Quadro P2000 no speed boost, is it using eGPU?

Commentaires

33 commentaires

  • Robert Whetton
    For best performance for buck AMD R9 390, or put 2 of them in your machine for the same cost as a P2000 😉
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    Umm - those are **gaming** cards not for Graphics Pro's.
    no 10 bit support, etc.

    I'm not a gamer, and this is a graphics pro forum...
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    I've pulled the P2000 and will return it to Amazon.

    Looking into the Nvidia VCQP4000 single slot solution, which has DP 1.4, and supports 10 bit at 5k for multiple monitors.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    Umm - those are **gaming** cards not for Graphics Pro's.
    no 10 bit support, etc.

    I'm not a gamer, and this is a graphics pro forum...


    I think the general advice is that for OpenCL photo editing purposes (rather than more broadly based general graphics applications) the gaming cards offer more performance for the price paid. Different processing requirements probably driven by different math requirements optimisation.

    However I am no expert on the matter.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    Umm - those are **gaming** cards not for Graphics Pro's.
    no 10 bit support, etc.

    I'm not a gamer, and this is a graphics pro forum...

    ... I suggest you search these forums better for more info about gpu, the 10.x for for instance.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Dave R
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    I recently upgraded from my AMD FirePro W5000 to an NVIDIA Quadro P2000. (latest drivers 385.90 2017/11)
    thought the new Pascal architecture would boost my C1 speeds, but nope, not seeing any improvement.
    Windows 10, 32Gb RAM, SSD etc.

    Am I doing something wrong here - need it be even more high end card - a P4000/5000 or higher spec?

    It's mainly preview speed and jump to 100% views I wanted to speed up. Thought a high end graphics card would make those more or less instant. (IQ100 files)

    'Auto' is selected for Use Open CL in preferences.

    Thanks

    Have a look in ImgCore.log, you will find it in C:\Users\...\AppData\Local\CaptureOne\Logs, it is a text file so will open in notepad.
    Look for a section about OpenCl, it will look like this:-

    2017-12-15 13:57:28.936> OpenCL initialization...
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> Found 1 OpenCL platforms
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> Found 1 OpenCL devices on platform 0
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL Device 0 : Ellesmere
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL Driver Version : 2442.9
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL Compute Units : 28
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_HOST_UNIFIED_MEMORY : 0
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_GLOBAL_MEM_CACHE_SIZE : 16384
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_GLOBAL_MEM_CACHELINE_SIZE : 64
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_GLOBAL_MEM_CACHE_TYPE : 2
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_GLOBAL_MEM_SIZE : 8192 mb
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_LOCAL_MEM_SIZE : 32768
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_MAX_CONSTANT_BUFFER_SIZE : -1516660327
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_IMAGE_SUPPORT : 0
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_VENDOR_ID : 4098
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_VENDOR : Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_EXTENSIONS : cl_khr_fp64 cl_amd_fp64 cl_khr_global_int32_base_atomics cl_khr_global_int32_extended_atomics cl_khr_local_int32_base_atomics cl_khr_local_int32_extended_atomics cl_khr_int64_base_atomics cl_khr_int64_extended_atomics cl_khr_3d_image_writes cl_khr_byte_addressable_store cl_khr_fp16 cl_khr_gl_sharing cl_khr_gl_depth_images cl_amd_device_attribute_query cl_amd_vec3 cl_amd_printf cl_amd_media_ops cl_amd_media_ops2 cl_amd_popcnt cl_khr_d3d10_sharing cl_khr_d3d11_sharing cl_khr_dx9_media_sharing cl_khr_image2d_from_buffer cl_khr_spir cl_khr_subgroups cl_khr_gl_event cl_khr_depth_images cl_khr_mipmap_image cl_khr_mipmap_image_writes cl_amd_liquid_flash
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_GROUP_SIZE : 256
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.005> OpenCL CL_DEVICE_ADDRESS_BITS : 64
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.297> First chance exception (thread 11508): 0xE06D7363 - C++ exception
    2017-12-15 13:57:29.436> OpenCL : Loading kernels
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.339> First chance exception (thread 2088): 0xE06D7363 - C++ exception
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.392> OpenCL : Loading kernels finished
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.392> OpenCL : Benchmarking
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.392> Started worker: TileExecuter 0 [unknown] (master: 1fe0, worker: 2b1c)
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.477> Shutting down: TileExecuter 0 [unknown] (master: 1fe0, worker: 2b1c)
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.477> Ending worker: TileExecuter 0 [unknown] (master: 1fe0, worker: 2b1c)
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.477> OpenCL : Initialization completed
    2017-12-15 13:57:30.477> OpenCL benchMark : 0.151880

