I cannot find the chart anymore but on it my 8800GTX is said to have a core G80 so not good for using GPU but..
It was crunching GPU. Any particular reasons of this behavior?

Martin

Aw ok thanks a lot.
I now run GTX285.
For the hardware/software maniacs out there, in my control panel of nvidia I added seti@home enhanced 6.08 and BOINC.exe and GPUGRID
Can you actually tweak the NVIDIA control panel to maximize those 3 program or that is completely irrelevant?

Martin

Hmm Not a thread about this.
Should I start a new thread ExtraTerrestrial Apes about maximizing software through the NVIDIA Control panel?

Martin

Can we update this? I have a friend building a new PC and trying to figure out what card to get for part gaming, part crunching $100-300.

Can we update this? I have a friend building a new PC and trying to figure out what card to get for part gaming, part crunching $100-300.

Which is best bang for buck? 275 or 260 core 216? Or does it make sense to scale up to 285/295? Should he wait for GT300 architecture?

I found a couple posts where a person was saying their vid card could not meant the GPUGrid WU deadlines but he doesn't say what card that is.

Does a 9600GT have sufficient power to finish the WUs in time?
____________
- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

I found a couple posts where a person was saying their vid card could not meant the GPUGrid WU deadlines but he doesn't say what card that is.

Does a 9600GT have sufficient power to finish the WUs in time?

It the math is done, it's a question of getting the max credit per $/€ invested + the cost of powering the beast. I'm not in this for the credits, nor do I have any special interest, other than hoping that I can help the collective, because I might need some helping out myself someday.

If the efficiency of BOINC can be increased w/o running the risk of getting tonnes of error, that would help out even more.

I try to focus on Projects related to medical studies, entertainment, & non ET research. I really hope that it's not just a bunch of waste in regards to money & power. If I wanted that, I'd rather use my PC's for games.
____________

last update: 29th of April 2009

A list compiled by loki that gives you an overview of the supported Nvidia cards and their €/Credit and $/Credit rating.

The credit entity is GFLOPS from wikipedia.de. € prices from idealo.de, US$ from pricegrabber.com.

Prices: Cheapest found incl. tax and excl. shipping. Check your local prices as they vary alot, often from day to day.
Prices in [] are from [ebay]: Buy It Now, incl. shipping and only included if 10€/$ cheaper than shops.

Exchange rate 16 Apr: EURUSD=X 1,3171 - 1€ = 1,32$; USDEUR=X 0,7593 - 1$ = 0.76€

Power consumption and minimum system power requirement from nvidia.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G92, G92b, G94, G94b

Model - - - - - - - - - - - GFLOPS - - - - - € - - - - - GFLOPS/€ - - - - - $ - - - - - - GLOPS/$ - - - - Load - - - req. Power Supplie
Geforce 8800 GT - - - - - -504 - - - - - - 62€ - - - - - - 8.13 - - - - - $99[80] - - - - - 5.10[6.30] - - - 105 W - - 400 W
Geforce 8800 GTS(512) - 624 - - - - - 117€ - - - - - - 5.33 - - - - - $159[90] - - - - 3.92[6.93] - - - 140 W - - 450 W

Geforce 9600 GSO 512 - 234 - - - - - - 70€ - - - - - - -3.34 - - - - - -$80 - - - - - - 2.93 - - - - - - - - 90 W - - 400 W
Geforce 9600 GT - - - - - -312 - - - - - - 71€ - - - - - - -4.39 - - - - - -$75 - - - - - - 4.16 - - - - - - - - 59 W - - 300 W
Geforce 9600 GSO - - - - 396 - - - - - - 80€ - - - - - - -4.95 - - - - - -$80[70] - - - 4.95[5.66] - - - - 105 W - - 400 W
Geforce 9800 GT - - - - - -508 - - - - - - 87€ - - - - - - -5.84 - - - - - -$99 - - - - - - 5.13 - - - - - - - - 105 W - - 400 W
Geforce 9800 GTX - - - - -648 - - - - - - 126€[107] - - 5.14[6.01] - -$135 - - - - - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - 140 W - - 450 W
Geforce 9800 GX2 - - - -1052 - - - - - - 250€[233] - - 4.21[4.52] - $250[205] - - 4.21[5.13] - - - - 197 W - - 580

Geforce GTS 250 - - - - - 705 - - - - - - 100€ - - - - - - 7.05 - - - - - $137 - - - - - -5.15 - - - - - - - - 150 W - - 450 W

(note:
- 9800GTX+ is similar to GTS 250
- 8800GS is similar to 9600GSO 384 MB)


GT200, GT200b - optimization bonus 41% **1

Model - - - - - - - - - - - GFLOPS(+41%) - - - € - - - GFLOPS/€ - - - - - $ - - - - - - - - GLOPS/$ - - - - - - - - - - - Load - - - req. Power Supplie
Geforce GTX 260 - - - - - 715.4(1009) - - - 141€ - - 5.07(7.15) - - - - $179 - - - - - - 4.00(5.64) - - - - - - - - - - - - 182 W - - 500 W
Geforce GTX 260(216) - - 805(1135) - - - - 156€ - - 5.16(7.28) - - - - $189 - - - - - - 4.26(6.00) - - - - - - - - - - - -190 W - - 500 W
Geforce GTX 275 - - - - - 1010.9(1424) -- - 212€ - - 4.77(6.73) - - - - $250 - - - - - - 4.04(5.70) - - - - - - - - - - - -219 W - - 550 W
Geforce GTX 280 - - - - - 933.1(1316) - - - 289€ - - 3.23(4.55) - - - - $265 - - - - - - 3.52(4.96) - - - - - - - - - - - - 236 W - - 550 W
Geforce GTX 285 - - - - - 1062.7(1498) -- - 287€ - - 3.70(5.22) - - - - $340[330] - - 3.13(4.41)[3.22/4.54] - - - - 204 W - - 550 W
Geforce GTX 295 - - - - - 1788.4(2522) -- - 406€ - - 4.40(6.20) - - - - $533[510] - - 3.36(4.74)[3.51/4.95] - - - - 289 W - - 680 W


Nvidia Tesla

C1060 Computing Processor - - 1936(2730) - - 1508€ - - 1.28(1.80) - - - $1300 - - - 1.49(2.10) - - - - - - - - - - 188 W - - 500 W
S1070 1U Computing Server - - 4320(6091) - - 6682€ - - 0.65(0.91) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 800 W


The 100 series is not available for individual purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**1
Let's put some numbers in here and compare these 2 WUs (1 & 2) with pretty similar names:

1. Me with 9800GTX+: 89917 s, 1944 MHz, 128 shaders -> 746.5 GFlops
2. GTX 260 Core 216: 48517 s, 1512 MHz, 216 shaders -> 979.8 GFlops

-> I need 1.853 times as long with 0.761 times the GFlops. That means for this WU each "GT200-Flop" is worth 1.41 "G92-Flops", or put another way: GT200 is 41% faster per clock.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes wrote:

1. The speedup of G200:
- GDF just said 10 - 15%
- based on fractals numbers it's ~90%
- when the G200 optimizations were introduced I estimated >30% performance advantage for G200 at the same theoretical FLOPS
- it may well be that the G200-advantage is not constant and scales with WU sizes, which may explain why we're seeing a much higher

advantage now than in the past (with smaller WUs)
- my 9800GTX+(705GFLOPS) was good for ~6400 RAC, whereas GTX 260(805GFLOPS) made 10 - 11k RAC prior to the recent credit adjustments
- G200 is more future proof than G92. Both are DX 10.0, but G200 has additional features which may or may not be needed for future CUDA

clients.

-> concluding these observations I can say that the advantage of G200-based cards is >50% at the same theoretical FLOPS.

Would still be nice if someone could provide such performance numbers for other WUs.

24/7 operation causing a shortening of life span, although that 3 years will not be an issue, if it's credits you'd want to generate. Mine's factory OC'd plus slightly more. That 1 PC running several GPU's is overall more efficient than several PC's running just one GPU.

I haven't checked out the GT 240, but does that OC well?

That GPUGRID.net doesn't run SLI or Crossfire & that mixing different GPU's (as far as this N00B understands), is not an issue.
____________

Is the GT240 still the best bang for the buck? I'm looking at a 9800GT "Green", which has 112 Stream Processors, a 550Mhz Core Clock, no PCIe power connector (like the GT240). But I'm also looking at the GTS240 which I "suspect", is just a 9800GT "Rebranded Non-Green AKA Original 8800GT/9800GT" version of the 9800GT "Green". The GTS240 also has the missing PCIe power connector & a 675Mhz Core Clock, instead of the "Green" 550Mhz Core Clock. BTW, what makes most sense? The GT240 with 96 Stream Processors a 550Mhz Core Clock - with the potential of a higher OC, or the 9800GT "Green" - with 112 Stream Processors - but a possible lower OC potential???
____________

I will say that the number of SP more important than the freq. (Obviously we have to check both) but in such a difference, I will prefer a 9800GT.

But Liveonc, I really recommend you not to buy a G92 anymore, but to go for a GT200 !
GTX260 is around 90-100€.
Or the best GPU is, IMO the GTX275...(150€). But I bought mine at this price in september I guess..and the price is still around 150€...(GTX260 is may be know more worthy)

I will say that the number of SP more important than the freq. (Obviously we have to check both) but in such a difference, I will prefer a 9800GT.

But Liveonc, I really recommend you not to buy a G92 anymore, but to go for a GT200 !
GTX260 is around 90-100€.
Or the best GPU is, IMO the GTX275...(150€). But I bought mine at this price in september I guess..and the price is still around 150€...(GTX260 is may be know more worthy)

Guys..

Neither SPs nor frequency is more important, it's the product of both which decides performance (everything else being equal). BTW it's mainly the shader clock, not the core clock.

And the GT240 is CUDA hardware capability level 1.2, so is >40% faster per flops (flops = # of shaders * frequency * operations per clock per shader) than the old CUDA hardware 1.1 chips like G92. Completely forget about buying GTS240/250 or 9800GT Green for GPU-Grid!

And, sure, GT200 cards are faster than a single GT240. but the latter is more efficient due to its 40 nm process compared to the older 65 and 55 nm chips.

MrS

One of the calculations that needs to be included in a credit per dollar table is the frequency in GPUGrid of medium to long run computation errors which GPUGrid work units are very much prone to. This has been something of a long running problems (months, perhaps years).

After a hiatus of a couple of months, I tried GPUGrid again, this time with a 9800GT installed on a Windows 7 64bit system with the latest drivers for the 9800GT, no other GPU project running and no overclocking. Things looked OK for the first three work units (though I was a bit surprised by the 24 hour plus run time), then the fourth work unit went computation error after over 8 hours.

I don't see this sort of problem running the same cards with SETI, Collatz or Dnetc (though with them the run times are a lot shorter). For that matter, long CPU run times don't kick up computation errors (say on Climate or Aqua) or when then they do on Climate, the trickle credit approach there provides interim credit anyway.

In any event, the medium/long run computation errors that plague GPUGrid seem to me to be either application or work unit specific and act as a major disincentive to run GPUGrid for me.

I was running 4x 9800GT (G92 rev A2) on 4 different system with WinXP-32bit, Win Vista 32bit/64bit and Win7 64bit.
I had to "micro-manage" the workcache most time. During the last weeks I wasn't
able to crunch one single *-KASHIF_HIVPR_*_bound* (*_unbound*) without error.

A few days ago I decided to pull my G92 cards from GPUGrid - my 2x GTX 260 and 1x GTX 295 will remain.

Well, I finished a couple of those LONG tasks and good grief they are REALLY long.

I'm burning in two brand new EVGA GTX 560 Ti cards in my little 4.1GHz crunch macine before I install water blocks on them.

They are clocked at 951MHz and running the latest 275.27 Beta Nvidia drivers.

First long task took 42511 seconds (11.8 hrs) and the second LONG task took 69849 seconds (19.4Hrs).

First run gave me 3722 points per hour and the second longer run gave me 2721 points per hour on same boards.

Something seems fishy here... one would think the points would be more standardized and scaler when the same task is run on the same hardware...

8-)

Tex1954

The EVGA GTX 560 Ti's versions I have are the Super Clocked varient and run 900MHZ normally and that's where they sit burning in before I install waterblocks on them. They pass all the hardest 3D tests and Memory tests I can throw at them, so no problems there I think.

