NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

A place to give your thoughts on our reviews!

NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Apoptosis » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:54 am

NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

One of the new features in After Effects CS6, is native 3D ray-tracing using the NVIDIA CUDA engine. While Adobe After Effects CS6 has been out for nearly eight months, we were shocked to find hardly any benchmark results! Legit Reviews took a handful of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 500 Series 'Fermi' cards off the shelf and compared them to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 600 Series 'Kepler' cards. Read on to see which cards are best at rendering some 3D ray-traced videos!

Image

We recently made a new video intro based on an excellent tutorial from Video Co-Pilot for our CES 2013 coverage and figured that we'd update to After Effects CS6. We have tons of video cards laying around the test lab, so we figured that we would compare some of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 500 'Fermi' and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 600 'Kepler' series video cards to see how they perform...


Article Title: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2127/1/
Find us on Facebook to discover the faces behind the names!
Follow Me on Twitter!
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32817
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby FZ1 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:38 am

Cool article
Joe
User avatar
FZ1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4429
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby jnanster » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:41 am

Great heads up article!
So much for my 660ti.
using PowerDirector but I doubt it makes a difference :(
ga-z77-dh3 (great & cheap O/C'er from Gigabyte)
i2600k/16 gigs Kingson 1600 (OC'ed to 4.5Ghz)
CoolerMaster Hyper 212 + (lapped, smok'in deal, 38C idle, 65C loaded)
MSI GTX 660ti Power Edition
Antec 900 case (quiet)
jnanster
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:09 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Major_A » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:11 am

48 minutes for a 30 second clip?!?!?!?!? How long does it take Pixar to render an entire movie?
User avatar
Major_A
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 3792
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Apoptosis » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:57 pm

Major_A wrote:48 minutes for a 30 second clip?!?!?!?!? How long does it take Pixar to render an entire movie?


It was 48 minutes for a 5 second clip!

A very long time! I used to have some stats for one of the pirates movies from AMD, but can't locate them. It was astonishing how much time it took.
Find us on Facebook to discover the faces behind the names!
Follow Me on Twitter!
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32817
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Major_A » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:08 am

Sounds like a good gig if you're the guy to make sure the rendering is going. Clock in and take a nap to wake up to a minute of rendering.
User avatar
Major_A
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 3792
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby KnightRid » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:54 am

Can you do the full 3d ray trace render using only the cpu rather than the gpu? Just curious what times would be.

I also was reading up on video conversions and editing while I was transferring some of my father in laws vcr tapes to dvd and editing them to try and improve the picture the best you can with a crappy vcr tape and I read the gpu rendering for video was worse quality than cpu rendering. I honestly don't know why it would be but that is what I was reading. Any idea why? Is it still true today?
Cigar Blogs I do reviews for - http://www.stogiereview.com and http://www.stogie411.com
User avatar
KnightRid
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Red Lion, PA

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Bhench » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:50 am

KnightRid wrote:Can you do the full 3d ray trace render using only the cpu rather than the gpu? Just curious what times would be.

I also was reading up on video conversions and editing while I was transferring some of my father in laws vcr tapes to dvd and editing them to try and improve the picture the best you can with a crappy vcr tape and I read the gpu rendering for video was worse quality than cpu rendering. I honestly don't know why it would be but that is what I was reading. Any idea why? Is it still true today?


Yes, you can choose to use the CPU instead of the GPU for ray trace 3D however it would be a bad choice.

2-1-2013 8-00-16 AM.jpg
2-1-2013 8-00-16 AM.jpg (51.77 KiB) Viewed 1040 times


I changed my rig to CPU and attempted to render the same video intro just to get an idea of the delta. After 15 minutes of my i7-2700k running at 5GHz having all cores pegged at 100% it had not even rendered one frame. After Effects will render a few frames and then give you an estimated time based on those results. Since I couldn't even get a single frame I have no estimate but compared to GPU which rendered the first frame in a minute or two I would off the cuff guess something in the multi hour if not day range.

Do not get video conversion confused with full 3D rendering. Transcoding (converting from one format to another) has an original source where rendering is actually creating the source, mapping the lights and transparency with all the other reflections, refractions, and ambient occlusions. Quicksync may be what you are thinking about and yes it is very fast CPU based transcoder but many tests have shown it to be only slightly faster than Nvidia CUDA.

As far as quality goes, the only real effect on quality is the floating point calculation and from what I have read it is only when you start to look at 4k video or cinema screen graphics does it become visible. People rendering those scenes are going to use the high end cards dedicated to video rendering 10-bit color. VCR to DVD you are already starting off with a poor source so it is all moot because as they say, garbage in garbage out. You cannot up-convert VCR tape to 10-bit color 4K image and make it look better.

The main point of this test and article was highlighting that the Kepler drivers are not fully optimized for video (yet) as the Fermi's are. Kepler kills Fermi on games but at this point in time they are not the best choice for casual video rendering. If you are doing full production you shouldn't be looking at the GTX's anyway and should be looking at the Quadro or Fire Pro. I just play around with video so a multi-thousand dollar production video card is out of scope for me.
User avatar
Bhench
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:16 am
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri USA

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby voluntaryist » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:25 pm

Great review!

I've always read that AE cannot make use of SLI. The fastest card setup you tested were dual 570's in a SLI configuration, so that means AE CS6 can use SLI. Did you have to do any workarounds to get AE to use SLI or does AE use SLI natively now?
voluntaryist
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: NVIDIA Kepler versus Fermi in Adobe After Effects CS6

Postby Bhench » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:40 am

The latest update allows AE CS6 to use SLI and recognizes the GTX 690. That was why we thought we would see what they did.
User avatar
Bhench
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:16 am
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri USA


Return to Legit Reviews Review Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest