So what's gpugrids total processing power?
And can you compare it to a supercomputer?

Keep on crunching! :D

So what's gpugrids total processing power?
And can you compare it to a supercomputer?

Keep on crunching! :D

A few of reasons that the project has such low numbers ...

1) No ATI application... I have been moving to ATI because of cost and power draw of Nvidia cards as well as reliablility and availability ... so, instead of having 7 cards working on GPU Grid I am down to one and it shares with other CUDA projects (as before)... as soon as the ATI application comes out, I am sure that the numbers will spike up...

2) No CPU application, for many practical reasons including the time it would take to do a model...

3) The time it takes to do a model anyway ... :)

This is a resource intense project and some don't like the "cost" in time to run the models ... so the run elsewhere...

4) GPU Computing is still in its infancy ... there are really not that many people doing BOINC in the first place (about 350,00 is all) and there are not that many people with GPUs ... still ... GPUs are pretty expensive as far as most folks are concerned ... so, few can afford the mid to higher end cards that are needed here ...

{edit}
Yes you can compare it to a super-computer ... but the comparison is more apt when you compare the totality of what is being done on BOINC to that theoretical Super-Computer... All projects, all users, all hosts ...

241.109 TeraFLOPS is still quite OK for a small "niche" Project. It's about the same as a 2005-2006 Supercomputer w/o the big price tag. As members hopefully grow & upgrade their PC's & GPU's, likewise will the processing power of GPUGRID. That it's NVIDIA friendly ATI unfriendly, maybe is not that bad. It's better to be really good at something then not really good at anything. If GPUGRID spent too much time trying to get their project to run well on ATI GPU's & CPU's, it might not be as good with NVIDIA GPU's.

But still I saw something interesting that WCG was doing. They have an app they claim uses CPU time when people running the application on Facebook, log on to Facebook. It might be inefficient, but it's easy, uses very little resources, & require no knowledge or maintenance. Even if a drop in the ocean is nothing, maybe a million drops (or even a hundred million drops) would be noticeable.

Come to think about it. Twitter is looking for ways of making money, so is Facebook. "Some" people have "accepted" having banners & adds for free services & the "option" to pay for premium services w/o the adds & banners. What about apps running, paid for by "Sponsors"???

I'm not talking about malware, botnets, keyloggers, or any other privacy/security infringements. But rather a sponsor paid app that works only on using the cpu/gpu??? while people are on Facebook/Twitter to work on micro-WU's so Facebook/Twitter can remain free for all.
____________

Another few reasons why GPUGrid has such small numbers,
Paul runs his GTX260 on Win 7.
Paul does not drive his GTX295 carefully.
Paul went out and bought ATI cards!
So basically it’s all Pauls fault :P

Ticking over with a GTX260 isn't bad!

Perhaps a GTX460 will tempt you in the future, should it turn up with a 150W TDP and at a fair price?

I need to pay attention to the power draw, for a few reasons:

1. My computer room often overheats as it is.

2. I'm restricted on getting any more desktop computers without removing an equal number first. I intend to keep one 32-bit machine so I can still run a few programs that won't run on 64-bit machines.

3. I've determined that my two desktop computers each have only one slot that can take a graphics board, and neither has a power supply that can handle a graphics board that takes much more power.

Also, a few more problems less specific to power draw:

1. I'm having problems identifying which type of slot each computer has, so I can make sure any board I order should plug in.

2. For the last two months, all attempts to do a backup on any of my three computers have failed.

3. No more space to put any more monitors or laptops.

Therefore, can any of you suggest an Nvidia-based graphics board to replace a 9800 GT that provides significantly more GPU computing power with no increase in either slots used or power draw?

Although you could get a cheap GT240, which would get more points and use less power (about 65W) it is not a fantastic improvement (from 25% to 100%). It does not need a seperate 6pin power cable, and they do run cool, but I would suggest you wait for a month or so; until the GF104 based Fermis are released (mid July is the ETA). A few versions are expected, so one should do the trick.

Although you could get a cheap GT240, which would get more points and use less power (about 65W) it is not a fantastic improvement (from 25% to 100%). It does not need a seperate 6pin power cable, and they do run cool, but I would suggest you wait for a month or so; until the GF104 based Fermis are released (mid July is the ETA). A few versions are expected, so one should do the trick.

Looks like a good plan. Thanks.

On a related subject: I've noticed that both my desktop computers have a few unused slots, just not the same type as the one the 9800 GT card can plug into. Could you suggest any way to determine if any of them are something some other type of Nvidia card can use, without buying a card that MIGHT fit in them first? If so, I'll start checking if any of those other cards fit the power restrictions.

I have determined that they are not memory slots - all of the memory slots are already in use.