CPU and GPU benchmarks

[chadfx]

Has anyone had the chance to test out any of the the new MacPro flavors with dual GPU's?

[Ian Cutress]

I have added Photoscan to AnandTech's results database.
I just added the results from about a dozen CPUs that were not in the database, and I have a fair number lined up over the coming months.

Link for all results: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1057

Graph of Total Time:


Links to:
Stage 1: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7611/65094.png
Stage 2: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7611/65095.png
Stage 3: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7611/65096.png
Stage 4: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7611/65097.png
CPU Mapping Speed: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7611/65099.png

[Wishgranter]

 
Thanx IAN.........

[photogrammetrix]

Hi all,

thanks for publishing the benchmark-tests.

Having the most recent up-to-date and powerful hardware will make you really happy when working with agisoft, but it may also strain your budget nastily.

For those who are looking for computing power but having only restricted budget, I would like to report  my experiences  with second hand / used  older generation hardware:

D.... T7500 Precision Workstation, Dual hexacore Xeaon X5680 with 3.3 GHz, 48 GB 1333 MHz Cl 9 RAM, Dual nVidia Quadro 4000, 2 GB RAM., manufactured in 2010

Pricing EU / Germany: 1200 - 1600 Euro

First test run with agisoft showed, that processor cooling was absolutely insufficient for running under full load for a longer time. Core temp higher than 80 - 90 deg Celsius was common, but which I think is not healthy over a longer period of time.

I modified the cooling system in he following way:
- removed all the plastic stuff from inside
- removed both processor heatsinks (mainboard and riser-card, which is for the second CPU)
- installed two Noctua NH-U9DX 1366 tower cooler with fans, which sustainly solved the overheating problem

Core temp under full load over longer period of time does now seldom reach more than 60 deg C.

Here are the benchmark results for the  4 stages, settings and images as described in the other posts above (4 of 24 virtual cores disabled), Hypershreading and all Cores activated in Bios

1. 205.3 sec
2. 161.8 sec
3. 231.5 sec
4. 109.9 sec

Total of 708 sec or 11.8 min, Performances for step 2:   CPU  181.631 million samples/sec, GPU1 249.646 million samples/sec, GPU2 254.201 samples/sec, total 684.86 .

The machine is running Ubuntu 12.04.4 LTS with recent updates installed.


Cheers

[fx27]

Hey,

i'm testing my new machine and here are some interesting benchmarks i've made today:

I7 4790K @ 4,4GHz
32GB DDR3 TridentX @ 2400MHz
2* PowerColor R9 290 PCS+
Some SSDs too...
Cooler Master HAF XB Case
3* very noisy but nice Delta Fans (30W each...  )
H100i watercooling for CPU

All the stuff is very well cooled CPU: 40°C GPU: 43°C

Settings:

building.psz
Building dense cloud / medium / aggressive

8/8  CPU cores |  0/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 177.953 million samples/sec (CPU)
Total performance: 177.953 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 416.586 sec (exit code 1)

6/8 CPU cores |  1/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 151.705 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 863.408 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1015.11 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 174.813 sec (exit code 1)

4/8 CPU cores | 2/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 127.262 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 715.734 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 3 performance: 632.521 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1475.52 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 118.62 sec (exit code 1)

0/8 CPU cores | 2/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 868.328 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 2 performance: 741.236 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1609.56 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 112.827 sec (exit code 1)

Same project,building dense cloud, but 'high':

4/8 CPU cores | 2/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 146.476 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 882.266 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 3 performance: 917.818 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1946.56 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 503.681 sec (exit code 1)

0/8 CPU cores | 2/2 R9 290

Device 1 performance: 907.5 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 2 performance: 903.321 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1810.82 million samples/sec
Finished processing in 485.123 sec (exit code 1)


Some interesting facts...

My company notebook is a XMG with 880M 8GB - while testing with the monument benchmark i got
these results against my normal render machine.

Medium setting, building dense cloud:
Notebook: 266sec. (GTX880M 8GB)
Desktop: 240sec. (1* R9 290 PCS+ 4GB)
Desktop: 123sec. (2* R9 290 PCS+ 4GB)

Ultra high setting, building dense cloud
Notebook: 8622sec. (GTX880M 8GB)
Desktop: 3723sec. (2*R 290 PCS+ 4GB)

The GTX880M (f**k... this is mobile!) has a lot of power...

Hope this helps

Cheers
Daniel

[ozbigben]

I've just been handed a VM by our IT department primarily for testing Photoscan. Interesting weeks ahead 

PC: Dell Precision T5600 , 635W,  Xeon E5-2630 (Six Core, 2.30GHz Turbo, 15MB, 7.2 GT/s), 32GB (4x8GB) 1600MHz DDR3 ECC RDIMM, 3 GB NVIDIA Quadro K4000

VM (via PCoIP): 16 vCPU cores and 64 GB RAM + equivalent to Quadro K5000 GPU (dedicated)

[Magnus]

Hello!

