Message boards : Number crunching : my deadline is getting closer, please give me more time
Author | Message |
---|---|
Advanced molecular dynamics simulations for GPUs 2.19 (cuda1121) is my first WU running fine. | |
ID: 58446 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I also have processed this kind of tasks on a GTX 750 Ti GPU. | |
ID: 58447 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Related: Overclocking to wacky (?) limits | |
ID: 58448 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I’m looking forward and I hope to receive the automatic deadline extension. | |
ID: 58449 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Invest in a faster GPU if you want to reliably contribute here. 750ti is very low power compared to more modern offerings and the project as a whole is trending towards more and more difficult tasks. It’s unreasonable to expect a project to support certain GPUs forever, at some point you just need to upgrade the hardware. | |
ID: 58450 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
As Ian suggested you will need to move to newer and more powerful hardware. | |
ID: 58451 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I was getting 3-4 hour tasks for a few days and things were going great. Then I got one that was running for about 17 hours and was only about 20% done, which I aborted. Is there a way to only request smaller tasks? | |
ID: 58554 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Not at this time. Maybe later the admins will get back to previous method of segregating "long" and "short" tasks. | |
ID: 58555 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks. My hardware is probably not up to this project in that case. | |
ID: 58556 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
anything from the Turing or Ampere generation will be the most energy efficient in terms of work done per watt. | |
ID: 58557 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks for your help. | |
ID: 58558 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Only bus powered limits you to cards not really suitable for this project. | |
ID: 58559 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hypothetically, if you were going to get a GPU just to do GPUGRID, which one would you get? | |
ID: 58560 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
As Ian mentioned any from this list of candidates and what you can afford. | |
ID: 58567 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I would like one that's energy efficient and has a low overall power consumption. Regarding your specific question, I'm very satisfied with GTX 16XX based cards that I'm using. Strictly meeting your requirements: GTX 1650 based cards. Their rated power consumption is 75 Watts, and many commercial models are PCIe bus powered. They are able to process with noticeable efficiency the most currently GPU demanding ACEMD 3 ADRIA tasks in about 42 hours, thus easily getting mid (+25 %) bonus for returning result before 48 hours. Meeting my own criteria for 120 Watts maximum power consumption for my cards: GTX 1660 Ti is my current highest performance card. At its 120W rated power consumption, it processes the same kind of ADRIA tasks in less than 23 hours, thus getting full bonus (+50 %) most of the times. I've checked, and both models are still available at my local supplier. I found a list in the forum, but it looks to be several years old. Also quite (but not so) old thread is Low power GPUs performance comparative At first post you'll find your current GTX 750 Ti graphics card performance compared to those mentioned (and other) low power consumption cards. And at this other post, an efficiency comparative is presented. | |
ID: 58570 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks for your detailed answer. | |
ID: 58579 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
My GTX 1060 is faster than my GTX 1650 This waa explained to me in a SETI@home message board becaus the GTX 1650, with 4 GB Video RAM, has a 128 bit bus while the GTX 1060, with 3 GB Video RAM, has a 195 bit bus. | |
ID: 58580 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GTX 1660 Ti definitely looks good. The GTX 1660 Super looks even slightly better according to the specs. Is that right? | |
ID: 58583 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GTX 1660 Ti definitely looks good. The GTX 1660 Super looks even slightly better according to the specs. Is that right? No. The GTX Super has less CUDA cores than the Ti. (Ti 1536) (Super 1408) Both are equivalent in amount of memory (6GB) and memory bandwidth (192bit) Both have the same Tu116 chip but the Super is more cut down. The Ti will get more work done as it can do more parallel computations. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1660-ti.c3364 https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1660-super.c3458 You can also compare the Theoretical GFLOPS performance on those pages. | |
ID: 58584 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GTX 1660 Ti definitely looks good. The GTX 1660 Super looks even slightly better according to the specs. Is that right? I already ordered a Super on ebay. According to techpowerup, the difference is 2%. | |
ID: 58585 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GTX 1660 Super specs say that it has 14 Gbps of memory bandwidth and the Ti has 12 Gbps. Tullio's post makes it sound like memory speed may be a bottleneck. | |
ID: 58586 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
If the CUDA core count was the same I would say that yes the Super would be faster because of the higher clocked memory. | |
ID: 58587 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GTX 1660 Super specs say that it has 14 Gbps of memory bandwidth and the Ti has 12 Gbps. Tullio's post makes it sound like memory speed may be a bottleneck. memory is not a big bottleneck for GPUGRID. Tullio is incorrect. ____________ | |
ID: 58589 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : my deadline is getting closer, please give me more time