd say more than 2x-3x the throughput can be labeled as real big.

The mistery that Hothardware didn't seem to find a response to in their "These results make little sense" section is not such a mistery once you know what you're talking about and where to look for a bottleneck.
Posted on Reply
#13
Xzibit
Oh snap, Benchmarks that dont take Fp32 or Fp64 SP, DP into account

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193-12.html

What good is that throughput if its not accurate or up to the specified standards ?

By all means buy a graphic card right ?


Show me some more benchamrks please :toast:

I atleast have to give credit to Recus for providing a subtanent link. Something you never do. Might want to bookmark that one Benetanegia. You also might not want to lead with the whole Driver Optimization thing since it will disprove the advantage of wheather test where done CUDA vs OpenGL and such. I'm sure you know since you spend a good amount on talking about application, driver optimization when Nvidia is on top right ? Oh wait, my mistake...
Posted on Reply
#14
Urlyin
Senior Moderator
by: HumanSmoke
That because video games and tech demonstrators always represent reality? Let me guess, you send a weekly email to Unigine to berate them about the the impossibility of floating islands.
Just for the record- the aircraft seems modelled on the Granville Brothers Gee Bee Model Z which first flew in 1931
http://www.passion-aviation.qc.ca/images/musflight08/geebee.jpg

The underwing missiles appear to be Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder (1956-present), and the accompanying biplanes (Hawker Hardy's?) have no offensive armament apparent. No doubt the pilots are all sporting non-realistic prosthetic appendages and phasers not set to "stun"

And just for the record, here's an A-1 Skyraider (as mentioned by TheMailman) with less than half it's stores pylons occupied. Similarly/heavier equipped Skyraiders recorded air-to-air dogfight kills against NVAF MiG-17 fighters during the Vietnam War.
And just to get us back on topic

Means little or nothing.
Case in point; My partner works at the my districts hospital- in the medical imaging department. She tells me that AMD did not even compete for the image computation contract. Not because they have don't have a graphics compute solution, but because the contract stipulates 24/7 support (on site as well as instant replacement of parts, 24/7 phone and guaranteed replacement stock for 3-5 years) and a coherant and all encompassing software enviroment...so along with the Tesla/Quadro heavy lifting required for MRI, CT, PET and SPECT (her area of expertise), Nvidia also gets the contract for hundreds of laptop GPU's that technicians/doctors/maintenance use - fixed workstation being largely phased out. Factor in inertia - how often big business upgrades its systems, retraining, and a reluctance to move away from technology/support which already delivers and you should be able to see that theoretical compute numbers mean sweet fuck all.

AMD are basically reinforcing that view. Look at AMD's WS card press release- I count SIX distinct references to "our competitor/competition" - worried much? AMD referenced one design win (Supermicro)- clearly, if AMD's solution (as opposed to GPU) was so much superior, surely they would be counting HP, Dell, Lenovo et al as already on board ?
Even more off topic is that AMD still makes cards for PACS system but is under the BARCO brand....
Posted on Reply
#15
Steevo
This thread is still going? Its like an elevator that has reached the bottom floor, but it doesn't stop......



Will all the people who own one of these cards for actual use please line up?
Posted on Reply
#16
Casecutter
by: HumanSmoke
Yup. Nvidia must be gutted.

Yup, and a top fuel dragster can cover a quarter mile ...
AMD is playing catch-up from a long way behind- and the actual hardware is the least of the issues...

Ah, the $64,000 question...
Never do I want to not to see competition, or one company continually be able to oppress the another...

And yes, for AMD to gain any market share it doesn't need to deliver the utmost performance it just needs to offer a stable software/driver optimization for a $/perf. The one thing they can't pass over is sustaining and vetting business workstation clients software against their product. That’s what the purchaser is expecting for such extortionate prices, they want no hick-ups and white glove support. AMD has to provide that or get out!
Posted on Reply
#17
Benetanegia
by: Xzibit
Oh snap, Benchmarks that dont take Fp32 or Fp64 SP, DP into account

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193-12.html

What good is that throughput if its not accurate or up to the specified standards ?

By all means buy a graphic card right ?


Show me some more benchamrks please :toast:

I atleast have to give credit to Recus for providing a subtanent link. Something you never do. Might want to bookmark that one Benetanegia. You also might not want to lead with the whole Driver Optimization thing since it will disprove the advantage of wheather test where done CUDA vs OpenGL and such. I'm sure you know since you spend a good amount on talking about application, driver optimization when Nvidia is on top right ? Oh wait, my mistake...
Aaand you keep on insisting on compute benchmarks for cards that are NOT for compute. Congratulatios your posts are the most useless ever made!!

