Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : NVidia GPU Card comparisons in GFLOPS peak

Author Message
Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10607 - Posted: 16 Jun 2009 | 16:11:44 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jun 2009 | 16:15:39 UTC

For those interested in buying a CUDA card or adding one to a GPU project, I collected some reported Boinc GPU ratings, added some I tested and create a Boinc GFLOPS performance list.
Note. These are hopefully ALL Native scores only!

CUDA card list with Boinc ratings in GFLOPS

The following are mostly compute capability 1.1:

GeForce 8400 GS PCI 256MB, est. 4GFLOPS
GeForce 8400 GS PCIe 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8500 GT 512MB, est. 5GFLOPS
Quadro NVS 290 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8600M GS 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8600M GS 512MB, est. 6GFLOPS
Geforce 8500 GT, 512MB PCIe, 6GFLOPS

GeForce 9600M GT 512MB, est. 14GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GT 256MB, est. 14GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB, est. 15GFLOPS
GeForce 9500 GT 512MB, est. 15GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB, est. 18GFLOPS

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 34GFLOPS
GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 37GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTS, 640MB, est. 41GFLOPS [compute capability 1.0]
Geforce 9600 GSO, 768MB (DDR2) 46GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 384MB (DDR3) 48GFLOPS

GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, est. 62GFLOPS [compute capability 1.0,] (OC)?
GeForce 9800 GT 1024MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GX2 512MB, est. 69GFLOPS

GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS

Compute capability 1.3:

GeForce GTX 260 896MB (192sp), est. 85GFLOPS
Tesla C1060 1024MB, est. 93GFLOPS (only)?
GeForce GTX 260 896MB, est. 100GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 260 896MB, est. 104GFLOPS (OC)?
GeForce GTX 260 896MB, est. 111GFLOPS (OC)?
GeForce GTX 275 896MB, est. 123GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 285 1024MB, est. 127GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 280 1024MB, est. 130GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 295 896MB, est. 106GFLOPS (X2=212)?

You should also note the following if you’re buying a new card or thinking about attaching it to a CUDA project:

Different cards have different numbers of shaders (the more the better)!
Different speeds of shader and RAM will effect performance (these are sometimes factory over clocked and different manufacturers using the same GPU chipset and speed can tweak out slightly different performances)!
Some older cards use DDR2 while newer cards predominately use DDR3 (DDR3 is about 20% to 50% faster but varies, faster is better)!
The amount of RAM (typically 256MB, 384MB, 512MB, 768MB, 896MB and 1GB) will significantly affect performance (more is better)!
Some older cards may be PCI, Not PCI-E (PCI-E is faster)!
Mismatched pairs of PCIE cards will likely underperform.

If you overclock your Graphics card, you will probably get more performance, but you might get more errors and you will reduce the life expectancy of the card, motherboard and PSU - you probably know this already ;)

If you have a slower card (say under 10GFLOPS) don’t attach it to the GPU-Grid; you are unlikely to finish any tasks in time, so you will not produce any results or get any points. You may wish to attach to another project that uses a longer return deadline (Aqua-GPU for example). With a 20GFLOPS card most tasks will probably timeout. Even with a 9600 GT (about 35GFLOPS) your computer would need to be on most of the time to get a good success/failure ratio.

Please post your NATIVELY CLOCKED Boinc GFLOPS Ratings here, or any errors, to create a more complete list.
You can find them here; Open Boinc (Advanced View), select the Messages Tab, about the 12th line down it will say CUDA Device... or No CUDA devices found. Include Card Name, Compute Capability (1.0, 1.1 or 1.3 for example), RAM and est. GFLOPS. Even if it is already on the list, it will confirm the ratings, and help other people decide what graphics card they want to get.

PS. If you want more details about an NVIDIA card look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_Graphics_Processing_Units

Thanks,
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10635 - Posted: 17 Jun 2009 | 20:46:48 UTC - in response to Message 10607.

Hi,

that's quite some work you put into collecting this. Let me add a few points / comments:

- we have a comparable list here, including prices (somewhat outdated) and some power consumption numbers

- we found GT200 to be 41% faster per GFLOP than G9x, so the BOINC benchmark underestimates this influence (it could not possibly reflect it correctly unless it used the actual GPU-Grid code)

- that 8800GTX is probably not OC'ed, as it has more raw power than a 9800GT

- 9800GX2 would also get that value times 2 (2 chips)

- the Tesla 1060 is just a GT200 in a slightly different config, so that score is reasonable

- GPU-Grid is not terribly limited by gpu memory speed, so DDR2 / GDDR3 doesn't matter much.. and any card with DDR2 is likely too slow anyway

- the amount of GPU memory does not affect GPU-Grid performance and likely will not for a long time (currently 70 - 100 MB used). See e.g. the 9600GSO (384 / 368) or the 9800GTX+ / GT250 (512 / 1024)

- PCIe speed does not matter as long as it doesn't get extremely slow

- any card with PCI is likely too slow for GPU-Grid anyway

- "mismatched" pairs (I'd call them mixed ;) of PCIe cards do not underperform. Folding@home has this problem, but it has not been reported here, even in G9x / GT200 mixes

- if you overclock you will get more performance

- just increasing clock speed does not decrease GPU lifetime much. Temperature is much more important, so if you increase the fan speed slightly you'll easily offset any lifetime losses due to higher frequencies. Just don't increase GPU voltage!

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10709 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 22:49:47 UTC - in response to Message 10635.

Thanks for your input MrS. You made many good points, and well spotted with the mistakes:
The GeForce 9800 GX2 has 2 X 69GFLOPS = 138GFLOPS,
GPU-Grid performance will not improve with more RAM (GPU_GRID uses 70-100MB), Different card pairings do not imper GPU-GRID Performance.

The lower rated CUDA capable cards are for reference, I did not mean to suggest anyone should use a DDR2 or PCI card (5GFLOPS) on GPU-GRID. Dont do it!

Can I ask you to clarify something regarding the G200 GPU core range?

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 250, despite appearing to be part of the 200 range, actually uses a G92 Core (it’s almost identical to the GeForce 9800 GTX+), so am I correct in thinking that Boinc rates this correctly as 85GFLOPS, and that the cards name is just an oddity/misnoma?

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (192sp) on the other hand does use a G200 Core (as does the denser 260, the 270, 275, 280, 285, 290, and 295 cards). So does Boinc under rate this GTX 260 (192sp) as a 85GFLOPS card?

Would it be more accurate for Boinc to rate this card as 85 X 1.41 = 120GFLOPS ?

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10718 - Posted: 20 Jun 2009 | 10:04:02 UTC - in response to Message 10709.

Hi,

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 250, despite appearing to be part of the 200 range, actually uses a G92 Core (it’s almost identical to the GeForce 9800 GTX+), so am I correct in thinking that Boinc rates this correctly as 85GFLOPS, and that the cards name is just an oddity/misnoma?


It's actually the GTS 250, not GTX 250. NVidia apparently thinks this single unassuming letter is enough for people to realize that what they are going to buy is performance wise identical to the 9800GTX+. Or they just want to screw customers into thinking the GTS 250 is more than it actually is.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (192sp) on the other hand does use a G200 Core (as does the denser 260, the 270, 275, 280, 285, 290, and 295 cards). So does Boinc under rate this GTX 260 (192sp) as a 85GFLOPS card?

Would it be more accurate for Boinc to rate this card as 85 X 1.41 = 120GFLOPS ?


In short: yes :D
You can see in the post I linked to that the GTS 250 is theoretically capable of 705 GFlops, whereas "GTX 260 Core 192" is rated at 715 GFlops. So the BOINC benchmark is quite accurate in reproducing this.

However, due to advanced functionality in the G200 design GPU-Grid can extract more real-world-GFlops from G200 than from G92 (these 41%). You could say the GTX 260 and all other G200-based cards deserve their rating to be multiplied by 1.41.

And since the BOINC benchmark uses a different code it can not reproduce this accurately, or not at all. If it was changed to include this effect it might get inaccurate for seti or aqua, as in their case G92 and G200 may be as fast, on a "per theoretical GFlop" basis. That's why I think a single benchmark number is not any more useful than the theoretical values.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

popandbob
Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 07
Posts: 65
Credit: 10,972,900
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10731 - Posted: 20 Jun 2009 | 19:25:22 UTC

I think I found the reading Boinc uses for its GFLOPS count...
From CUDA-Z:
32-bit Integer: 120753 Miop/s
From Boinc:
6/20/2009 12:55:51 CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18585, CUDA version 1.3, 896MB, est. 121GFLOPS)

Bob

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10736 - Posted: 20 Jun 2009 | 23:43:03 UTC - in response to Message 10731.

Perhaps you are correct?
I only have a GeForce GTX 260 (192). Boinc rates it as 85GFLOPS.
CUDA-Z, Performance, 32-bit Integer, rates it as about 86000 Miop/s (but it fluctuates).

Is your card overclocked, as the other GTX 260 cards I listed were between 100 and 111GFLOPS?

Ross*
Send message
Joined: 6 May 09
Posts: 34
Credit: 442,860,201
RAC: 0
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10740 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 5:44:06 UTC - in response to Message 10635.

The influence of the CPU

If you look at the top computers that are crunching GPUGRD the CPU times are low between 1000 to 2000 for 4000 to 5000 credits.
Most are i7 CPUs and are using a couple of 295s

So has anyone done some research into what CPU setup is doing the best?


While the GPU cards are a known factor "we found GT200 to be 41% faster per GFLOP than G9x, so the BOINC benchmark underestimates this influence (it could not possibly reflect it correctly unless it used the actual GPU-Grid code)"
here is some huge differences in the amount of CPU time to do WUs

Assuming the WU is done within 24hrs I have had diffences of 1000 cpu time for 4500 credits to 6000 for 4500 credits.
Ross


____________

popandbob
Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 07
Posts: 65
Credit: 10,972,900
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10741 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 5:59:26 UTC - in response to Message 10736.

Is your card overclocked, as the other GTX 260 cards I listed were between 100 and 111GFLOPS?


Very much so...
current clocks
702/1566/1107

I'm tempted to use the voltage tuner to up the speed more though :) Temps at 67c (fan @ 70%) so lots of room there...

Bob

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10751 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 13:31:52 UTC - in response to Message 10741.

Below is an updated CUDA Performance Table for cards on GPU-GRID, with reported Boinc GPU ratings, and amended ratings for G200 cores (in brackets) -only for compute capable 1.3 cards. (MrS calculated that G200 core CUDA cards operate at 141% efficiency compared to the reported Boinc GFLOPS).

This is a guide to Natively clocked card performance on GPU-GRID only (not for other projects)!

The following are mostly compute capability (CC) 1.1:

Don’t use with GPU-GRID, won’t finish in time!
GeForce 8400 GS PCI 256MB, est. 4GFLOPS
GeForce 8400 GS PCIe 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8500 GT 512MB, est. 5GFLOPS
Quadro NVS 290 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8600M GS 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS
GeForce 8600M GS 512MB, est. 6GFLOPS
Geforce 8500 GT, 512MB PCIe, 6GFLOPS

Not Recommended for GPU-GRID, unless on 24/7
GeForce 9600M GT 512MB, est. 14GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GT 256MB, est. 14GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB, est. 15GFLOPS
GeForce 9500 GT 512MB, est. 15GFLOPS
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB, est. 18GFLOPS

Entry Performance cards for GPU-GRID
GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 34GFLOPS
GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 37GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTS, 640MB, est. 41GFLOPS [CC 1.0]
Geforce 9600 GSO, 768MB (DDR2) 46GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 384MB (DDR3) 48GFLOPS

Average Performance Cards for GPU-GRID
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, est. 62GFLOPS [CC 1.0]
GeForce 9800 GT 1024MB, est. 60GFLOPS

Good Performance Cards for GPU-GRID
GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS

Compute capability 1.3 [mostly]:

High End Performance Cards for GPU-Grid
GeForce GTX 260 896MB (192sp), est. 85GFLOPS (120)
Tesla C1060 1024MB, est. 93GFLOPS (131)
GeForce GTX 260 896MB, est. 100GFLOPS (141)
GeForce GTX 275 896MB, est. 123GFLOPS (173)
GeForce GTX 285 1024MB, est. 127GFLOPS (179)
GeForce GTX 280 1024MB, est. 130GFLOPS (183)
GeForce 9800 GX2 512MB, est. 138GFLOPS [CC 1.1]
GeForce GTX 295 896MB, est. 212GFLOPS (299)

I would speculate that given the 41% advantage in using compute capable 1.3 (G200) cards, GPU-GRID would be likely to continue to support these cards’ advantageous instruction sets.

For those that have compute capable 1.0/1.1 cards and 1.3 cards and participate in other GPU projects, it would make sense to allocate your 1.3 cards to GPU-GRID.

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10752 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 13:54:12 UTC - in response to Message 10741.

current clocks 702/1566/1107

I'm tempted to use the voltage tuner to up the speed more though :) Temps at 67c (fan @ 70%) so lots of room there...

Bob


I would be happy enough with that performance - its about the same as a Natively clocked GeForce GTX 275!
If you are going to up the Voltage, select No New Tasks, and finish your existing work units first ;)

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10755 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 15:28:13 UTC

Ross, please don't start the same discussion in 2 different threads!

popandbob wrote:
I'm tempted to use the voltage tuner to up the speed more though :) Temps at 67c (fan @ 70%) so lots of room there...


You may want to take a look here.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

dasfiend
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 09
Posts: 2
Credit: 7,971,562
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10756 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 15:52:24 UTC

CUDA device: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 2048MB, est. 136GFLOPS)


This is an EVGA "FTW Edition", or factory overclocked to:

Core - 702MHz
Shader - 1584MHz
Memory - 2448MHz

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10758 - Posted: 21 Jun 2009 | 16:24:21 UTC - in response to Message 10740.

The influence of the CPU. If you look at the top computers that are crunching GPUGRD the CPU times are low between 1000 to 2000 for 4000 to 5000 credits. Most are i7 CPUs and are using a couple of 295s
So has anyone done some research into what CPU setup is doing the best?

Yes, I did a bit of research into this and found some interesting results!

Ultimately any given Work Unit will require a set amount of CPU processing and the overall time to complete this CPU Processing will vary with different CPU performances (or even an over clocked CPU). So, on the face of it, the faster the CPU, the faster you will complete a CUDA Work Unit (everything else being equal).
However, typical WU completion times of systems with fast CPUs V’s slow CPUs are not massively different. This is because the typical amount of CPU usage (running GPU-GRID) is only about 0.12 for a good CPU (the CPU runs 12% of the time), and because most systems are reasonably well balanced in terms of hardware.
Even if a slow CPU (Celeron 440) ran GPU-GRID 40% of the time, there would still be plenty of unused CPU time. It wouldn’t quite be the bottleneck you might think because the CPU is continuously doing small amounts of processing, waiting nanoseconds and then doing more small amounts... It does not have to run all the CPU calculations from start to finish before running the GPU CUDA calculations or vice versa; so there is not a massive bottleneck with slower CPU’s. The entire architecture of the CPU is not being exploited/stressed 100% of the time. My guess is that the differences (in terms of getting through a single GPU-GRID work unit on an average card) between an i7 and a Celeron 440 would be mainly to do with FSB speeds, Cache and instruction sets rather than CPU frequency or having 4 cores, and it would not be much!
If you take an extreme example of a Celeron 440 with a GTX 295, the Video card is obviously going to fly through its calculations, and ask more of the CPU than a GeForce GT 9600 would, over any given time. Obviously not many people are going to have such an unbalanced system, so it would be difficult to compare the above to a Q9650 (same socket) and a GTX 295.
Add another GTX 295 and the Celeron 440 would probably struggle to compute for 4 GPU tasks.
A Q9650 on the other hand would do just fine.
If you had a Q9650 and just the GT 9600, the impact on the CPU by running GPU-GRID would be negligible – but again this would be an imbalanced system (just like having an i7 with 512MB RAM would)!
Moving back into the world of the common sense systems, most people with Quad core (or better) CPU systems that crunch GPU-GRID WU’s also crunch CPU tasks, such as WCG, Climate Change... So the research I did was to work out if it was overall more beneficial to use 1 less CPU when crunching such tasks and GPU-GRID tasks. I actually looked at a more extreme example than CPU-GRID tasks. Aqua was running tasks that required 0.46 CPU’s + 1 CUDA. As I was using a Quad core, this actually meant that Aqua would use 46% of one core + the Graphics card. After calculating the credit I would get for the Aqua WU compared to the credit for a WCG work unit of approximately the same time to complete, I did find that it would be beneficial to manually configure Boinc to use 3 cores, and basically use 1 for Aqua. I found that when doing this that there was also some improvement in the other 3 CPUs throughput! So, Aqua sped up noticeably (on a card with either 60 or 77GFLOPS) and the other 3 WCG tasks sped up slightly, offsetting some of the 4th CPU loss.
Given the variety of CUDA cards, CPU’s, Projects and Work Units, you would probably have to do the analysis yourself, on your system.
I would guess that if you had a low end Quad CPU and a GTX 295’s you would be better to use no more than 3 CPU cores for crunching other projects and leave one CPU core free to facilitate the CPU processing of the GPU-GRID WU’s. At the minute you would probably need to do this manually by suspending and Resuming Boinc CPU tasks. But, if you had a GeForce 9600 and a Q9750, disabling a CPU core would overall reduce your contributions.

Profile MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 730
Credit: 189,243,545
RAC: 308
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10782 - Posted: 22 Jun 2009 | 13:16:34 UTC

I've used (so far) 3 cards with BOINC.

9800GT 512Mb, 60Gflops reported by BOINC (as you'd expect same as 1Mb card)
GTS250 512Mb, 84Gflops reported by BOINC
GTX260 896Mb (216 shaders), 96Gflops reported by BOINC

All cards are stock speeds. The only one that appears to be different to the list above is the GTX260.
____________
BOINC blog

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10788 - Posted: 22 Jun 2009 | 20:14:55 UTC - in response to Message 10782.

GTX260 896Mb (216 shaders), 96Gflops reported by BOINC


We established that 85 GFlops is quite correct for the GTX 260 Core 192. Scaling just the number of shaders up should result in 85*216/192 = 95.6 GFlops, which is just what you're getting. The 100 are likely obtained from a mildly factory overclocked card.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10808 - Posted: 24 Jun 2009 | 1:01:33 UTC - in response to Message 10782.
Last modified: 24 Jun 2009 | 1:13:11 UTC

9800GT 512Mb, 60Gflops reported by BOINC (as you'd expect same as 1Mb card)
I know you meant 1GB and that you know GPU-GRID uses between 70MB and 100MB [MrS], so for anyone else reading this, if you have 256MB or 1GB it should not make any difference for GPU-GRID.

Thanks for your confirmations, especially the 260 (216) :)


Someones bound to have a Quadro, come on, own up!
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10865 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009 | 10:53:28 UTC - in response to Message 10808.

GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 1GB, est. 60GFLOPS

Reasons, 8800GT and 9800GT are almost identical,
512MB or 1GB makes no difference when crunching for GPU-GRID.

fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 86
Credit: 630,320,150
RAC: 1,155,200
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11126 - Posted: 12 Jul 2009 | 18:54:08 UTC - in response to Message 10865.

GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 1GB, est. 60GFLOPS

Reasons, 8800GT and 9800GT are almost identical,
512MB or 1GB makes no difference when crunching for GPU-GRID.

The only expected difference would be power consumption and the transition from 65nm to 55nm.

Profile vitalidze
Send message
Joined: 15 May 09
Posts: 20
Credit: 239,712,351
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11285 - Posted: 24 Jul 2009 | 11:10:45 UTC - in response to Message 11126.

I have got 141Gflops at my GTX 275 with overcklocked shader domain up to 1700Mhz.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11521 - Posted: 30 Jul 2009 | 20:07:36 UTC - in response to Message 11126.

8800GT and 9800GT both never went to 55 nm officially. It's the same G92 chip. Really the only difference is that 9800GT supports hybrid power whereas 8800GT doesn't. Oh, and 9 sells better than 8, of course. There's got to be progress, after all!

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11660 - Posted: 4 Aug 2009 | 22:43:32 UTC - in response to Message 11521.
Last modified: 4 Aug 2009 | 22:44:57 UTC

Updated Boinc GFLOPS performance list.
Again, these are hopefully ALL Native scores only!
Your card might vary by a few GFLOPS due to different timings, manufacturers and versions of the card (they change the GPU, Memory and Shader clocks a bit).

First a Note on Compute Capable Requirements:
GPUGrid now only supports Compute Capable 1.1 and above (1.3).
Anyone with a 1.0 Compute Capable card will not be able to contribute!
Unfortunately that excludes the following cards,
GeForce 8800 GTS, 640MB, est. 41GFLOPS (compute capability 1.0)
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, est. 62GFLOPS (compute capability 1.0)

I would suggest that a minimum spec is 30GFLOPS.
So nothing below 30GFLOPS is listed this time.

CUDA CARD LIST WITH BOINC RATINGS IN GFLOPS

The following are mostly compute capability 1.1:
(check versions for obsolete G80 GPU versions)

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 34GFLOPS to 37GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 768MB (DDR2) est. 46GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 384MB (DDR3) est. 48GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 1024MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce GTX 260 896MB (192sp), est. 85GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GX2 512MB, est. 138 GFLOPS

COMPUTE CAPABILITY 1.3:

Tesla C1060 est. 93GFLOPS (131)
GeForce GTX 260 est. 96GFLOPS to 111GFLOPS (135 to 156)
GeForce GTX 275 est. 123GFLOPS (173)
GeForce GTX 285 est. 127GFLOPS (179)
GeForce GTX 280 est. 130GFLOPS (183)
GeForce GTX 295 est. 212GFLOPS (299)
(1.41% Improvement Factor, for being 1.3 Capable)

I did not include RAM with the 1.3 capable cards, it’s irrelevant for GPUGRID; all are 896MB+
I left the RAM with the 1.1 cards, to help distinguish between the many models.

If you have a Compute Capable 1.1 or above NVIDIA card Not on this list, that is either Natively clocked or Factory Overclocked please add it to this post.
If you have a self overclocked card, post it with the native and overclocked ratings.
With details this time (You can Use GPU-Z):
For Example,

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250:
<Card Manufacturer>
GPU G92, 128 Shaders
Native Clock rates; GPU 745MHz, Memory 1000MHz, Shader 1848 MHz
84GFLOPS
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/hkf67/

Thanks,

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11714 - Posted: 8 Aug 2009 | 11:38:13 UTC - in response to Message 11660.

In your list of 1.1 cards: "GTX 250" should read "GTS 250" and the "GTX 260 896MB (192sp)" is capability 1.3.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11841 - Posted: 13 Aug 2009 | 14:38:52 UTC - in response to Message 11714.

In your list of 1.1 cards: "GTX 250" should read "GTS 250" and the "GTX 260 896MB (192sp)" is capability 1.3.
MrS


Thanks again,

Corrected CUDA CARD LIST WITH BOINC RATINGS IN GFLOPS

The following are mostly compute capability 1.1:
(check versions for obsolete G80 GPU versions)

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB, est. 34GFLOPS to 37GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 768MB (DDR2) est. 46GFLOPS
Geforce 9600 GSO, 384MB (DDR3) est. 48GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GT 1024MB, est. 60GFLOPS
GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB, est. 77GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce GTS 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GX2 512MB, est. 138 GFLOPS

COMPUTE CAPABILITY 1.3:

GeForce GTX 260(192sp) est. 85GFLOPS (120)
Tesla C1060 est. 93GFLOPS (131)
GeForce GTX 260 est. 96GFLOPS to 111GFLOPS (135 to 156)
GeForce GTX 275 est. 123GFLOPS (173)
GeForce GTX 285 est. 127GFLOPS (179)
GeForce GTX 280 est. 130GFLOPS (183)
GeForce GTX 295 est. 212GFLOPS (299)

(1.41% Improvement Factor, for being 1.3 Capable)


____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11854 - Posted: 13 Aug 2009 | 19:42:03 UTC - in response to Message 11841.

Nothing else to complain about ;)

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 730
Credit: 189,243,545
RAC: 308
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11921 - Posted: 15 Aug 2009 | 14:14:28 UTC - in response to Message 11841.

COMPUTE CAPABILITY 1.3:

GeForce GTX 260(192sp) est. 85GFLOPS (120)
Tesla C1060 est. 93GFLOPS (131)
GeForce GTX 260 est. 96GFLOPS to 111GFLOPS (135 to 156)
GeForce GTX 275 est. 123GFLOPS (173)
GeForce GTX 285 est. 127GFLOPS (179)
GeForce GTX 280 est. 130GFLOPS (183)
GeForce GTX 295 est. 212GFLOPS (299)

(1.41% Improvement Factor, for being 1.3 Capable)


The GTX275 is coming up as 120 Gflops (stock speed) on my one machine that has it. What is the number in brackets after the Gflops?

____________
BOINC blog

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 11923 - Posted: 15 Aug 2009 | 15:11:33 UTC - in response to Message 11660.

...
GeForce GTX 295 est. 212GFLOPS (299)
(1.41% Improvement Factor, for being 1.3 Capable)


Actually a factor of 1.41 or 141% or +41%, which ever you prefer. It makes the BOINC-GFlop ratings comparable between GT200 and older cards.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

=Lupus=
Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 1,083,415
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 12141 - Posted: 27 Aug 2009 | 1:10:37 UTC

Just for the notes:
Nforce 700-Series onboard-graphics:

CUDA 1.1 beacuse of onboard gforce8200/8300 , but with 3 GFlops and i think 16 SPs an extreme NO-GO for gpugrid. But it works well on seti.

=Lupus=

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 12197 - Posted: 29 Aug 2009 | 1:01:51 UTC - in response to Message 10731.

I think I found the reading Boinc uses for its GFLOPS count...
From CUDA-Z:
32-bit Integer: 120753 Miop/s
From Boinc:
6/20/2009 12:55:51 CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18585, CUDA version 1.3, 896MB, est. 121GFLOPS)

Bob


Boinc 6.6.36 for windows_x86_64:
CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18618, compute capability 1.3, 896BM, est/ 104GFLOPS)

CUDA-Z 0.5.95:
32-bit Integer 115236 Miop/s

They now seem a bit disprate, but 115 is perhaps more realistic than Boincs estimate!
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 12639 - Posted: 22 Sep 2009 | 23:44:41 UTC - in response to Message 11921.

GeForce GTX 260(192sp) est. 85GFLOPS (120)
Tesla C1060 est. 93GFLOPS (131)
GeForce GTX 260 est. 96GFLOPS to 111GFLOPS (135 to 156)
GeForce GTX 275 est. 123GFLOPS (173)
GeForce GTX 285 est. 127GFLOPS (179)
GeForce GTX 280 est. 130GFLOPS (183)
GeForce GTX 295 est. 212GFLOPS (299)


Is that correct that the 280 is (slightly) faster than the 285? From the board specs, the 285 should be a bit faster....

chumbucket843
Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 195
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 12642 - Posted: 23 Sep 2009 | 1:02:27 UTC

is ACEMD bandwidth bound? it seems like it should be getting closer to peak flops or does gpugrid use double precision? if so these numbers are impressive.

Home PC
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 10,519,698
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 12958 - Posted: 1 Oct 2009 | 15:54:25 UTC

Not sure about the Tesla C1060 numbers above, AFAIK all C1060s have 4096MB of GDDR3.

My C1060s report (standard from the factory), no OC as :

CUDA device: Tesla C1060 (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.3, 4096MB, est. 111GFLOPS)

"compute capability 1.3" is the core architecture version.

Skip Da Shu
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 09
Posts: 38
Credit: 41,955,165
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 12971 - Posted: 2 Oct 2009 | 0:50:34 UTC - in response to Message 10751.
Last modified: 2 Oct 2009 | 1:21:39 UTC


GeForce GTX 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS

It's a GTS-250 not a GTX-250.

But my numbers match up -->

MSI GTS-250, 185.18.36 driver, Linux 2.6.28-15 64b @ default clocks(760/1150)

Wed 30 Sep 2009 11:43:46 AM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTS 250 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2020, compute capability 1.1, 511MB, est. 84GFLOPS)


XFX sp216 GTX-260, 190.36 driver, Linux 2.6.28-15 64b @ default clocks(576/999)

Thu 01 Oct 2009 07:55:04 PM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 895MB, est. 96GFLOPS)

Same card with GPU @ 650 (linked shaders) mem @ 1100

Thu 01 Oct 2009 08:08:46 PM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 895MB, est. 108GFLOPS)
____________
- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 12981 - Posted: 2 Oct 2009 | 17:18:09 UTC - in response to Message 12971.

Sorry but after about 2hours we cant edit the typo's on this board (so, as was pointed out before, and corrected, it is a GTS250, CUDA 1.1 capable, and 84GFlops – says so on my tin)!
The list is just a rough guide.
Different cards will be clocked slightly differently and so you should expect the odd anomaly, such as the listed GTX 280 being faster than a GTX 285. Factory clock settings are not all identical, and later edition cards typically find some performance advantage. There are plenty of Factory Overclocked cards out there, and RAM is an easy target.
My GTX260 is rated as 104GFlops, right in the middle of the range I listed – it has plenty of headroom for overclocking; http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/w6pes/
If you have an overclocked card you can listing it and the details might help other select a card or clock it.
The Tesla T1060 might cost a lot but it is not as useful for this project as you might think; the project uses less than 256MB RAM, so the 4GB is not really beneficial here.

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13094 - Posted: 9 Oct 2009 | 22:03:08 UTC - in response to Message 12981.
Last modified: 9 Oct 2009 | 22:16:59 UTC

Overclocking my Palit GTX 260 (216)

I used Riva Tuner to up the speeds of my GTX 260 from the modest stock settings of; GPU 625, Mem 1100, Shaders 1348. Boinc rates that at 104 GFLOPS!

I first un-tentatively (seeing plenty of headroom, given the low temperatures) popped it up to GPU 666, Mem 1201, Shaders 1436. This gave me a Boinc GFLOPs rating of 111, about as good as it gets for a factory over-clocked GTX260, at an extra £20 or so.

I left the Fan control at Auto, and the system seemed happy to let the fan speed sit at 40%, about 3878 rpm. The temp rose from 60degrees C to 68degrees and then stabilized when running Milkyway@home.

I was happy enough with that, so I upped it again to GPU 702, Mem 1230, Shaders 1514. Just for reference, thats about a 12% increase all round and gave me 117 GFLOPS. With no change in temps I upped it again,

GPU 740, Mem 1269, Shaders 1596

That is an 18% increase, and a Boinc rating of 123GFLOPS, which equates to the same performance as a GTX 275!

Presently the GPU seems stable and is capable of running GPUGRID (65 degrees) and Milkyway@home (68 degrees); good enough for me. So the temps and fan speed did not rise any further, but when I upped it again (about 5 percent) the system became a bit unstable, so I withdrew to the above settings.

I noticed that the amount of CPU that Boinc reports GPUGRID needs rose from 19% to 23% This is on a Phenom II 940 overclocked from 3GHz to 3.3GHz.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13142 - Posted: 11 Oct 2009 | 11:20:35 UTC - in response to Message 13094.