I'm new to GPUGRID and didn't know about the bonus thing. My little crunching computer gets turn off and on a lot lately for hardware changes, software changes, water loop updates and such. I especially have problems with the GPU clocks switching to lower frequencies and never coming back! I've reported it to the Forum and Tech Support at Nvidia.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=9f29a996e0ac9d6ea44a506f6631f805&showtopic=200414&pid=1237460&st=0&#entry1237460

However, for now, seems something I did worked and the clocks haven't shifted all night... but it's an ongoing problem. That last slow work unit is a result of the clocks shifting to slow speed all night and I didn't notice.

The latest Beta drivers are the same... major problems keeping the clocks at full speed.

Sigh... such is life...

:D

Tex1954

This under-clocking is becoming one of the biggest self-inflicted problems I have seen in GPU computing - an untreated plague. Only equaled by the unusable shaders (2 warp schedulers per 3 shader groups), and heat/fan issues of present/recent past - avoidable design/driver flaws.

I hope it's the right thread - I'm mostly trying to optimise Credit/Watt on that next machine i'm building. Initial price is a minor issue. Obviously an efficient PSU and SSD will play a big role for the system. My question here:

"Is any info on support and perfomance of those new APUs (Sandy Bridge / Llano) out there yet? How do they work with additional GPUs?"

Manufactured in the new processes, they should be at least more efficient than an old CPU/GPU combo, right? Or not (yet) because...?

Any answers appreciated!

Thanks, skgiven. Very informative answer!

I love your term "a waste of die space". That's just what i thought it would be. So in CPU-Terms I'll wait for 32nm CPUs without Graphics (Bulldozer and ?). And, like you said, care more about a good Graphic Card. However: Power Consumption is an even bigger issue there...

Just to be perfectly clear: For any given Graphic Card, the CPU firing it makes no difference?

Background: I want to do "something useful" - and this should exclude checking for primes oder doing yet another 10k tries for "3x+1" (Collatz). I loved Virtual Prairie, but that's only CPU.

Then again, those "less world improving" projects score the big points for each KWh spent. At least with my current Hardware, GT430.

In the end, I want to GPU-crunch useful projects (GPUGrid, Milky-Way, SETI) and still keep my Position in Top-10.000... and since the useful projects are "less generous" with points, I consider improving hardware. However, not at the cost of wasting more electricity!

The Intel Core i7-970, i7-980, i7-980X, i7-990X six core socket 1366 CPUs are also made on 32nm technology, without on-die GPU. You should consider them also, especially if you want to crunch with two GPUs. While the X58 chipset for socket 1366 CPUs have two native 16x PCIe 2.0 connectors, Socket 1156 and Socket 1155 CPUs have only one 16x PCIe 2.0 bus integrated into the CPU. So if someone uses two GPUs with these CPUs, the GPUs will have only 8x PCIe 2.0 per GPU, and it will lower the performance of the GPUGrid client. However, ASUS made a special MB for socket 1156 CPUs, with two native 16x PCIe 2.0 connectors: the P7P55D WS Supercomputer, and for socket 1155 CPUs (SandyBridge): P8P67 WS Revolution. Maybe other manufacturers have similar motherboard designs.

I still don't think X8 makes all that much difference; well not in itself for 2 cards. For two GTX590's perhaps.

Anyway when the Sandy Bridge E type CPU's turn up their boards will have support Quad Channel Memory, PCI-e 3.0 and multiple x16 PCI-e lanes. Obviously these will become the CPU/board combination to have.

I'm still satisfied with my 2 year 'old' C2Extreme X9650, now running @ 3.51GHz,
with stock air cooler, but no case. (Draws 335 Watt doing a GPUgrid WU)
Running 2 or 3 SETI MB WUs, it needs 410Watt.
On an ASUS P5E motherboard, X38 chipset, DDR2 memory runs just below 400MHz
(per stick), FSB=1524MHz. O.S. Windows XP64 Pro, 4 GiG DDRII.
And a GTX480 running in a PCIe ver.2.0 x16 bus. (Also runs SETI@home and EINSTEIN). (This type "eats anything")

And this year, I build an i7-2600 system, with 2 ATI 5870 GPUs. (Cross-Fire)
On an INTEL DP67BG motherboard, O.S. MULTI-BOOT: UBUNTU/DEBIAN/Windows 7, all 64bit (OEM) (USB 2.0 & 3.0; eSATA), DDR3 1333MHz. and does
SETI, SETI Bêta ATI GPGPU, using OpenCL, which also can do anything from VLAR, and 'other' Multi Beam WUs. And CPDN (~500 hour) work.