It's funny how every benchmark I've shown is not valid according to you, but you post a Sandra bench (omg :laugh:) and Luxmark which is known to be non-optimized for Nvidia cards. And this is THE point that I've been pointing out all along, so very funny you try to dismiss it. Some compute benches are won by Nvidia loosely and some are won by AMD loosely. This does not indicate any advantage on the chip/architecture it only proves that optimization is much required and it's not there yet, which again only proves that GPU compute is a new technology.

I've posted 6+ benches that cover ALL the characteristics necessary for a Quadro card and you have shown NOTHING substantial. So congratulations.

by: Xzibit
So this card @ $2,249 MSRP, USD is suppose to compete against AMD FirePro W7000 @ $899 MSRP, USD.

Talk about a price premium...

Nvidia Quadro K5000
2.1 TFLOPs @ SP

AMD FirePro W7000
2.5 TFLOPs @ SP
The above statement is what we are discussing about. And my answer couldn't be easier to understand. It can compete because it's not the maximum theoretical Tflops the basis by which these type cards are bought. They are bought because they are very good cards for visualization (and you can see this in ALL of my posts as well as the one be Recus). If you can't understand this and you keep on insisting on useless arithmetic FP benchmarks, I'll have to think that you are deficient or something. I don't want to reach that point.
Posted on Reply
#18
HumanSmoke
by: Casecutter
Never do I want to not to see competition, or one company continually be able to oppress the another...
I think that any right minded person would agree with that sentiment. Please don't see my post as "anti-AMD" or lump me in with the nonsensical "want to see AMD dead" trolls- in an ideal world we would have AMD, VIA and ARM challenging Intel, Nvidia and Intel challenging AMD, anyone challenging Microsoft. Unfortunately, what I want, and the reality of the situations rarely converge.

Something, something, shooting the messenger

by: Casecutter
And yes, for AMD to gain any market share it doesn't need to deliver the utmost performance it just needs to offer a stable software/driver optimization for a $/perf. The one thing they can't pass over is sustaining and vetting business workstation clients software against their product. That’s what the purchaser is expecting for such extortionate prices, they want no hick-ups and white glove support. AMD has to provide that or get out!
Again, a truism. Nvidia's drive has been to market an ecosystem (CUDA, GPGPU, SDK's, Design software, pro drivers) almost entirely predicated upon the high dollar professional market, which usually lumbers the desktop variants with an abundance of overkill in unneeded features and a wasteful perf/watt, perf/$, perf/mm^2, and an overcomplicated solution (for desktop). AMD seem to be on the learning curve that Nvidia started navigating some time back. I've no doubt that AMD given the resources can develop the necessary hardware to challenge anything Nvidia can come up with- the problem is marketing, ongoing support, and most importantly, long range vision. As you say, AMD needs to start delivering- and I hope they do...but what I see presently is a cash-strapped AMD trying to cover a lot of bases with very few resources.
Posted on Reply
#19
SIGSEGV
by: Benetanegia
Luxmark which is known to be non-optimized for Nvidia cards.
i want to ask you something, where do you know luxmark is known to be non-optimized for Nvidia cards? it just because nvidia lose on the luxmark bench then you have right to say like that or what? please give me a scientific explanations. thanks.

*afaik luxmark bench has debug infos
Posted on Reply
#20
Casecutter
by: HumanSmoke
what I see presently is a cash-strapped AMD trying to cover a lot of bases with very few resources.
Yep, and that might be why here a while back AMD slowed the drive release from monthly, to as need. I think Rory and those realize there’s a good return in the workstation business, and let hope that’s where a lot of those resources where refocused to… rather than unemployment lines.
Posted on Reply
#21
Benetanegia
by: SIGSEGV
i want to ask you something, where do you know luxmark is known to be non-optimized for Nvidia cards? it just because nvidia lose on the luxmark bench then you have right to say like that or what? please give me a scientific explanations. thanks.

*afaik luxmark bench has debug infos
I was too busy responding to stupid posts of you know who and didn't see your post, sorry.

Well it's a known fact for 3d artists and people related to rendering world etc. The most notable source was a Nvidia engineer himself, in Nvidia forums who simply admitted that they don't optimize for Luxmark, because it's not a priority. Keep in mind it's only one of the dozens of renderers, although it's in the spotlight now because AMD uses it on their internal benches and that made some sites start using it too (probably AMD suggests its inclusion in their reviewing guides).

