Should I choice Geforce Titan X or 1070 for VFX and 2D MotionGraphic

[luup85522863]

Hi everyone,

Should I choice Geforce Titan X or 1070 for VFX and 2D MotionGraphic ?

Im not playing game and Just for working. I am filmmaking, Frequently making vfx and 2D Film.

I see the link compare: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 vs GeForce GTX TITAN X , the Titan X performance is less than 1070 and 1060

But my friend suggest Titan X performance smooth for VFX and 2D more than 1070.

TITAN X

384 bit - 12gb ram - 3072 Cuda

1070

256 bit - 8Gb ram - 1920 Cuda

Thank You !

Message was edited by: luu phu

[luup85522863]

Please Help me thank

[RjL190365]

You cannot really compare the two directly, in this case:

You see, that particular Titan X is of an older GPU architecture than the GTX 1070 - and that particular Titan X comes with all of the idiosyncrasies of the Maxwell generation of GPUs (the same as the GTX 900-series GPUs which use the same technology as the Titan X). In particular, all of the Maxwell-architecture GPUs will severely drop the memory speeds when running CUDA (GPGPU) applications, and are restricted from running their memory any faster than that even if you attempt to overclock the memory! The GTX 1070, on the other hand, is of the (newer) Pascal architecture, and although the memory speed will drop slightly when running CUDA apps, the memory speed will still respond to overclocking unlike Maxwell.

[Bill_Gehrke]

What CPU? 

[Bill_Gehrke]

Randall, I think there are have been three version of Titan X, the ffirst one was the Maxwell with 3072 cores, then for awhile they had Titan X with Pascal and 3840 CUDA cores and now to properly differentiate they are selling a relabeled Titan Xp..

[RjL190365]

Fair enough, Bill. However, the Titan X that used a Pascal GPU does not have the "GeForce" designation on it (the official designation on it was just "Nvidia Titan X"), while the original Maxwell-based version was (officially) called the "GeForce GTX Titan X". The thread starter was clearly referring to the original Maxwell-based version, not the newer Pascal-based version.

And the Pascal-based Titan X had 3584, not 3840, CUDA cores.

[Bill_Gehrke]

Randall, I have a result on my PPBM GPU page from a pair of Titan X Pascals.  Best score I have seen but at a ridiculous cost. 

[jasonvp]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bill+Gehrke  wrote

Randall, I have a result on my PPBM GPU page from a pair of Titan X Pascals.  Best score I have seen but at a ridiculous cost. 

Well, your definition of "ridiculous cost" and mine are likely 2 different things.  🙂  And to be fair, today's Titan Xp cards will produce even better results at the same price that I paid for the Titan X Pascals back in 2016.

[Bill_Gehrke]

Jason,

Sorry I should really have said that I do not think that the extra (I am guessing) $1200 for the second board would be cost effective for a few percent reduction in GPU accelerated effects.  I would guess that a single card of yours would score about 14 seconds so your 160 second CPU score would have 95.65% improvement with your two cards and a single card would have 91.32% improvement.

Have you ever watched GPU Loading in GPU-Z to see if you can anywhere near 100% load both cards, and make me eat my words?

[jasonvp]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bill+Gehrke  wrote

Have you ever watched GPU Loading in GPU-Z to see if you can anywhere near 100% load both cards, and make me eat my words?

I didn't watch during my last PPBM run to see if the second card got pinned or came anywhere near 100%.  Bear in mind that my system serves dual purposes: I edit and play fast-paced first person shooter games with it.  I can get both Titans to start crying "uncle!" when I play a couple of the games in 4K (scaled 150% from 1440p) at 140FPS.  They'll both start bumping 70-75% use; this with SLI enabled, mind you.

I've more than got my money's worth out of the spend.  I'm very satisfied and happy with them, and looking forward to the next gaming beast that NVidia hatches.  😄