    The bit at the end in the abstract above is what you should check, the smaller the openCL benchmark the better. The figure you see there is for a Radeon Pro WX5100. For comparison the intel built in graphics in my laptop achieves a leisurely 1.423 and the NVidia GTX 960 that the WX5100 replaced 0.213

    The log file is a history, oldest at the top, newest at the end so you should still be able to extract the figures for the FirePro and the P2000 and get some idea on what is happening.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    Umm - those are **gaming** cards not for Graphics Pro's.
    no 10 bit support, etc.

    I'm not a gamer, and this is a graphics pro forum...

    Yeah, and you also seem to have no knowledge of the application you are using 😊 (ie. CaptureOne doesn't display 10bit)

    My CaptureOne Benchmark with my R9 390 is 0.056620 :p (lower the better)
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    Quadro P2000 5 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.164 and costs 510 € incl vat.
    GTX 1060 6 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.148 costs 309 € incl vat.

    Quadro P6000 24 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,057 and costs 5220 € incl. vat.
    GTX Titan X (Pascal) 12 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,053 and costs 1405 € incl vat

    Lower benchmark = faster performance, current Danish prices on web, converted to Euros from Danish Kroner.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    Umm - those are **gaming** cards not for Graphics Pro's.
    no 10 bit support, etc.

    I'm not a gamer, and this is a graphics pro forum...

    Yeah, and you also seem to have no knowledge of the application you are using 😊 (ie. CaptureOne doesn't display 10bit)

    My CaptureOne Benchmark with my R9 390 is 0.056620 :p (lower the better)


    Yes fully aware of that but Photoshop does support it, and my display too, so... you're suggesting that I swap out the graphics card every time I open a processed image in Photoshop? Didn't think so.

    If you want 10bit and fast performance, afaik, you have no choice but to go for a Pro Graphics workstation card, not a consumer gaming one. Sad fact, I admit, as they are much cheaper. (They are noisier too, but that's personal preference)

    It's disgraceful that both Nvidia and AMD disable 10bit in their consumer level cards, but it's been that way for many years now. Not that that excuses it!

    I'm currently looking at the P4000 and 5000 models. More affordable balance between performance, price, and 10bit support.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    Quadro P2000 5 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.164 and costs 510 € incl vat.
    GTX 1060 6 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.148 costs 309 € incl vat.

    Quadro P6000 24 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,057 and costs 5220 € incl. vat.
    GTX Titan X (Pascal) 12 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,053 and costs 1405 € incl vat

    Lower benchmark = faster performance, current Danish prices on web, converted to Euros from Danish Kroner.



    Thanks Christian,. Very interesting information.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    Quadro P2000 5 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.164 and costs 510 € incl vat.
    GTX 1060 6 gb ram benchmarks at around 0.148 costs 309 € incl vat.

    Quadro P6000 24 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,057 and costs 5220 € incl. vat.
    GTX Titan X (Pascal) 12 gb ram benchmarks at around 0,053 and costs 1405 € incl vat

    Lower benchmark = faster performance, current Danish prices on web, converted to Euros from Danish Kroner.



    Thanks Christian,. Very interesting information.


    You’re welcome!
    Also note that CO does not support 10 bit. With regards to Photoshop, then they also use OpenCL, so you will see that the above benchmarks will roughly carry over to PS as well.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="narikin" wrote:

    It's disgraceful that both Nvidia and AMD disable 10bit in their consumer level cards, but it's been that way for many years now. Not that that excuses it!

    Actually AMD don't. However Adobe refuses to allow 10bit support on these cards..
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    [quote="narikin" wrote:

    If you want 10bit and fast performance, afaik, you have no choice but to go for a Pro Graphics workstation card, not a consumer gaming one. Sad fact, I admit, as they are much cheaper. (They are noisier too, but that's personal preference)

    I'm currently looking at the P4000 and 5000 models. More affordable balance between performance, price, and 10bit support.

    Gaming cards come with silent coolers (MSI for instance), better than stock.

    If you prefer a pro card, consider the AMD WX7100 maybe?

    I used to stick with Nvidia until I started using C1, it seems the performance of AMD is better with OpenCL, I switched and have no regrets...
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    [quote="WPNL" wrote:
    [quote="narikin" wrote:


    If you prefer a pro card, consider the AMD WX7100 maybe?

