Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was looking at graphics cards just now and for some reason decided to find the most expensive card on the site I was using...

 

What I found was this monster...

wtf.jpg

 

Do you think my boss will mind if I add this to my wish list... :)

 

What gets me is that I didn't spend much more than that on my new car recently!

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Its one of nVidias uber CAD/CAM/multi do anything who da ma flip cards :)

You find something simlar to these in the Tesla compute servers that are used in some supercomputers.

Posted
pfft, i got two of them in SLI, they're ok. bit of lag playing quake though

 

Should've gone with a 3 way SLI - I hear people getting up to 800x600 on Crysis 2 with that kinda power! ;)

Posted
It kind of reminds me of the3DFX Voodoo 6000

 

god i remember them. i think i jumped straight in with the 3dfx voodoo2. running half life in all its glory (with opengl driver)

Posted

Not sure if it would have the same amount of umph / power but

 

2 * GTX 590's in SLI

A SATA 3 SSD ( OCZ or OWC )

More RAM etc

 

Although that graphics card does have 6gb of GDDR 5 RAM ?

Posted
damn back in the day, i had a diamond stealth card with 2mb of graphics ram when the rest of my system only had 8mb and 120mb hdd... i've so not kept up!
Posted
This is the sort of gear you'll find in the animator machines at PIXAR, plus probably a few in the render farm machines they use.

 

Actually you'll find they use a custom RenderMan Linux cluster setup that does all the crunching, with fibre to each desktop to get proper swift render perfomance. Cool Stuff: A Look at Pixar and LucasFilm’s Renderfarms | /Film

 

You'd find them in the colourmatch/sampling machines though I'd reckon...

Posted

Blimey, the Quadro 6000 consumes up to 204W of power. That's almost double the best Intel CPU on the market. It all sounds very nice, but I can't actually think of a scenario where you'd need 6GB of GPU memory. You may use up around 1GB running some of the latest PC games at a 2560x1600 resolution.

 

PC games use more system memory rather than GPU memory these days. It would be good if higher clocked GPU memory could be used as system memory :D

Posted
That's nothing! :D Asus' limited edition MARS II dual GTX 580 graphics card uses 729 watts when running FurMark. This drops to just 502 watts when playing Crysis 2.

 

I would take this card over a Quadro 6000 any day. It looks fantastic. Shame about the price though... £1,199.50!!! :)

 

Not very green really is it @ 729W. You would certainly notice a difference in your bills running that for a few hours everyday, even at idle :)

Posted (edited)
Do they do or make a card that is dual GTX 590 or is there not much difference between 580 and 590?

The dual GTX 580 MARS II is actually faster than a GTX 590...

 

Code-named "Gemini" during its development, the GTX 590 has a pair of GF110 chips onboard, and those GPUs haven't had any of their onboard hardware disabled. Unit counts therefore mirror those for a pair of GeForce GTX 580 cards in SLI. Yet in order to keep the GTX 590 within a manageable power limit, Nvidia has dialed back the clock speeds to levels well below the GeForce GTX 570's. The GTX 590's core clock is just 607MHz, and the GDDR5 memory ticks along at 854MHz—or about 3.4 GT/s. So, although these are fully-enabled GF110 GPUs, the GTX 590's projected rates for key graphics capabilities look very much like a pair of GeForce GTX 570s, not two full-on GTX 580s. (Source)

 

As is now customary for dual-GPU cards, NVIDIA has put together two of their top-tier GPUs and turned down the clocks in order to make a power/heat budget. In single card configurations we’ve seen GF110 hit 772MHz for the GTX 580, but that was for a card that can hit 300W load under the right/wrong circumstances. For the GTX 590 the clocks are down to 607MHz, while the functional unit count remains unchanged with everything enabled. Meanwhile memory clocks have also been reduced to the lowest clocks we’ve seen since the GTX 470: 853.5MHz (3414MHz data rate). NVIDIA has never hit very high memory clocks on the GTX 500 series, so it stands to reason that routing two 384-bit busses only makes the job harder.

 

All told at these clocks comparisons to the GTX 570 are more apt than comparisons to the GTX 580. Even compared to the GTX 570, per-GPU GTX 590 only has 83% the rasterization, 88% of the shading/texturing capacity and 99.5% the ROP capacity. Where the GTX 590 has the edge on the GTX 570 on a per-GPU basis is that with all of GF110’s functional units enabled and a 384-bit memory bus, it has 108% of the memory bandwidth and 120% the L2 cache. As a result while performance should be close to the GTX 570 on a per-GPU basis, it will fluctuate depending on the biggest bottleneck, with shading/texturing being among the worst scenarios, and L2 cache/memory bandwidth being among the best. Consequently, total performance should be close to the GTX 570 SLI. (Source)

 

With two MARS II's (quad SLI), it would be pretty easy to justify a 1500 watt PSU. :)

Edited by Arthur

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...