I just got the Asus Geforce GTX 970 Strix and have been running some quick tests.

I've used the building.psz with Build Dense Cloud at Medium and Aggressive. 6 out of 8 cores enabled.


First run:

Device 2 performance: 732.496 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)

Second run:

Device 2 performance: 735.672 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)

Third run:

Device 2 performance: 742.626 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)


I then tried running it at High and I got:

Device 2 performance: 854.403 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)


I also did one test with 0 out of 8 cores enabled (at medium) and I got:

Device 1 performance: 843.676 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)


This is all with Nvidia driver GEFORCE 344.11.

I also ran my old GTX 570 and it scored between 525-545 million samples/sec.

Best, Magnus.

[ntuseracc]

Hey,
a few month ago i put together a workstation for Photoscanon paper for our Organisation.
It featured a i7-4960X, 64GB DDR3 as main components.
Now we finally got the OK from the purchasing office and got the money.

In the meantime intel released its new Haswell-E processors.
The 5960X and the 5930k... i now wonder if i should stick with my old configuration or if i should put
together a new one? The 5960X offers more cores but is more expensive. The 5930K is a lot cheaper than the 4960X, but how would the performance compare in Photoscan. I also read that both new cpu wont beat the 4960X on single thread performance.

Another Problem is the budget, both new cpu require a new, more expensive MB and RAM. My budget is quite fixed so if i got a i7-5960X i would definatly have to get rid of 32GB RAM for now.
With the cheaper 5930K i could stick with 64GB, maybe even get a better gpu as before.

what would you suggest?

The System will be used for 3D documentation of smaller artifacts (but many) and for orthophoto & DEM generation of smaller areas created with a balloon or drone.

[hengefjes]

...
In the meantime intel released its new Haswell-E processors.
...
With the cheaper 5930K i could stick with 64GB, maybe even get a better gpu as before.

what would you suggest?

I find my main limit to be available RAM. Many of the x99x-boards have 8 memory slots and will support up to 128GB. I would go with the 5930K and 16GB RAM chips - if they are available soon, so that i could upgrade if needed. I guess Photoscan will benefit from the faster memory-speeds also.

[pjenness]

Have just built a new Rig for home

Intel i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50
Asus Ramapage V motherboard
32  GB Ram (for now)
Gigabyte 980GTX G1 4GD 
Gigabyte 970GTX G1 (Setup as eGPU inside a viDock -> expressCard PCie interface)

Wasnt sure what scene to benchmark so did the statue one. Ultra High and Aggressive.

Using device: GeForce GTX 970, 13 compute units, 4096 MB global memory
Using device: GeForce GTX 980, 16 compute units, 4096 MB global memory


finished depth reconstruction in 2288.13 seconds
Device 1 performance: 616.547 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 970)
Device 2 performance: 1012.03 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 980)

Using 1.1.0 pre-release (as current release didnt work with the 9xx series or nvidia drivers)
Hope that is useful info

Cheers

-Paul

[orellius]

Is there any new word on the GTX980's? I just see that one user had success, and some were going to be doing some benchmarks. Anandtech doesnt seem to have GPU on the charts for Photoscan, just CPU.

Anyway, I am spec'ing out a workstation for the company and am looking at 2-3 GTX980's, or 2 K6000, or 2 TITAN. (with 64-128 GB RAM, and 1-2 Xeon's)

Just need to know if there are any known issues. Any suggestions as well?

Thanks!

Edit: I forgot to include links, my comments are in reference to multiple threads (one on the new GTX cards, and one on the 1.1.0 pre-release testing, and thought I would post it in the benchmarks thread)

http://www.agisoft.com/forum/index.php?topic=2878.0
http://www.agisoft.com/forum/index.php?topic=2883.120

[fx27]

0/0 cores / 2/2 r290x

Device 1 performance: 932.164 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 2 performance: 926.353 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1858.52 million samples/sec


0/0 cores / 2/2 gtx980

Device 1 performance: 1007.78 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 980)
Device 2 performance: 1003.94 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 980)
Total performance: 2011.73 million samples/sec

monument test file, resolution high...

nice cards!

[orellius]

thanks!

[driftertravel]

I'm curious, and I thought this thread might be the one to post in. I had a gtx 680 sitting around and popped it in thinking I would get some extra processing power, and I did, but the results were strange. It seems that while dense point cloud reconstruction was indeed slightly quicker (.12x quicker), alignment was slower. I may have mixed something up in the testing, so I thought I'd ask if disabling a CPU core in order to utilize another CUDA card results in such poor performance improvements or if my results seem wonky... Thanks.

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello driftertravel,

Disabling CPU cores in the OpenCL tab of PhotoScan Preferences window has effects only on depth maps generation step, if any OpenCL device is checked on.