So other than that what can I do? What about some benches from Anandtech which show the matter at hand:

HD6970 review:



GTX560 Ti review:



HD7970 review:



GTX680 review:



As you can see there's always progression on AMD cards. i.e HD6970 8370 -> 10510 -> 11900 -> 13500

This is normal behavior as both the application and AMD drivers are optimized.

On Nvidia on the other hand performance is erratic at best. i.e GTX570 6104 -> 15440 -> 10500 -> 9800

A massive improvement in one particular driver and then down and then even lower again. This does not happen when something is optimized. Well actually, you can see a hint of real Nvidia potential in the GTX560 review. That is how much optimization or lack thereof can affect results in a relatively new and unoptimized benchmark on a relatively new and unoptimized API.
Posted on Reply
#22
Xzibit
by: Benetanegia

A massive improvement in one particular driver and then down and then even lower again. This does not happen when something is optimized. Well actually, you can see a hint of real Nvidia potential in the GTX560 review. That is how much optimization or lack thereof can affect results in a relatively new and unoptimized benchmark on a relatively new and unoptimized API.
You might want to check the benchmark discription first aswell, HDR and then HDR+Vol before citing the GTX 560 potential ;)

Maybe you should post CUDA benchmarks to see if there own API shows a discrepancy in "optimization" and gauge that ?

There is several out there. Here is one
A few sites and blog & forums have done comparative test aswell for CUDA vs OpenCL and the % difference is minimal. Single digit % differance. Search away... It kind of throws a wrench in that whole "optimization" theory tho.

You also might want to finish the quote from the Nvidia engineer.. It kind of paints the entire picture of the GK104.
Posted on Reply
#23
Benetanegia
by: Xzibit
You might want to check the benchmark discription first aswell, HDR and then HDR+Vol before citing the GTX 560 potential ;)

Maybe you should post CUDA benchmarks to see if there own API shows a discrepancy in "optimization" and gauge that ?

There is several out there. Here is one
A few sites and blog & forums have done comparative test aswell for CUDA vs OpenCL and the % difference is minimal. Single digit % differance. Search away... It kind of throws a wrench in that whole "optimization" theory tho.

You also might want to finish the quote from the Nvidia engineer.. It kind of paints the entire picture of the GK104.
Wow, you are clueless. Do you even know what OpenCL or CUDA really are? They are APIs, programming frameworks. OpenCL is not different in that regard to OpenGL, DirectX and the likes. They are not applications, they are the tools to create programs. You still have to create your programs and optimize every single one of them.

What you did is like posting a Battlefield 3 benchmark and pretend it's relevant to Crysis 2 optimization level and performance, because both have been developed using DirectX environment. :laugh: Next time, you might as well compare any 2 applications because they have been created with C++ or because they used the Windows SDK. :roll:

But it's even worse, because you coul have at least posted some application benchmarks, but no, you post a link to some matrix*matrix multiplication, and fourier transformations, etc and you pretend it demostrates anything regarding LuxRender optimization. You're so clueless. It's like posting a video of some little boy doing simple arithmetic additions and pretend he must be a genius capable of doing Lorentz transformations.
Posted on Reply
#24
Xzibit
You are funny how you somehow insert some off the wall implications that you have in your head.

Its like I dont have to say anything and you insert what ever you want into the conversation. Its halarious.

Do you still have your imaginary friend with you ? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
Benetanegia
by: Xzibit
You are funny how you somehow insert some off the wall implications that you have in your head.

Its like I dont have to say anything and you insert what ever you want into the conversation. Its halarious.

Do you still have your imaginary friend with you ? :laugh:
Now you are embarrasing yourself. You can't tell the difference between a Tesla and a Quadro, between the pro and consumer market and now you don't even know what an API is, yet you continue on arguing about things that are waaaay above your knowledge, posting irrelevant stupid things.

And finally since you can't fight the message, mainly because you have no freaking idea of what we are talking about now, you start attacking the messenger. And doing it desperately and hopelessly. Lame. Laughable but lame.

EDIT: I want some more laughs so please try to explain how your previous post is relevant to SmallLux.
EDIT2: Stop embarrasing yourself and post something relevant. I know that you can't understand what an API is, and now I know that you don't even know what Optimization is. A little tip that should help you out through this conversation: OpenCL is NOT SmallLux/Luxmark and Luxmark is NOT OpenCL. No other benchmark/application other than SmallLux/Luxmark can prove SmallLux optimization. That is what my examples were trying to explain to you, I had hopes that you would at least be able to understand that 2 games are not the same thing simply because they use the same API*, but no luck. You are so clueless you can't even understand that, so what's next?

*ups sorry I know you need help, that API that I'm talkiing about there is DirectX, both use DirectX.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment