LuxMark vs. RatGPU
Meet two different rendering engines that take different approaches. First, there's the popular LuxRender, on which LuxMark is based. This one finally attracted Nvidia's attention after showing up time and again as a weak spot for the company's GeForce and Quadro cards. RatGPU, on the other hand, didn't need that special attention; Nvidia's offerings did well in it right out of the gate.
LuxRender demonstrates that Nvidia's cards do support OpenCL fairly well, if there's no CUDA option. AMD once enjoyed a significant performance advantage in this test, though the magnitude of its wins is shrinking. The following charts represent LuxMark at three difficulty settings:



The FirePro cards land in order of their shader performance for simple single-precision tasks. This changes as the workloads get more complex, allowing the FirePro W8100 to draw even with Nvidia’s Quadro K6000.
Conversely, AMD’s graphics cards don’t do as well in ratGPU. This benchmark isn’t one that gets much attention. Consequently, the two large graphics card vendors don't appear to optimize for it.
Regardless, the rendering approach seems to favor Nvidia’s cards. We once again choose three different difficulty levels.



- Introducing AMD's FirePro W8100 Workstation Graphics Card
- Dimensions, Weight, Features and Pictures
- How We Test AMD's FirePro W8100
- OpenCL: Compute, Cryptography, and Bandwidth
- OpenCL: Financial Mathematics and Scientific Computations
- 2D Performance: GDI and GDI+
- SPECviewperf 12: CATIA, Creo and Maya 2013
- SPECviewperf 12: Showcase, Siemens NX and SolidWorks
- SPECviewperf 12: Synthetic Simulations
- OpenCL: 4K Video Post-Processing
- OpenCL: Rendering Performance
- DirectX 11 Gaming: 1920x1080
- DirectX 11 Gaming: 3840x2160
- How We Test Power Consumption
- Power Consumption: Detailed Results
- Heat and Noise
- A Jack Of All Trades For A Good Price
This should be the GTX 780 instead
1: it's a workstation card.
2: I quite like it.