The GPU 740, Mem 1269, Shaders 1596 settings were fine for Windows but not for GPUGRID. I backed off to 117 Gflops, and that seems stable.

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13263 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009 | 2:21:05 UTC - in response to Message 13142.

@SKGiven: this is such a great piece of work you've put up here. It should be a sticky thread because it's so informative. I confirmed that you had good data by comparing your numbers to my 9800 GTX+ and 9800 GT...dead-nuts-on.

So I did some research on NVIDIA's site, EVGA's site, eBay, and e-comm vendors. My conclusion: if you have double width room in your rig, the GTX 275 is the bang-for-the-buck champ, by virtue of being virtually the same performance as the 280 or 285, but can be had for $200 (EVGA GTX 275 after rebate from Microcenter.com), plus upgrading the PSU if necessary ($59 after rebate for a Corsair 550W from newegg.com). $260 bucks for ~170 Gflops......wow! (To do the same with the GTX 295 would be over $600... for +67% performance, you'd pay +130%.)

Forget putting any money or KWh running extra CPUs of any sort....the game is to find places to stuff these boards into PCs of family and friends. "Here, let me upgrade your graphics card...."

Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 May 07
Posts: 512
Credit: 111,288,061
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13264 - Posted: 23 Oct 2009 | 20:08:43 UTC

@SKGiven, great work. I've had some people asking me about what they want to buy, this may help them make a decision.

Here's a few to confirm your readings, native settings

I have 4 computers with one 8800GT each. Two at the moment have an older client and don't report this info.

GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS)
GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS)

I have an additional one that is factory overclocked. It runs just as kool as the others, XFX did a good job on building these. It has a higher reading because of the overclocking. Throwing this in just for comparison.

GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 65GFLOPS)

One thing about the XFX 8800GT is they are single slot width boards. I choose them for two reasons, I needed single width slot boards and they come with a double lifetime warranty. They also only take one six pin power connector.

One thing to note about upgrading, be sure your power supply has enough power and you have the required power connector(s) for these cards. Also check if you have room for a double wide card or not. Most manufacturers will list these requirements on thier website under the product description or technical specs.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13272 - Posted: 24 Oct 2009 | 19:23:15 UTC - in response to Message 13264.
Last modified: 24 Oct 2009 | 19:26:37 UTC

Thanks for your +ve contributions and the rare compliments. It was worth the effort because this thread has already had over 4400 hits. I am sure a few people went away slightly wiser and have kept or increased their contribution to GPUGRID because of what is here. Keep chipping in with the sound advice.

Good choices of cards and advice from Cheech Wizard and Krunchin-Keith. Size matters as do the Amps!

When the next NVIDIA line up hits the shops I hope people will report their findings too, and perhaps soon there will be ATI cards to add as well! In the mean time perhaps a few people could list their rare or OC cards & specs (factory or personal efforts)?

Thanks,

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13280 - Posted: 26 Oct 2009 | 13:49:41 UTC - in response to Message 13272.

@SKG: just put in the GTX 275 (stock,892 MB, not overclocked). Your number is 127 reported (x1.41 for actual GFlops.) BOINC reported 125 to me...so it's another good data point I can vouch for, in addition to the 9800 GTX+ and the 9800 GT.

Yay! Another 170+ GFlops for GPUGrid. Now I have to find a home for the 9800 GTX +. Have a couple of relatives who are already letting me run BOINC on their desktops. Just need to pick up another Corsair 550 and let them let one of them let me do a little quick surgery. My 3-card total will be 310+ GFlops.

Can't wait to see what kind of numbers the 300 series will turn in...and what it will do to the prices of the GTX 295.

Keep it going, SKG! It's all 'cause of this thread, man!

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13282 - Posted: 26 Oct 2009 | 21:27:17 UTC - in response to Message 13280.

And to further underscore the validity of some of this data:

Now that my new GTX 275 has crunched and reported it's first GPUGrid work unit, I went into my account history to compare. I was able to find 3 work units of identical size (3977 credits claimed/5369 awarded) that had been done by my 3 different boards. Took run time (sec)/3600= hours each. These numbers, by the way, are in line with what I've observed.

To wit:

GTX 275: 7.25 hours (173 Gflops, per this thread)

9800 GTX+ 14.5 hours (84 Gflops)

9800 GT 20.38 hours (60 Gflops)

Any way that you normalize these 3, you'll find that the results are quite linear. Bottom line: double your Gflop rating, double your work. Sounds obvious, I know, but I thought I'd throw some empirical data out here to further validate SKGiven's table. I was not sure that the 1.41 factor for compute capability 1.3 vs 1.1 would hold true, but it seems to.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13283 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009 | 1:23:56 UTC - in response to Message 13282.

Thanks Cheech Wizard,
I think the GTX 275 cards are the best value for money, at the minute. So, good purchase.

The 1.41 improvement factor was all Extra Terrestrial Apes work. I added it into the list as it allows people to compare Compute Capable 1.1 and CC 1.3 cards, and see how they match up where it matters, crunching here on GPUGRID. I doubt that anyone reading this thread would want to buy a high spec CC1.1 card now, and people know to avoid the old CC1.0 cards.

Your data is good stuff. Confirmations like that make it clear how much better the 1.3 cards are.

I would guess that prices might drop a bit just before Christmas or for the sales. You might see some 300s on sale before then, but who knows, it could be next year. I Wonder if there is a CC1.4 or CC1.5 on the horizon?

I checked the Boinc rating of an ION recently. It is only 6GFlops! Your card is about 30times as fast. Mind you it is better than an 8600M at 5GFlops and good enough for HD even on an Atom330 system. But its just not a cruncher.

The Corsair 550’s are good kit too, well worth the money.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13320 - Posted: 30 Oct 2009 | 21:56:08 UTC - in response to Message 13283.
Last modified: 30 Oct 2009 | 21:58:43 UTC

This is nicked from another GPUGrid thread, but it is relevant here too.

tomba reported GT 220 specs:
GPU 1336MHz
GPU RAM 789MHz
GPU Graphics 618MHz
With 48 Shaders, 1024MB, est. 23GFLOPS

Wait for it, Compute Capable 1.2.
I did not even think that existed!

First there was 1.0, then there was 1.1, then 1.3 and now there is 1.2.
What strange number system you have, Mr. Wolf - Sort of like your GPU names.
Aaahhh bite me.

Funnies aside, it appears to respond to present work units similar to CC 1.3 cards, getting through work units relitively faster than CC1.1 Cards. In this case I guess it is about 23*1.3% faster. So it gets through 30% extra.

So it has an effective Boinc GFlop value of about 30GFlops – not bad for a low end card and it just about scrapes in there as a card worth adding to the GPUGrid, if the system is on quite frequently and you don’t get lumbered with a 120h task!

The letter box was open, but this one was snuck under the door all the same!

Profile MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 730
Credit: 189,243,545
RAC: 308
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13329 - Posted: 31 Oct 2009 | 11:17:44 UTC

I thought i'd throw the following in now that BOINC has standardized the formula between the different brands of cards. You'll notice that they are now shown as "GFLOPS peak". The startup info is from BOINC 6.10.17 and none of the cards listed are overclocked.

Sulu:
31/10/2009 9:38:55 PM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 19062, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 596 GFLOPS peak)
31/10/2009 9:38:55 PM NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 19062, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 596 GFLOPS peak)

Chekov:
31/10/2009 9:30:14 PM ATI GPU 0: ATI Radeon HD 4700/4800 (RV740/RV770) (CAL version 1.3.145, 1024MB, 1000 GFLOPS peak)

Maul:
31/10/2009 2:53:28 AM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19062, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 537 GFLOPS peak)
31/10/2009 2:53:28 AM NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19062, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 537 GFLOPS peak)

Spock:
31/10/2009 9:58:51 PM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 275 (driver version 19062, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 674 GFLOPS peak)
____________
BOINC blog

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,310,570,320
RAC: 1,405,317
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13331 - Posted: 31 Oct 2009 | 12:55:42 UTC - in response to Message 13329.

It's interesting that those figures don't correspond with the ones in koschi's FAQ. I had hoped that the new BOINC detection mechanism would eliminate the confusion between what I've called 'BOINC GFlops' and 'marketing GFlops', but it seems we now have a third unit of measurement.

Anyone got a formula to consolidate them?

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13334 - Posted: 31 Oct 2009 | 16:25:53 UTC - in response to Message 13331.

@Richard: well, I can report one data point for a possible conversion factor: the same GTX 275 (referenced above) reported 125 GFlops by my BOINC 6.6.36 client, would be 176GFlops using the 1.41x factor for CC 1.3 (per above in this thread), is reported by 6.10.17 as 700 GFlops Peak.

So does the 6.6.x number X 5.6 = 6.10.17 number? Does the 6.10.17 number / 3.98 = the old number adjusted for CC 1.3 (in other words, does the new rating system discern between CC 1.1 and CC 1.3 and adjust its rating accordingly?) It will take others reporting old numbers vs 6.10.x numbers to establish consistency/linearity (or lack thereof.)

Jeez...just when it looked like we had this straight~!

Cheech Wizard
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 229,086,742
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13336 - Posted: 31 Oct 2009 | 18:04:07 UTC - in response to Message 13329.

@MarkJ: just to clarify, and correct me if I'm wrong, in your sample data above, user Sulu reports 596 GFlops peak per core for his GTX 295 (1192 total for one card), whereas user Maul's system has a pair of GTX 260s, and is reporting 537 GFlops each.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13341 - Posted: 31 Oct 2009 | 22:35:47 UTC - in response to Message 13336.

MarkJ , thanks for the update info.
I updated two of my Boinc clients from 6.10.6 to 6.10.17
I noted that my 64bit Vista Ultimate version was not detected on the web site and it tried to give me the x86 client! On the other hand it spotted my Windows 7 64bit system and allocated the correct x64 client.
My GTS 250 use to be reported as 84GFlops, now it is reported as 473GFlops
My GTX 260 use to be reported as 104GFlops, now it is reported as 582GFlops
Obviously the 1.41 factor for Compute Capable 1.3 cards has not been fully appreciated here, but it has to a smaller extent, and the GFlops are still Boinc GFlops as they do not match the industry standard.
Koschi has a GTS 250 at 705 and a GTX 260 at 804

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13349 - Posted: 1 Nov 2009 | 12:36:12 UTC - in response to Message 13341.
Last modified: 1 Nov 2009 | 12:37:53 UTC

I think the new rating system is to allow for the comparison of NVidia and ATI cards.
Several new ATI cards have been released recently along with entry NVidia cards such as the GT220, with its CC1.2 GPU.
So the new system is to prevent the picture becoming cloudier, especially when the G300 range hits the shelves.
With the new Boinc GFlops rating system, it would seem that a CC 1.2 Card will have a Factor of about 1.2 and a CC1.3 card will have a factor of about 1.3. If so, that would make good sense, but it does need to be verified. That is an Open Invitation.

bmwr606.SETI.USA [BlackOp...
Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 110,281,581
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13389 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009 | 18:24:58 UTC

here is my data
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.17 for windows_intelx86
11/3/2009 11:33:39 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.4 OpenSSL/0.9.8k zlib/1.2.3
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Running under account User
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11]
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Processor: 4.00 MB cache
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Processor features: fpu tsc sse sse2 mmx
11/3/2009 11:33:39 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Memory: 2.00 GB physical, 4.85 GB virtual
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Disk: 232.88 GB total, 196.46 GB free
11/3/2009 11:33:39 Local time is UTC -6 hours
11/3/2009 11:33:40 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19107, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 510 GFLOPS peak)

____________

Profile MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 730
Credit: 189,243,545
RAC: 308
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13393 - Posted: 6 Nov 2009 | 21:42:54 UTC - in response to Message 13336.

@MarkJ: just to clarify, and correct me if I'm wrong, in your sample data above, user Sulu reports 596 GFlops peak per core for his GTX 295 (1192 total for one card), whereas user Maul's system has a pair of GTX 260s, and is reporting 537 GFlops each.


Yep thats correct.

The GTX260's are almost a year old now, so probably not the most recent design. The GTX295's are the single PCB version, so may be different to the dual PCB version.
____________
BOINC blog

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13550 - Posted: 14 Nov 2009 | 16:24:27 UTC - in response to Message 13393.

My ATI HD 4850 is now rated. Boinc says this 800 shader device with a core @ 625MHz and 512MB DDR3 offers up 1000 GFlops! Thats within 20% of a GTX295. Excellent value for money, if it can be hooked up here. It fairly zips through the Folding@home tasks, but as for GPUGRID, the proof will be in the pudding.

I guess the HD 5970 (when released) will weigh in at around 5000GFlops! With its two 40nm cores @ 725Mhz, 2x1600shaders and 2GB DDR5 @4GHz.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13786 - Posted: 4 Dec 2009 | 23:48:27 UTC - in response to Message 13550.

Well, so much for the comparison list of cards and performance.
It now looks like the only cards capable of consistently completing tasks are the G200 GPU based cards. Given the increase in task length, this really narrows the range to 5 expensive top end cards:

GTX260 216sp, GTX275, GTX280, GTX285 and the GTX295

Task failure rates for the G92 cards are now so high that for many it is not worth bothering. I have retired one card from the project, a 8800 GTS 512MB. That only leaves my GTX260 and GTS250. The GTX260 is running very well indeed thank you, but as for the GTS250? It lost a total of 45h run time last week, due to task failures. So 25% of the time it was running was wasted! That is a top of the range G92 card and the GPU sits at 65degrees C and is backed by a stable Q9400 @3.5GHz.
Perhaps some people with lower end G200 cards (Geforce 210/220) might still white knuckle it for several days to get through the odd task, and the mid range, Geforce GT 240 and Geforce GTS 240 cards can still contribute, but they are a bit tame!
If the G300 series does not turn up, its ATI or bye-bye project time!

tomba
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 09
Posts: 497
Credit: 700,690,702
RAC: 0
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13817 - Posted: 7 Dec 2009 | 7:43:35 UTC - in response to Message 13320.

This is nicked from another GPUGrid thread, but it is relevant here too.

tomba reported GT 220 specs:
GPU 1336MHz
GPU RAM 789MHz
GPU Graphics 618MHz
With 48 Shaders, 1024MB, est. 23GFLOPS


This is tomba. I've been running my GT 220 24/7 for three months.

BOINC sees:

05/12/2009 11:19:05 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 220 (driver version 19107, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.2, 1024MB, 128 GFLOPS peak)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13819 - Posted: 7 Dec 2009 | 16:23:07 UTC - in response to Message 13817.

Thanks for posting these details.

The discrepency between both cards is due to the Boinc Version. The older Boinc Versions used a different system to calculate the GPU performance.
So the old value of 28GFlops equates to the new value of 127GFlops for the GeForce GT 220 cards.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,310,570,320
RAC: 1,405,317
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13820 - Posted: 7 Dec 2009 | 18:27:39 UTC - in response to Message 13819.

Thanks for posting these details.

The discrepency between both cards is due to the Boinc Version. The older Boinc Versions used a different system to calculate the GPU performance.
So the old value of 28GFlops equates to the new value of 127GFlops for the GeForce GT 220 cards.

The old, lower GFlops figure is always shown as "est. nn GFLOPS"

The new, higher figure will always be shown as "nnn GFLOPS peak"

Other things (clock rate etc.) being equal, the 'peak' figure will always be 5.6 times the 'est.' figure. (source: [19310], coproc.h)

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13889 - Posted: 12 Dec 2009 | 2:30:52 UTC - in response to Message 10751.

Below is an updated CUDA Performance Table for cards on GPU-GRID, with reported Boinc GPU ratings, and amended ratings for G200 cores (in brackets) -only for compute capable 1.3 cards. (MrS calculated that G200 core CUDA cards operate at 141% efficiency compared to the reported Boinc GFLOPS).