    I used to stick with Nvidia until I started using C1, it seems the performance of AMD is better with OpenCL, I switched and have no regrets...


    Interesting! I have always been ATI/AMD before now, and was only looking to Nvidia because of how highly people speak of the Pascal architecture. Never owned one till I tried out the P2000.

    Will check out the WX7100, and see if its competitive on price.

    Appreciate all the input here, been very informative. Thanks!
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="narikin" wrote:
    [quote="WPNL" wrote:
    [quote="narikin" wrote:


    If you prefer a pro card, consider the AMD WX7100 maybe?

    I used to stick with Nvidia until I started using C1, it seems the performance of AMD is better with OpenCL, I switched and have no regrets...


    Interesting! I have always been ATI/AMD before now, and was only looking to Nvidia because of how highly people speak of the Pascal architecture. Never owned one till I tried out the P2000.

    Will check out the WX7100, and see if its competitive on price.

    Appreciate all the input here, been very informative. Thanks!

    Performance wise, it will not be competitive, as it is a workstation card. The gaming cards are a lot faster for the same money.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    Performance wise, it will not be competitive, as it is a workstation card. The gaming cards are a lot faster for the same money.

    True, that's why I wrote "if you prefer a pro card", because the AMD seems to be able to compete against Quadro's
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="WPNL" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    Performance wise, it will not be competitive, as it is a workstation card. The gaming cards are a lot faster for the same money.

    True, that's why I wrote "if you prefer a pro card", because the AMD seems to be able to compete against Quadro's


    Workstation cards in general, Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro's (like W*-models) will work fine with CO, but performance for money, they are not competitive aginst the Nvidia GTX or AMD Radeon series in Capture One.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    [quote="WPNL" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    Performance wise, it will not be competitive, as it is a workstation card. The gaming cards are a lot faster for the same money.

    True, that's why I wrote "if you prefer a pro card", because the AMD seems to be able to compete against Quadro's


    Workstation cards in general, Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro's (like W*-models) will work fine with CO, but performance for money, they are not competitive aginst the Nvidia GTX or AMD Radeon series in Capture One.


    I know, and I didn't suggest they would!

    The OP seemed to prefer a pro card, hence my comment...
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • andy wee
    i have a P5000m and a k5100m GPU. it seems they are helping with C1. i see the GPU task manager moving.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="purezerg" wrote:
    i have a P5000m and a k5100m GPU. it seems they are helping with C1. i see the GPU task manager moving.


    They will work just fine, and contribute nicely to the performance of CO. However, gaming cards of the same monetary value as a given Quadro/Firepro card, will be faster than their workstation counterpart.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    Should these fast card now be called Bit Coin mining cards?

    So much better than "Gaming" - although the usage is in many ways gaming in both use cases.

    🤓
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Narikin
    So, in summary, it all boils down to: does 10bit matter to you or not?

    It's not part of Capture One (at present) of course, but it is in Photoshop. If you don't edit images later in Photoshop then go ahead and use an 8 bit gaming card, and save $$ with potentially excellent C1 speed. But... if you have an expensive 10/30 bit panel and use Photoshop for high bit color editing, then you have no choice but to pony up for a workstation card - Quadro or FirePro. Either: much slower performance for same $, or thousands extra if you want truly fast C1 performance.

    Hobson's choice!
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    It's even more interesting since it seems to be possible to combine a workstation GPU with a gaming GPU.
    Here's a snippet of what tech support wrote me when I asked about it:
    "Capture One simply supports "any and all" cards on the market in an intelligent way"

    This could mean you can have deep colors AND fast processing.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • andy wee
    well, yes and no. in regards to deep color. lately the past 2-3 years. there is a sudden lack of 10bit displays. dreamcolor3.0 is a 8bit display for laptops. i have all 3 dreamcolor laptops, 8730w, zbook G2 and zbook G4. color wise they are alot more accurate than anything of equalvalent of their date of purchase. able to change from D65 to D50 on the fly when working in the studio is quite useful. but all these features require a quadro.

    i have asked myself this question before.. why go for quadro, a slower and more expensie card? the reason is the display. but currently there much 10bit displays. all the current 10bit displays are last made in 2014. i have spoken to quite a few color management specialist and they mentioned the same thing.

    so, in my opinion, go for gaming cards if you can. unless you have a 10bit display.
    ** even the latest eizo display isnt 10bit anymore.

    the GPU helps ALOT more during shooting than exporting to TIF.

    2017 MBP with the touchbar fully spec'd tethered to a 5DSR managed to shoot about 22 frames before slowing down, and come to a grinding halt at frame 30ish.
    but a zbook G4 went on up to 100th frame ish without any slowdown.

    still not sure why but can only assume that the zbook 17 G2 k5100m and zbook 17 G4 p5000m has got bigger heatsink to allow the GPU to run at full speed all the way.

    that said. we tried with XF100mp also on all 3 laptops.
    MBP2017 didnt allow 100mp to shoot at around 17th frame onwards.
    but both zbook went on for 120 frames without slowing down.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    There are more factors that have influence, ram and HD (buffer) for instance.
    Can you provide all specs in the comparison? 😊
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • andy wee
    MBP2017 touchbar, full spec. (wasnt mine but friend said it's full spec'd)

    zbook 17 G2
    4940MX @4.5Ghz
    32Gb ram
    k5100m
    3x512gb raid0 850 pro
    dreamcolor v2.0

    zbook 17 G4
    1535v6 xeon
    64Gb ECC
    P5000
    SM961 2Tb x2
    dreamcolor v3.0

    c1 +win10 hasnt used more than 18Gb of ram during the whole day of shoot.

    that said, my producer is using a zbook 15 G3 but a mid tier spec. I used her laptop during the shoot also. (there was this 1 shoot where i had to use 3x IQ280.

    I believe all 3 laptops are good. the superior spec'd zbook probably only outperform the MBP due to heat restrictions. I have seen the MBP reducing speed due to heat but the zbook just slog on until 85+c but i have yet to see them down clocking. probably it would only reduce speed when it hits 99C
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • andy wee
    as i was saying, the gaming cards are clearly faster than the quadro

    MBP 2017 aint no slouch, for it's size, it's ALOT faster than anything out there.

    that said my zbook 17 G2 just celebrated it's 5th year old birthday. and due for decomissioning very soon.

    hey it's christmas. go out and shoot or be with family. merry christmas ^_^


    pascal X titan
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 19107 Points
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 27282 Points

    GTX 1080m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 16908
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 21534

    GTX 1070m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 13639
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 17150

    P5000
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 12367.3
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 14773.7

    GTX 1060m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 9605.5
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 11463.3

    m5000m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 8094.5
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 9227.5

    GTX 1050m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 5448
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 6022

    m2200m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 5253
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 5835

    k5100m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 4444
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 4818

    m2000m / 960m / 950m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 3875.4
    3DMark - fire strike graphics 1920x1080 avg: 4156.8

    m1200m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 3845.7
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 4141.5

    radeon pro 560 MBP 2017
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 3576
    3DMark - fire strike graphics 1920x1080 avg: 3892

    m1000m
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 3323
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 3497.5

    mx150
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 3124.7
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 3508.5

    940M
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 1919
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 2075

    Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 (1545m v5)
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 1836
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 1903

    930MX
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 1410
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 1573

    930M
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 1290
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 1460

    Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 1340
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 1380

    Intel Iris Pro Graphics 530
    3DMark - Fire Strike Score 1920x1080 avg: 878
    3DMark - Fire Strike Graphics 1920x1080 avg: 935
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="purezerg" wrote:
    the GPU helps ALOT more during shooting than exporting to TIF.


    The generation of thumbnails and previews are done by the CPU, not the GPU.
    Depending on what setting you have in Camera -> Auto-select new capture, you will see little usage or almost no usage of the GPU.

    With exporting to file, it is a completely different matter. Here the GPU is intensively used.
    I suspect what you see is a combination of primarily CPU speed, and secondarily a combination of USB download speed and disk read/write speed.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • WPNL
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    The generation of thumbnails and previews are done by the CPU, not the GPU.
    With exporting to file, it is a completely different matter. Here the GPU is intensively used.

    Is it possible to provide documentation (table) of which process is handled by CPU / GPU / ?
    That would be great for the targeting of bottlenecks in a PC build.

    Have a nice day!
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • andy wee
    christian could be right.
    both my zbook 17 aint normal.
    what i lacked to mention is my zbook 17 G2 thou may be 4.5 years old but it is still faster than MBP2017 when it comes to CPU benchmark is because I am using a 4940MX cpu @ 4.5Ghz, and 3.8Ghz when using 4 cores.

    but i do see a spike in GPU when a file comes in. i wonder why.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.