nVidia GTX 680 now at Newegg

Report · Mar 21, 2012

http://www.newegg.com/GTX680/?nm_mc=EMCCP-032212-NV&cm_mmc=EMCCP-032212-NV-_-GeForceGTX680-_-banner-...

Coupon code good until end of March or when supply is exhausted... good for free shipping EMCNGHJ22 (at checkout)

Report · Mar 26, 2012

Hi,

Dave

I ordered the current available 2gb Version of the GTX 680.

My System spec at Present is:

Asus P6T7 WS with 980x 4.2GHZ,

The card has Arived this morning, will do some tests and see what it can do.

Baz

Report · Mar 26, 2012

Hi Baz,

thanks for your help and I can't wait to see how it works. What card did you have in the machine?

Dax

Report · Mar 26, 2012

Hi Baz,

thanks for the clarification 🙂 Nice ! btw, I was checking out your board, sweet ! Not a cheap board... $$ I have been buying ASUS boards for a long time, can't go wrong with them

I find.

I'm looking forward to your findings ! -- and - good question Darren had, - what card did you have in your system ? would be interesting to know, when you tell us how the 680 performs.

Also, having the cpu you have, is a major step up from my very old Intel q9450 which was one of the top chips at its time.

http://ark.intel.com/products/33923/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q9450-%2812M-Cache-2_66-GHz-1333-MHz-...

I'd love to see test results on a piece of video, using my current chip, and going up to th an i7 like you have. All tests I've ever seen are ALWAYS for gamers,

and it seems there's just nowhere to go to see tests for people using premiere.

example:

video 1 - 1080p AVCHD footage 2 minutes in duration.

time to render:

x seconds with this chip

etc....

you just cannot find this kind of info out there, well I've never found it.

good luck with the new card ! I know we are all drooling here !

Dave.

I've got the 570 1280 gb version, so going up to 2 gb would be a big step for me, will wait and see what unfolds. Nice

Studio North wrote:
Hi,
Dave
I ordered the current available 2gb Version of the GTX 680.
My System spec at Present is:
Asus P6T7 WS with 980x 4.2GHZ,
The card has Arived this morning, will do some tests and see what it can do.
Baz

Report · Mar 26, 2012

David, it evident that you have not been to PPBM5.com where you can see almost 800 real Premiere Pro benchmarks. I have to apologize to Baz that his results are not on the current database driven site, we (actually Harm) developed quite automated way to enter results after he submitted his results. The early results from Studio North can be seen in our older PPBM5 results page.

Report · Mar 26, 2012

Hi Bill,

no, I've neard heard of it, but am looking at it now. I have to say though it's very confusing. It would be good if there was a link to a youtube video describing all these columns on info.

I don't see anywhere a field with "render time" or "elapsed render time" so I have no clue where that info is.

I'm assuming that everyone rendered the same file, and these values were entered on that webiste.... but where ? I just don't see it listed.

What I'm looking for is values of the total time it took to render a file, either in minutes + seconds, or total seconds.

I don't see it, am I blind ?

😞

Dave.

Bill Gehrke wrote:
David, it evident that you have not been to PPBM5.com where you can see almost 800 real Premiere Pro benchmarks. I have to apologize to Baz that his results are not on the current database driven site, we (actually Harm) developed quite automated way to enter results after he submitted his results. The early results from Studio North can be seen in our older PPBM5 results page.

Report · Mar 26, 2012

The file everyone downloaded is on the Benchmark Instructions page.

If you look on the Benchmark Results - Test results page you can see times it took for people to run the benchmark.

If you look at the rankings on the left mine is # 551

It took a total of 622 seconds to complete the benchmark. Almost 6 times slower than # 1

Run the test yourself and you will know where your system stacks up to others.

GLenn

Report · Mar 26, 2012

Hi Glenn

thanks for the help. I'm just shutting down for the night but will check this out tomorrow and spend some time with it,

thank again for the help !

Dave.

Powered by Design wrote:
The file everyone downloaded is on the Benchmark Instructions page.
If you look on the Benchmark Results - Test results page you can see times it took for people to run the benchmark.
If you look at the rankings on the left mine is # 551
It took a total of 622 seconds to complete the benchmark. Almost 6 times slower than # 1
Run the test yourself and you will know where your system stacks up to others.
GLenn

Report · Mar 29, 2012

My system:

OS Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit

Adobe Creative suite 5.5 with latest update

Boot disk intel SSD 160 Gb sata II

I7 980X @ 4119MHz

Gygabyte GA-X58 UDR3

24 Gb Kingston 1600 (9 9 9 27 36)@ 1420 (8 8 8 27 36)

Raid 0 (2 Velociraptor 600x2)

GTX 580

Latest Drivers available

My PPBM5 result with MPE:

"66","51","43","5"

With GTX 680

"63","59","41","5"

I am happy, if I consider that there is only a first drivers release for GTX 680.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

Fabio

your Results are slower with the 680 and you say your happy. ???

Baz

Report · Mar 29, 2012

Baz,

quite similar result, and first driver release.

I am happy because, now, I can use my monitors configuration (dell 27'', samsung 23 '' (3d vision ready) and Acer 3d projector with less pain, using a similar powerfull vga. Maybe I didn't expect so much, and I am confident in superior results with new drivers release.

Jim, in my system I had not ever installed a single game.

I use PP with both cards in the same way and for me, at this point, it is a great result (IMHO)

Report · Mar 29, 2012

You must have something wrong I am getting about 10 seconds faster MPEG2-DVD scores over my 480 and 580. What driver are you using? At nVidia they are now at 301.10 whereas the board shipped with 300.83 Incidently this driver is not backward compatible with previous GTX's Of course one thing I never load is the 3D and PhysX drivers.

The other major problem is that your motherboard and CPU cannot take advantage of the PCIe version 3.0 capability. Unfortunately I just found out that my Sandy Bridge motherboard (GA-Z68XP-UD4) will not do PCIe 3.0 either as it is a revision 1.0 board and you need a 1.3 revision and my i7-2600K also is not PCIe 3. capable.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

Yes Bill, I saw your results on PPBM5 and I think I have some codec or bios settings problem. Driver is the same (301.10), but maybe, I have to clean better old GTX 580 driver installation.

Setting DDR to 1333 (7 7 7) I have a little better benchmark in MPEG2-DVD and MPE on goes to 4.But this result is equal for both cards (580/680)

I load 3D vision and physX drivers because I need for my job. I don't know if this is a problem for benchmark.

As soon as possible I ' ll try a clean OS install

Report · Mar 29, 2012

Fabio, Jim, I believe was saying that Premiere Pro is not a video game, - meaning that videos games are the "apps" as Microsoft now calls them with Windows 8, that are taking full advantage of

these new cards.

I'm getting a really funny suspicion that you can max out the performance of Premiere, with a GTX 580 card. A 10% gain in performance is nothing to write home about, and it may even be

a fluke at this point.

From what I understand, ALL rendering out to a video file is cpu based. So video card would NOT aid in the render times. I have a GTX 470, and either the time line is : RED, Yellow or Green.

that's it. There is no inbetween.

When I load a new video file, it doesn't take x amount of seconds for a time line to turn any of those colors, it just is, - as soon as I load the file. So this tells me, that nothing changes with the 680

video card. Sure it will play video back perhaps a tiny bit smoother, but perhaps maybe not even.

Things are sure complicated at this point.

I'm guessing that the motherboard you are using with your new video card is only PCI 2. This is a bottleneck in the system, and it's 100% sure you are not getting the throughput that the card can

give you, however for actual render time, - again - in theory, if you had NO video card in your computer, render times ( outputting to a video file ) should remain exactly the same. This being I understand

the basics of how Premiere works. Premiere uses 100% CPU power to render a video file out to disk, and the video card does nothing to increase or decrease the times you ge with that rendering to

an output video file.