This is a guide to Natively clocked card performance on GPU-GRID only (not for other projects)!

[snip]

I would speculate that given the 41% advantage in using compute capable 1.3 (G200) cards, GPU-GRID would be likely to continue to support these cards’ advantageous instruction sets.

For those that have compute capable 1.0/1.1 cards and 1.3 cards and participate in other GPU projects, it would make sense to allocate your 1.3 cards to GPU-GRID.


But what other GPU projects are currently capable of using 1.1 cards? My search for them has not found any I'm interested in that will use the G105M
card on my laptop, and I've tried just about all of those suggested except SETI@home. Due to driver availability problems, it's currently limited to CUDA 2.2; the Nvidia site says the 190.* series is NOT suitable for this card.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13905 - Posted: 13 Dec 2009 | 12:28:27 UTC - in response to Message 13889.

You could try Einstein, but dont expect too much from that project. In a way it would be suited to that project. It wont stress the GPU too much!

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13924 - Posted: 14 Dec 2009 | 15:09:18 UTC - in response to Message 13905.
Last modified: 14 Dec 2009 | 15:37:14 UTC

I recently found that the 195.62 driver solves the problem with CUDA level for that card, for MOST laptops including that one. It now has both Collatz and Einstein workunits in its queue. For Einstein, helping them develop their CUDA software currently looks more likely than speeding up the workunits very soon.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13967 - Posted: 16 Dec 2009 | 20:04:57 UTC - in response to Message 13924.

The following GeForce cards are the present mainstream choice,

    GT 220 GT216 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 128 BoincGFlops peak
    GT 240 GT215 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 257 BoincGFlops peak
    GTX 260 Core 216 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 582 BoincGFlops peak
    GTX 275 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 674 BoincGFlops peak
    GTX 285 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 695 BoincGFlops peak
    GTX 295 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 1192 BoincGFlops peak


You should note the EXACT GPU Core before buying one:
GT200b is Not a GT200
55nm is Not 65nm
If it is not EXACTLY as above don’t get it!

The GT220 is slow but it will get through the tasks in time.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13974 - Posted: 17 Dec 2009 | 21:56:44 UTC - in response to Message 13967.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2009 | 21:58:12 UTC

Details of a GT240 GV-N240D3-1GI made by GIGABYTE:
PCIE2.0 1GB DDR3/128BIT Dual Link DVI-I/D-Sub/HDMI
Compute Capable 1.2, 280 Boinc GFlops

Full Specs:
GPU: GT215 Revision: A2 Technology: 40 nm Die Size: 727 mm² BIOS Version: 70.15.1E.00.00 Device ID: 10DE - 0CA3 Bus Interface: PCI-E x16 @ x16 Subvendor: Gigabyte (1458) ROPs: 8 Shaders: 96 (DX 10.1) Pixel Fillrate: 4.8 GPixel/s Texture Fillrate: 19.2 GTexel/s Memory Type: DDR3 Bus Width: 128 bit Memory Size: 1024 MB Bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s Driver: nvlddmkm 8.17.11.9562 (ForceWare 195.62) / 2008 R2 GPU Clock: 600 MHz 800 MHz 1460 MHz Default Clock: 600 MHz 800 MHz 1460 MHz

Comments,
WRT crunching for GPUGrid, this offers up just under half the GFlops power of a GTX260 216sp card.
In terms of power consumption it is much more efficient and does not require any special connectors. It should therefore appeal to people that don’t want to buy an expensive PSU at the same time as forking out for a new GPU, or a completely new computer. This particular card is also short and should fit many more computers as a result.
The one I am testing benefits from a large fan blowing directly onto it, from the front bottom of the case, and having the 3 blanking plates beneath it at the rear removed. The result; it is running GPUGrid at an amazingly cool 37 Degrees C!
- GPU Load @ 69% and Memory Controller @ 34% running an m3-IBUCH_min_TRYP task.
So with the low power requirements and its 40nm core it runs cool and would no doubt be very quiet. As for the power consumption, my systems total power consumption when crunching on 4 CPU cores @ 100% moved from 135W to 161W when I started running GPUGrid on top of that. So it only added on another 26W.
The card also drops its power usage considerably when not in use. It guess it uses about 10W when idle.
As for real world crunching performance (completed vs crashed tasks), only time will tell, but it seems to have a lot going for it despite lacking the performance capabilities of top GTX GT200b cards.

CTAPbIi
Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 09
Posts: 175
Credit: 259,509,919
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13976 - Posted: 18 Dec 2009 | 2:11:17 UTC

eVGA GTX275 Oced up to 702/1584/1260 gives me 760 GFlops
____________

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13985 - Posted: 18 Dec 2009 | 14:03:04 UTC - in response to Message 13976.

The GT240 took about 14h to complete its first task. There were no problems. Unfortunately there was no bonus either, due to the nature of the work unit. At that rate you would get about 6500points per day, but if you got early finish bonuses (the next task should) you would probably get about 7500 or 8000points per day with this card.

1641191 55914 17 Dec 2009 19:47:06 UTC 18 Dec 2009 13:38:51 UTC Completed and validated 51,800.35 12,269.58 2,831.97 3,823.15 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.71 (cuda23)

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13991 - Posted: 19 Dec 2009 | 8:25:02 UTC - in response to Message 13985.

The GT240 took about 14h to complete its first task. There were no problems. Unfortunately there was no bonus either, due to the nature of the work unit. At that rate you would get about 6500points per day, but if you got early finish bonuses (the next task should) you would probably get about 7500 or 8000points per day with this card.

1641191 55914 17 Dec 2009 19:47:06 UTC 18 Dec 2009 13:38:51 UTC Completed and validated 51,800.35 12,269.58 2,831.97 3,823.15 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.71 (cuda23)


Hi SKGiven

You did get a bonus claimed was as above 2831 granted was 3823.

I would like to know if you can use this card to crunch while you are using your computer and in particular whether you can watch video at the same time or does it make video stutter.
Thanks for the info.
____________

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 13994 - Posted: 19 Dec 2009 | 15:32:57 UTC - in response to Message 13991.
Last modified: 19 Dec 2009 | 15:40:17 UTC

You are correct, I did not read it properly! After a quick look at the sent and due date I jumped to the wrong conclusion; a few days ago a task was sent to me the same day it was due for return, so no bonus was granted, and this one looked like it was doing the same thing.

The GT240 card completed another task; one of the longer GIANNI_VIL tasks. It took 23h. So the card should bring home about 6649points a day, as long as it keeps working perfectly!

People should note that this card has a 600MHz core and 96 Shaders. Most other cards have a 550MHz core and some cards also purport to have 112 Shaders. I have not yet come across a card with both a 600MHz core and 112 Shaders. The RAM frequencies also vary by about 20% over the range of cards.

If people can report their cards performance and details (Points per day, GFlops, Shader count and frequencies) then an exact performance table could be produced. I only have one of these cards at the minute so I cant do this.

WRT watching videos and crunching:
After noticing that playing video coincided with one GPUGrid work unit failure last week, I decided to disable GPU use while using the computer with my GTS250 (G92b core), to see if that improved things. I think it has; no failures since, but I expect some other measures the Techs introduced have helped things too. G92 core cards are subject to a CUDA bug. So, for anyone that has one I would suggest that as a general rule people do not use the GPU when watching videos, or even when using the system; it would be even more annoying than usual to find that an unwanted website commercial caused a task to fail after 9h.
The GT240 uses a GT215 core which does not presently suffer from such problems. For testing purposes I enabled GPU Crunching when the computer was in use and then watched part of a 1080p movie. Using GPU-Z, I could see that the GPU RAM useage went up by 8MB and that the GPU usage did fluctuate a little, however the films quality was perfectly normal. There was no glitch graphics or sound. The test system had a 2.2GHz Phenom/opteron core with 4GB RAM at its disposal and was using all 4 cores to crunch on Boinc at the same time. So, I was very impressed with the cards performance, as well as Boincs; being able to crunch CPU and GPU tasks simultaneously while the system played a 1080p movie.

