Forum

Author Topic: Benchmarking a GPUs  (Read 81009 times)

Wishgranter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
    • View Profile
    • Museum of Historic Buildings
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2013, 12:53:03 PM »
Hi All, as first benchmarks comming out it seems that COMPUTE in the new 290X is not so good as on the 7970 cards..... http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/17

But it seems that Nvidia will lower prices on 780s and Titan cards in next few weeks...
----------------
www.mhb.sk

Wishgranter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
    • View Profile
    • Museum of Historic Buildings
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #76 on: November 22, 2013, 03:34:35 PM »
test results from Marcell
Here are the results for the 'official' benchmark file, point cloud on Ultra:

Quote
finished depth reconstruction in 133.39 seconds
Device 1 performance: 765.774 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Device 2 performance: 762.169 million samples/sec (Hawaii)
Total performance: 1527.94 million samples/sec

So with the official file, the R290 is about 25% faster than a 7970.
----------------
www.mhb.sk

Peter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2013, 07:21:21 PM »
Finished buildning my workstation, havent oc it yet...
Specs are: I7-4960x, asus rampage motherboard, corsair 1866 mhz 64 gb ram, dual 7970

here are results on ultra with photoscan 1.0

[GPU] estimating 1764x2280x544 disparity using 882x760x8u tiles, offset -342
timings: rectify: 0.172 disparity: 3.453 borders: 0.063 filter: 0.187 fill: 0
finished depth reconstruction in 119.424 seconds
Device 1 performance: 200.474 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 754.388 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Device 3 performance: 754.261 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Total performance: 1709.12 million samples/sec
Generating dense point cloud...
selected 16 cameras in 0.25 sec
working volume: 1640x1638x2566
tiles: 1x1x1
selected 16 cameras
preloading data... done in 0.64 sec
filtering depth maps... done in 5.266 sec
accumulating data... done in 6.266 sec
accumulator: 287.192 MB
octree constructed in 0.375 sec
nodes: 2161 (0.103728 MB)
points: 4069497 (40.695 MB)
nodes: 2161 (0.103728 MB)
points: 4069497 (40.695 MB)
4069497 points extracted
Finished processing in 134.722 sec (exit code 1)

florent.dallot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2014, 11:47:26 AM »
Hi just some test with nvidia Grid

Device 1 performance: 153.9 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 410.873 million samples/sec (GRID K2)
Device 3 performance: 413.247 million samples/sec (GRID K2)
Device 4 performance: 412.337 million samples/sec (GRID K2)
Device 5 performance: 414.145 million samples/sec (GRID K2)
Total performance: 1804.5 million samples/sec

tommyboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2014, 12:11:53 PM »
Wishgranter, any luck with a nice list?  I keep flipping through the posts here yet don't feel like I quite have it all straight.

Please oh please has anyone benched an R9 290X yet?  It seems from latest Anandtech review, the 290X and 280X dance around each other, and the 290 is maybe 5% slower than the 290X:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/14

Given that the 290 ran about 25% faster than the 7970 earlier in this thread, the 290X should then only manage 30-35% faster than 7970/280X, sound right?

Just about to plunk down on a new system here, and trying to decide between two 280X, and a single 290X.  The single 290X would provide option for a second 290X later, however it sounds like people are having power and cooling problems with getting a 2 x 290X system running nicely...is anyone running a 2 x 280X system run alright with just air cooling?

ARF

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2014, 01:40:34 AM »
Hi,

I've run the sample project on my machine:

ultra and mild depth settings.

Device 1 performance: 1072.65 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 780 Ti)
Device 2 performance: 1054.08 million samples/sec (GeForce GTX 780 Ti)
Total performance: 2126.73 million samples/sec

tommyboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #81 on: March 18, 2014, 03:00:32 AM »
Core i7-4930K (12 HT cores), 64GB RAM, dual R9 280X

We got the best GPU performance when limiting to 8 CPU cores as suggested by PS, making the 7970 about 8% faster.  Interestingly, the best overall time was achieved by setting to 10 CPU cores:

8 Cores
Device 1 performance: 160.09 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 693.38 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Device 3 performance: 696.031 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Finished processing in 192.699 sec