Also AstroPulse, avoided by a lot of people ;-). Time consuming on AMD CPU, take
about 8 hours on a X9650(@3.51GHz) and half the time and 2 at a time on a 5870
GPU!
Those SANDY BRIDGE, like i7-2600(K), sure are efficient, doing 1.65x (HT=on) X9650(@3.51GHz) with 85 v.s. 120Watt.

MilkyWay and Collatz C. works great. MW hasn't much work, a.t.m.
____________

Knight Who Says Ni N!

Not sure if you are using HT or not, and what else you are crunching?

I expect the difference might be different for different cards. PCI x8 deficiency might be slightly less for a GTX 460 and cards such as the GTS 450, but more for a GTX580.

Would be interesting to know what this is for other cards in practice under different architectures (LGA 1366, 1155, AMD rigs) as well as your LGA 1156 setup.

I'm thinking about Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD7 and 3x570.

Slots speeds would be 8x, 4x, 8x ( with one slot free between graphics, better cooling ). I'm afraid about that one with 4x. How much performance drop may I expect?

Since we're talking about PCIe lately, I've also got a question

I'm running a GTX 560 on a board that only has a PCIe 1.0 x16 support (old nForce 630a chipset). How much of a roughly performance penalty am I getting for running the GTX 560 on a PCIe 1.0 bus? I've already ordered another mobo which has PCIe 2.0 but am curious about the penalty I'm getting currently on the PCIe 1.0 bus. Does it even matter much for GPUGRID?

Looks like the nvidia 680 690 are the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

Best gflops per watt.

My guess is between 4 and 8%, but let us know, when you get your motherboard and run a few tasks.
PCIE2.0 x16 has twice the width of PCIE1.0 x16; 8GB/s vs 4GB/s. As your GTX560 is not a very high end crunching GPU (mid range), performance will not be impacted as much as it would be for a GTX570 for example, otherwise it would be around 8%.

Anyone up to updating the OP?

Question, supposedly the GPUGrid app only utilizes 2/3 of the shaders on the GTX 460 (GF104). Yet the GPU utilization on all my 460s run at 88-89% and the cards run hotter than at other projects. As I remember, when this was first identified as a problem the 460s ran with low GPU utilization and very cool. Are you SURE it's still an issue? If only 2/3 of the shaders are being used why are the temps relatively high as is the GP utilization? Just wondering...

If only 2/3 of the shaders are being used why are the temps relatively high as is the GP utilization?

That's not an issue any more. The 4.2 apps do a good job of using the cc2.1 Fermis. MJH

Anyone up to updating the OP?

Question, supposedly the GPUGrid app only utilizes 2/3 of the shaders on the GTX 460 (GF104). Yet the GPU utilization on all my 460s run at 88-89% and the cards run hotter than at other projects. As I remember, when this was first identified as a problem the 460s ran with low GPU utilization and very cool. Are you SURE it's still an issue? If only 2/3 of the shaders are being used why are the temps relatively high as is the GP utilization? Just wondering...

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3370&nowrap=true#30017

There are two main reasons why more credit is awarded on the long queue:
1) Greater risk for the cruncher to crunch (typically) much longer WUs. If a simulation crashes after 18 hours, that's a much bigger loss than a crash after 2 or 6 hours. This is especially true for older/slower cards.
2) To encourage/reward users who dedicate their computers to the long hours crunching that long WUs require. With he short queue, you can run a WU while you sleep or run errands, for example, and by the time you wake up or come home it's finished, and you can use your computer for other things. Dedicating a gpu/cpu/computer to run on long queue means you basically can't use it for other things, such as work, entertainment, etc., and so higher credits reward them for that.

Gianni's WUs may be slightly long for the short queue, but my recent tasks were definitely short for the long queue. The reason was that, at the time, my WUs were the only work for anyone to crunch, so I didn't want to make them too long in case people who typically crunch on short tasks wanted WUs to do, but couldn't sacrifice the time. Basically, it was due to the circumstances at that time. We have had a few weeks recently where I was the only one who had work for you guys, which was never a common situation for us. However, we keep adding more users, and it is becoming harder to come up with ideas fast enough (which is a good problem to have!). We are also trying to bring in new scientists!