This stuff is rather confusing.

Dave.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

David, Jim,

I have put my benchmark data to help people to understand that for "experienced" PP user this card is pretty identical in performance with GTX 580 and maybe lower cards.

I have bought this card for various reasons:

1) Management of monitors
2) power consumptions
3) new tecnology

I knew that probably I would not have had large benefits with it but for me was clear that 512 cuda cores (of my "old" 580GTX) are not absolutely inferior to "new" 1536 cuda cores( ATI stream processors docet) Nvidia marketing move.

For me, pci express bandwidth is not the problem for now

I think that with this movement nvidia (and its partner) it wants to push seriously using of the new graphical cards of the Quadro family, maybe.

For these reason I am happy of my new card, probabIy I expected still less.
I now hope to more clearly have express my thought

And sorry for my bad english

Report · Mar 29, 2012

I am confident in superior results with new drivers release.

I would be surprised, as new driver updates aren't normally geared towards improving compute performance, they're generally tweaks to make specific games run faster or eliminate game errors. And even then the performance increase is usually pretty small, 1% to 5% typically, which is far short of the 300% render performance increase we all wanted to see from a card with 3x the CUDA cores.

Report · Mar 29, 2012

I'm not sure a driver update is going to change those numbers any. PP isn't a video game.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Fabio can you Please tell me the GPU Clockspeed of both GTX.

I will use a GTX 6XX Series OOONLYY If I have PCIX 3.0 slot. "X79"

Why????

Memory interface

Look:

GTX580:

SPECIFICATIONS GPU:
CUDA Cores	512
Graphics Clock (MHz)	772
Processor Clock (MHz)	1544
Texture Fill Rate (billion / s)	49.4
MEMORY SPECIFICATIONS:
Memory Clock (MHz)	2004
Config. standard memory	1536 MB GDDR5
Memory interface	384-bit
Bandwidth of memory (GB / s)	192.4

GTX 680

Specifications GPU
CUDA kernels	1536
Normal clock frequency	1006
Accelerated rate	1058
Texture Fill Rate	128.8

Memory specifications
Memory Frequency ( Gbps )	6008
Amount of memory	2048MB
Memory interface	256-bit GDDR5
Full bandwidth.	192.2

IF MAN DO NOT HAVE A PCIX3.0 THE GTX 580 WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER PERFORMANCE.

OOONNLYY THE CLOCKSPEED ON THE GTX680 CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.

Let see what happen whit a GTX 680 ON an MOBO X79 O.C.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

for both cards standard reference clocks.

No overclock for them.

In my opinion, pciex 3.0 will not be the different. for bandwith I think 2.0 is not saturated today.

as a note,

monitoring GPU load with gpu z, it seems GPU is not much used during Premiere pro job (max 66% of load), for both cards.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

So you recognize that memory interface is superior in the GTX 580 even in the gtx570.. That means that a GTX570 O.C. 950MHZ will work better than the gtx680... under PCI Express slot.

PCIX3.0 IT IS the big thing. And this is for everyone who is looking what Im writing. PCIX 3.0 dobles bandwidth over PCIX 2.0.

But well as usualy I will show some result wich speak by itself.

Cheers.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

rendering a video file to your hard drive has NOTHING to do with the video card.

Crist OC/PC wrote:
Fabio can you Please tell me the GPU Clockspeed of both GTX.
I will use a GTX 6XX Series OOONLYY If I have PCIX 3.0 slot. "X79"
Why????
Memory interface
Look:
GTX580:
SPECIFICATIONS GPU:
CUDA Cores 512
Graphics Clock (MHz) 772
Processor Clock (MHz) 1544
Texture Fill Rate (billion / s) 49.4
MEMORY SPECIFICATIONS:
Memory Clock (MHz) 2004
Config. standard memory 1536 MB GDDR5
Memory interface 384-bit
Bandwidth of memory (GB / s) 192.4
GTX 680
Specifications GPU
CUDA kernels
1536
Normal clock frequency
1006
Accelerated rate
1058
Texture Fill Rate
128.8
Memory specifications
Memory Frequency ( Gbps )
6008
Amount of memory
2048MB
Memory interface
256-bit GDDR5
Full bandwidth.
192.2
IF MAN DO NOT HAVE A PCIX3.0 THE GTX 580 WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER PERFORMANCE.
OOONNLYY THE CLOCKSPEED ON THE GTX680 CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.
Let see what happen whit a GTX 680 ON an MOBO X79 O.C.

Report · Mar 30, 2012

So David Zeno take video card out and Make render.... .

Who is saying so??? What are you talking about???

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Do you own a copy of Premiere ?

If you did, you would know that Premiere render speeds to an output file are based on your CPU ( a cpu is a computer chip on your motherboard ).

The video card makes no difference. I just assumed you knew Premiere Pro. This forum assumes you know a little bit about Premiere and how it works,

perhaps, read up a bit, and come back later with some intelligent remarks.

Dave.

Crist OC/PC wrote:
So David Zeno take video card out and Make render.... .
Who is saying so??? What are you talking about???

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Actually David, you are wrong. According to Adobe when you export any of these attributes that are a part of your sequence , they are handled & sped up by a CUDA card. They include...

Alpha Adjust
Basic 3D
Black & White
Brightness & Contrast
Color Balance (RGB)
Color Pass
Color Replace
Crop
Drop Shadow
Extract
Fast Color Corrector
Feather Edges
Gamma Correction
Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
Gaussian Blur
Horizontal Flip
Levels
Luma Corrector
Luma Curve
Noise
Proc Amp
RGB Curves
RGB Color Corrector
Sharpen
Three-way Color Corrector
Timecode
Tint
Track Matte
Ultra Keyer
Video Limiter
Vertical Flip
Cross Dissolve
Dip to Black
Dip to White
scaling
deinterlacing
blending modes
color space conversions

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Actually I'm only 1/2 wrong, that makes you 1/2 wrong also. See, if you create previews, Premiere can use the previews to speed up final export to a video file on your hard drive,

and *that* is 100% cpu based, not GPU. If you had known this, you would have indicated this in your post but you didn't, but now you know. It's a good way to speed up the export,

but only works for certain file types. 1/2 right is better than being wrong though isn't it 🙂

lasvideo wrote:
Actually David, you are wrong. According to Adobe when you export any of these attributes that are a part of your sequence , they are handled & sped up by a CUDA card. They include...
Alpha Adjust
Basic 3D
Black & White
Brightness & Contrast
Color Balance (RGB)
Color Pass
Color Replace
Crop
Drop Shadow
Extract
Fast Color Corrector
Feather Edges
Gamma Correction
Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
Gaussian Blur
Horizontal Flip
Levels
Luma Corrector
Luma Curve
Noise
Proc Amp
RGB Curves
RGB Color Corrector
Sharpen
Three-way Color Corrector
Timecode
Tint
Track Matte
Ultra Keyer
Video Limiter
Vertical Flip
Cross Dissolve
Dip to Black
Dip to White

scaling
deinterlacing
blending modes
color space conversions

Report · Mar 30, 2012

Like export, creating previews will also use GPU acceleration for effects and other rendering.

Adobe Community

nVidia GTX 680 now at Newegg

SPECIFICATIONS GPU:

MEMORY SPECIFICATIONS:

Specifications GPU

CUDA kernels

Normal clock frequency

Accelerated rate

Texture Fill Rate

Memory specifications

Memory Frequency ( Gbps )

Amount of memory

Memory interface

Full bandwidth.

SPECIFICATIONS GPU:

MEMORY SPECIFICATIONS:

Specifications GPU

CUDA kernels

Normal clock frequency

Accelerated rate

Texture Fill Rate

Memory specifications

Memory Frequency ( Gbps )

Amount of memory

Memory interface

Full bandwidth.