9 Cores
Device 1 performance: 161.812 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 660.052 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Device 3 performance: 645.288 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Finished processing in 176.007 sec

10 Cores
Device 1 performance: 162.184 million samples/sec (CPU)
Device 2 performance: 644.929 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Device 3 performance: 648.454 million samples/sec (Tahiti)
Finished processing in 169.472 sec

Wishgranter, have you been updating your spreadsheet?  Would you be interested in publishing your spreadsheet so far as a shared Google Doc?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 05:34:37 PM by tommyboy »

Oli63

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • www.geospy.at
    • View Profile
    • GeoSpy Aerial Imaging & Mapping GmbH
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #82 on: March 18, 2014, 02:00:21 PM »
Do the latest results from ARF mean that the GTX780i is significantly faster than the 7970 Tahitis with respect to tommyboys results? Until now it was common opinion that it is preferable to buy AMD instead of Nvidia in terms of performance.
GeoSpy Aerial Imaging & Mapping GmbH
www.geospy.at

Exhale

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #83 on: March 23, 2014, 12:27:16 AM »
By the way,  Did anyone try  Two SSD  with Raid O settings on this kinda powerful system?
Did you notice any significant performance ?

ksau

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2014, 06:58:55 PM »
Hi!

I am quite new into Photoscan and love its possibilities. But - as always - could not have enough speed ;-)

I am trying to get the best out of Amazon EC2 as described here:
http://acuasi.alaska.edu/2014/02/11/configure-windows-2012-for-nvidia-grid-on-amazon-ec2/

Photoscan works but I think not in OpenCL mode and not very fast... Could you explain how to run the benchmark you are comparing here? I do not get that  :o I downloaded the sample and I open sample01_smooth.psz. But what now? "Workflow" -> "Build dense cloud"?

Thank you and best regards
Keith

tommyboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2014, 10:08:12 PM »
By the way,  Did anyone try  Two SSD  with Raid O settings on this kinda powerful system?
Did you notice any significant performance ?
I have tried SSD vs spinning platter drive, where the performance difference should be much more noticeable, and didn't see any real difference.  I think if you have enough RAM, the only time it's really hitting disk is when loading the photos, and odds are they will be cached by the OS into RAM already, regardless of drive.

power64

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #86 on: October 30, 2014, 04:53:01 AM »
GPU and CPU Summary Sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iLX4iAVwcOJ0zyt5XNJW17ARz6lDrh0gJS5DAkXi_Ns/edit?usp=sharing


It is freely editable by anyone with the link and update as you see fit.  Please don't change numbers unless you are positive the ones in the sheet are off.

FYI, The values reported are from various posts in the Agisoft forum.  I have attempted to infer expected results from non-tested GPU cards by utilizing the Si Soft Single Precision Open CL GPU results and they look quite good for estimating the AMD cards, but not so good for expected Nvidia performance.

For any newbies checking out which card to buy.  Lots of users seem to like the Nvidia GTX 580 or faster cards and if you have a need for speed, but don't mind possible unstable performance, the AMD cards scream, such as 7970 or better.

Please keep in mind that a fast GPU card setup will only speed up certain steps in the dense point cloud and heights, so a strong processor is also needed for the other Agisoft Pro functions.

Best Regards,
-Jerome (power64)

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 05:00:49 AM by power64 »

Wishgranter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
    • View Profile
    • Museum of Historic Buildings
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #87 on: October 30, 2014, 02:24:50 PM »
Hi Power64. thanx a lot for this summary.....
----------------
www.mhb.sk

JohnyJoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #88 on: February 18, 2015, 12:47:36 AM »
Is it still true, that ATI cards offer in the same price range significantly better performance than NVIDIA cards?

For example i believe GTX 960 and R9 280 (and R9 280X), are almost in the same price range and their performance in games is similiar, but due to something (ATIs better drivers in openCL), these ATI cards offer huge performance increase in comparison to NVIDIA cards in the same price range?

Is it true still please?

petrovka

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Benchmarking a GPUs
« Reply #89 on: March 25, 2015, 02:30:04 PM »
Hi, maybe this benchmark will help us

OpenCL benchmark:
http://compubench.com/result.jsp