Back to Credit per €:

I have made a few observations regarding the consumption (in watt) and results delivered. The results of my graphic cards I have held in a Exel spreadsheet. The table can be downloaded here:

PerformanceProWatt.xls

I had 4 Nvidia Cards for comparison, GTX 770, GTX 760, GTX 680 and GTX 750 Ti. With a Xavax energy meter I have the actual consumption measured in idle and load operation. Example: PC with GTX 770 idle: 80 Watt, with GPIGrid running load: 245 Watt. So running GPUGrid consumes 165 watts. Settings for crunching are only ACEMD long runs (8-12 hours on fastest GPU). In order to obtain a very precise average, I used the average of about 20 results per card.

The end result can be found in the orange cell. In short Words:

The GTX 770 supplies 105 points/watt
The GTX 760 supplies 110 points/watt
The GTX 680 supplies 116 points/watt
The GTX 750 Ti supplies 187 points/watt

So the GTX 750 Ti is the most efficient graphics card at the moment.

Running each PC with 1 graphic card individually is the most expensive way to operate GPUGRID. So my next project is an aged CPU (Core i7 860) with 2 GTX 750 Ti running GPUGrid. In my estimation, the machine will need about 190 watts while achieving about the score of a GTX 780.

Costs:
Running a machine consuming 190 watts will result in 1.659,84 kWh per year (24/7/365) which costs € 448.- (0,27 € pro kWh)

More ideas for a efficiente use requested ;-)


____________
Regards, Josef

More ideas for a efficient use requested ;-)

Four GTX970's in a quad core system that supports 4 PCIE slots would probably be the most economically productive system at present. You could probably build a base unit for < £1500, get 2.5M credits/day (at present performance rates) and over 2 years at £0.15/Kw it would cost ~£1500 to run (assuming 582W draw) at which time the value of the system would be ~£500. So total cost of ownership (TCO) would be ~£2500 (~$4000 or ~3200Euro) over 2 years for a credit of 1.8B.
Obviously prices vary by location and running costs depend on the price of electric which varies greatly from one place to another and the app could improve performance...

For comparison, a quad GTX780Ti system would yield ~3.3M credits per day, but the purchase cost would be >£2100, the running cost would be ~£2600 over 2years and the system would only be worth about the same (older kit). So £4200 for 2.4B.

9700 system ~750M credits/£ over 2years
780 Ti rig ~570M credits/£ over 2years

Four GTX970's in a quad core system that supports 4 PCIE slots would probably be the most economically productive system at present.

creating rates from 0.0876cents/Kw to over 0.1768cents/Kw.

I made a small mistake figuring kwh cost. Considering how energy costs are all over place, and each Country applies a different formula for prices- I went back to look at my 2014 August-September Power bill to see exactly what is included-- currently 0.1112c/kwh is the flat rate (was 0.08-0.10c/kwh from Sept2013-March2014), add a 0.05982c/kwh surcharge for taxes, and 0.0354c/kwh for distribution. This beings it currently to ~0.19cents/kwh/usd. Natural Gas (my hot water) is opposite: taxes are less than distribution costs. I have three wood stoves for heat during winter. (Electrical costs are decent compared to 0.34c/kwh for Germany) In 2013- average total for kwh was 0.1445c. Average amount of "surcharges" in 2013 for each kwh was 0.0443cents. Cost for energy resources have rose considerably in every industrial area.

In Germany how much of Total price is Taxes or "surcharges"? (Of Germany imports, what's the energy percentage?) In the States, certain energy policies (more regulations) have made the cost to run (large potion where power comes from) Coal fired plants on (East Coast) very difficult to keep energy prices in order. New Coal or Nuclear Power Plants aren't being built. Wind/Solar/Biodegradable (cost outweighs any benefit) is okay for a private homeowner (who can afford it), not an entire Country. Sensible energy policies rarely exist anymore.

I the course of upgrading my GPUs to Pascal I have worked through a lot of specs and characteristics. I thought that Maxwell was already a major leap forward in regard to efficiency and was somewhat surprised when I compared multiple generations by the GFLOP to power ratio. (Power draw taken from Wikipedia, typical 3D consumption) See the graph below.

No doubt that Fermi cards should be replaced very soon because of high energy cost, but Kepler apparently performs better than its reputation. Maxwell (to my surprise) improved the efficiency just moderately.

Side note: the 750(ti) is already Maxwell architecture and therefore runs more efficient than the other 700 series (Kepler) GPUs.

From this view, the 600 and 700 series are rightly still and widely in use. But in case crunchers with Kepler cards decide to upgrade even so, they should pass over Maxwell and upgrade to Pascal by all means.


____________
I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

Nice graph, and I completely agree with what you said about upgrading!

Kepler apparently performs better than its reputation. Maxwell (to my surprise) improved the efficiency just moderately.

I the course of upgrading my GPUs to Pascal I have worked through a lot of specs and characteristics. I thought that Maxwell was already a major leap forward in regard to efficiency and was somewhat surprised when I compared multiple generations by the GFLOP to power ratio. (Power draw taken from Wikipedia, typical 3D consumption) See the graph below.

No doubt that Fermi cards should be replaced very soon because of high energy cost, but Kepler apparently performs better than its reputation. Maxwell (to my surprise) improved the efficiency just moderately.

Side note: the 750(ti) is already Maxwell architecture and therefore runs more efficient than the other 700 series (Kepler) GPUs.

From this view, the 600 and 700 series are rightly still and widely in use. But in case crunchers with Kepler cards decide to upgrade even so, they should pass over Maxwell and upgrade to Pascal by all means.

Really? What about price? Not everyone, should I say most people can afford new Pascal cards. So, are they now regarded as second class.

I also would like to add that most Pascal card owners are a part of a "vanity" project.

No offense meant. The below graph just illustrates very clearly that Pascal GPUs pay off quickly for hardcore crunchers. For example the GTX 780ti is still a well performing high end Card, but the GTX 1070 yields the same GFLOPs at 70-80W less. If you run the GPU almost day and night you will have extra cost of 0.08kW*8000hrs*0,2€/kWh=120€. A new GTX 1070 is available from 400€ and the GTX 780ti can be sold as second hand for maybe 150€. Which means you get a new card without further investment after two years, just because of saving energy.
____________
I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

Other examples. Take the renowned Kepler GTX 780. The new GTX 1060 yields 10% more SP GFLOPs at 80-100W less power consumption. Leads to the same saving of 100-150€ per year.

And upgrades from Fermi will pay off even more quickly. Replacing the GTX 580 with a favorable GTX 1050 (not in the graph yet) will speed performance up by 10-15% but reduce the power draw by more than 150W!

I would rather call it "green" project. (Not because it's NVidia's color, but because it's twice as environment friendly as older cards)

Really? What about price? Not everyone, should I say most people can afford new Pascal cards. So, are they now regarded as secomd class. I also woud like to add that most Pascal card owners are a part of a "vanity" project.

No offense meant. The below graph just illustrates very clearly that Pascal GPUs pay off quickly for hardcore crunchers. For example the GTX 780ti is still a well performing high end Card, but the GTX 1070 yields the same GFLOPs at 70-80W less. If you run the GPU almost day and night you will have extra cost of 0.08kW*8000hrs*0,2€/kWh=120€

Taking performance/purchase cost into consideration is a valid argument. But in this case also the service life until replacing the GPU is of importance in order to calculate the amortization.

Reports of 45W actual use when crunching here on a GTX1060-3GB might throw the previous graphs data all over the place.

Does anyone know what is the better choice - 750 Ti or 1050Ti (both 4Gb)?
____________
From Siberia with love!

Does anyone know what is the better choice - 750 Ti or 1050Ti (both 4Gb)?

As an addition to my below graph, the new 1080ti yields 53 GFLOPS/Watt and the Titan XP about the same, assuming that it pulls 220-230W just like the Titan X. Which means the efficiency is identically equal to the non-"ti" 1080. So much for theory...
____________
I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

As an addition to my below graph, the new 1080ti yields 53 GFLOPS/Watt and the Titan XP about the same, assuming that it pulls 220-230W just like the Titan X. Which means the efficiency is identically equal to the non-"ti" 1080. So much for theory...

As an addition to my below graph, the new 1080ti yields 53 GFLOPS/Watt and the Titan XP about the same, assuming that it pulls 220-230W just like the Titan X. Which means the efficiency is identically equal to the non-"ti" 1080. So much for theory...

Since the 1070 is the same GP104 die, it performs very similarly to the gtx 1080 in this project, costs much less, and uses slightly less power. The 1070 is the best performance per watt, performance per dollar card for this project.

Since the 1070 is the same GP104 die, it performs very similarly to the gtx 1080 in this project, costs much less, and uses slightly less power. The 1070 is the best performance per watt, performance per dollar card for this project.

I have a 1660Ti that I would like to test out but but but …

1487 GPUGRID 8/15/2019 10:11:04 AM No tasks are available for Short runs (2-3 hours on fastest card)
1488 GPUGRID 8/15/2019 10:11:04 AM No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)
1489 GPUGRID 8/15/2019 10:11:04 AM No tasks are available for New version of ACEMD
1490 GPUGRID 8/15/2019 10:11:04 AM No tasks are available for Anaconda Python 3 Environment
1491 GPUGRID 8/15/2019 10:11:04 AM Project has no tasks available

I am currently running a GTX 650 (from an older pc) and a GTX 1050TI.
I am thinking of replacing the 650, but don't want to spend a ton of money.
I saw on a deep learning page that they thought the 1060 was the best of the GTX 10 series, but you guys are saying 1070.

So which is better for the money spent and the power used?
GTX 1070 or 1060? And then vanilla for TI version?

Running a 1060 and quite happy with it.
As an aside, can anyone comment on external GPU's for laptops? My CPU's are idle.

So which is better for the money spent and the power used?

Running a 1060 and quite happy with it.
As an aside, can anyone comment on external GPU's for laptops? My CPU's are idle.

Thank you both.

It does. Daisy chain allowed or is it too ambitious?

From that egpu review, it seems that the gpu maxes out the TB3 connection. I doubt it could support another egpu daisy chained behind the first egpu.

Has anyone used a "GTX 1650 SUPER" or "GTX 1660 SUPER" on GPUgrid?

Would be interested to see how they compare to the non SUPER models.

Looking to fill in the blanks for performance (Low powered entry level GPUs) on the Initial Test Work Units.

Average completion time guesstimates:
GTX 1650 28200 seconds
GTX 1650 SUPER ?????
GTX 1060 3Gb 26900 seconds
GTX 1660 19500 seconds
GTX 1660 SUPER ?????
GTX 1660 Ti 16500 seconds

(completion times will vary depending on GPU, host and configuration)

If you like, I can give you some more data about other "low end" cards for the NEW ACEMD3 application:

These are all recent work units of last week. All were completed without errors.
You may add these to your list if you like.


1) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 745 Maxwell (2048MB 900Mhz DDR3 128-bit) - driver: 430.86:
CPU = AMD FX4320 quad core
Run TIme: 166,385.50 sec = +- 46 hours
See
http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=512409

2) NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 Kepler (2048MB DDR5 64-bit) - driver: 432.0
CPU = Core 2 Duo E8200 Dual core
Run Time: 375,108.98 sec = +- 104 hours
See
http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=502519

3) NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 Kepler (2048MB 800Mhz DDR3 64-bit) driver: 436.48
CPU = AMD A8-9600 Quad Core
Run Time = 431,583.77 sec = +- 119 hours
See
http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=514223

4) NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 Pascal (2048MB DDR5 64-bit) - driver: 436.48
CPU = Celeron E3300 Dual Core
Run Time = 113,797.23 sec = +- 31 hours
See
http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=500299

5) NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 Kepler (2048MB DDR5 64-bit) - driver: 419.35
CPU = AMD Athlon 200GE Dual Core, Quad thread
Run time = 233,535.98 sec = +- 64 hours
See
http://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=503400



Be aware of the following points which may have influenced the performance:
- I suppose that the ACEMD3 work units are not 100% identical in the amount of work they represent, so compare the results with a big grain of salt.
- All are Windows 10 machines.
- All computers have different processors.
- At the same time, the CPUs were crunching Mapping Cancer Marker work units, as many as they have cores/threads.
- 1 of my GT710s has DDR5 memory, the other one has DDR3 memory. I have stated it above.
- All GPUs and CPUs run at default speeds. No (manual) overclocking was done.
- None of the CPUs and GPUs ever reached 70 degrees Celsius.
In fact, except for the GT1030, all even stayed well below 60°.



Hope you like it. :-)
Greetings;
Carl Philip

Thanks for your feedback Carl

Agree. Kudos Carl for defining what to expect from low end Nvidia cards. Even multi generation old cards are still usable for this project.