When watching video with my old 8800GTS 512 (G92 core), and trying to run GPUGrid at the same time, this was not the case!

With low quality video there was no discernable difference.
With medium quality video there was the occasional jump, but hardly noticeable.
With TV quality, video interruptions were a bit too frequent for my liking.
For HD / 1080p and better, I just could not watch the video and run GPUGrid at the same time.

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14013 - Posted: 21 Dec 2009 | 13:51:24 UTC - in response to Message 13994.
Last modified: 21 Dec 2009 | 13:53:12 UTC

Well I've got the first 240 going on a system with win 7 and a core duo 4300 with only 2 gig of ram.
IPlayer stutters with this card running GPU Grid so had to set it to run only when computer had been idle for 2hrs so I'm concerned I wont be getting my bonus:(
If GPU Grid would give me the option to only have one WU at a time I might get my bonus Grrrr
____________

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14020 - Posted: 21 Dec 2009 | 21:06:05 UTC - in response to Message 14013.

Well I've got the first 240 going on a system with win 7 and a core duo 4300 with only 2 gig of ram.
IPlayer stutters with this card running GPU Grid so had to set it to run only when computer had been idle for 2hrs so I'm concerned I wont be getting my bonus:(
If GPU Grid would give me the option to only have one WU at a time I might get my bonus Grrrr


I've found that if you set the sum of Connect Every and Additional Work Buffer low enough, you can get the bonus. 0.3 days is low enough to get the bonus with my 9800 GT. That usually gives me only one workunit except when the first one is at least half done; then two. Running nearly 24 hours a day.

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14022 - Posted: 21 Dec 2009 | 22:11:32 UTC - in response to Message 14020.

Setting for additional work was 0.25 lowered it to 0.1 and left blank for connect.
____________

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14031 - Posted: 22 Dec 2009 | 11:47:38 UTC - in response to Message 14022.

Betting Slip, I am a bit surprised to hear that your media player stutters.
I tested my card and there was no stuttering when playing a 1080p movie, but my systems design is different (AMD quad, 4GB).
Perhaps the problem is i-player, the system, an update, a monitor driver or a scan was running?
Do you run CPU tasks as well?
I did note in the past that occasionally some tasks do interfere with normal system use, but only at certain times; when a task is completing or uploading it uses more resources than normal (Hard Disk, RAM and Internet).

I like the low power design. Your GPU is probably doing over ten times the work of an i7.

What are the specs of your card (GPU-Z and Boinc)?

PS. You could try setting additional work to 0.00 (might work, but keep an eye on it - you might not get any new tasks)!

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14032 - Posted: 22 Dec 2009 | 13:59:41 UTC - in response to Message 14031.
Last modified: 22 Dec 2009 | 14:16:37 UTC

Unfortunately the computer is remote and haven't got ready access to it. I have lowered additional work to 0.05.
I will be installing on local computers 2 more of these cards one with 1gig ddr3 and one with 512MB ddr5 so will be able to give you more up to date info on these particular cards.

I am also going to add another 2GIG of RAM to the remote macjine because with Win 7 X64 it could be short of memory and hence the slight stutter.
____________

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14050 - Posted: 24 Dec 2009 | 11:59:03 UTC - in response to Message 14032.

24/12/2009 11:44:04 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.13 for windows_x86_64
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Processor: 4 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 7]
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Processor: 3.00 MB cache
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Processor features: fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 pni
24/12/2009 11:44:05 OS: Microsoft Windows 7: Enterprise x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Memory: 4.00 GB physical, 8.00 GB virtual
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Disk: 368.10 GB total, 325.36 GB free
24/12/2009 11:44:05 Local time is UTC +0 hours
24/12/2009 11:44:06 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19107, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.2, 512MB, est. 46GFLOPS)


This is what BOINC says for GT 240 512MB DDR5


____________

ds
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 116,640
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 14072 - Posted: 29 Dec 2009 | 19:17:44 UTC

from log file:



NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce 9800 GTX+ (driver version unknown, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, 470 GFLOPS peak)

I ran the "autodetect" in The Nvidia X-server settings/configuration tool and it upped the GPU speed a little, to 800 MHz, from 756MHz.

(driver is 190.53)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14084 - Posted: 30 Dec 2009 | 12:32:34 UTC - in response to Message 14072.

Thanks for posting your info,

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14147 - Posted: 6 Jan 2010 | 22:40:42 UTC

How practical would it be to persuade the BOINC developers to add code that also reports the GPU chip type during BOINC startup?

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14151 - Posted: 7 Jan 2010 | 19:24:43 UTC - in response to Message 14147.

It would be a useful tool.
If it can be done by GPU-Z there is no reason why something similar could not be included in Boinc. Perhaps they could speak to GPU-Z and include it as an optional add-on during the installation? You would have to contact the Boinc developers at Berkeley to make any such suggestion.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/

canbayram
Send message
Joined: 8 Jan 10
Posts: 3
Credit: 262,861
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 14228 - Posted: 17 Jan 2010 | 20:51:05 UTC

1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM Starting BOINC client version 6.10.18 for windows_x86_64
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM Processor: 3.00 MB cache
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM Processor features: fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 pni
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM OS: Microsoft Windows 7: Ultimate x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM Memory: 4.00 GB physical, 8.00 GB virtual
1/15/2010 2:07:52 PM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19562, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 605 GFLOPS peak)


this is what boinc says for my card. it is a zotac 216 gtx 260 factory oc'ed to 650mhz/1050mhz(mem)/1400mhz(shader)

Also I'm new here. it's been about a week can you explain why boinc says more than the ones on this page's list? Like it shows 100 but boinc says 605

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14244 - Posted: 18 Jan 2010 | 17:56:15 UTC - in response to Message 14228.

The more recent versions of Boinc have an updated GPU rating system.
You would probably need to read this whole thread to appreciate that, and it is getting rather long!

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 14525 - Posted: 28 Jan 2010 | 10:39:16 UTC - in response to Message 14244.

A set of Notebook GPU Comparison charts
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

MC707
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 15628 - Posted: 6 Mar 2010 | 2:55:16 UTC

NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce 9400 GT (driver version unknown, CUDA version 2020, compute capability 1.1, 1023MB, 29 GFLOPS peak)

Well, that's my crappy 9400 GT. I post it since I don't see it in the first post! My 2 cents

Regards
____________

Profile liveonc
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 10
Posts: 292
Credit: 41,567,650
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15629 - Posted: 6 Mar 2010 | 3:12:01 UTC

Processor: 4 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11] OC'ed to 3.00GHz
Processor: 4.00 MB cache
Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 syscall nx lm vmx tm2 pbe
OS: Microsoft Windows 7: x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
Memory: 4.00 GB physical, 8.00 GB virtual
Disk: 310.33 GB total, 276.25 GB free

NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19562, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 629 GFLOPS peak)
NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19562, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 629 GFLOPS peak)

OC'ed with Gainward Expertool to 3D Core Clock 676MHz Memory Clock 1150MHz Shader Clock 1455MHz
____________

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15640 - Posted: 7 Mar 2010 | 15:56:37 UTC

6-3-2010 12:59:04 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for windows_intelx86
6-3-2010 12:59:04 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
6-3-2010 12:59:04 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
6-3-2010 12:59:04 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
6-3-2010 12:59:04 Running under account Administrator
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Processor: 2 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 5200B [Family 15 Model 107 Stepping 2]
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Processor: 512.00 KB cache
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 htt pni cx16 syscall nx lm svm rdtscp 3dnowext 3dnow
6-3-2010 12:59:06 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Memory: 3.48 GB physical, 6.81 GB virtual
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Disk: 232.88 GB total, 202.96 GB free
6-3-2010 12:59:06 Local time is UTC +1 hours
6-3-2010 12:59:09 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 596 GFLOPS peak)

____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15646 - Posted: 8 Mar 2010 | 9:47:08 UTC

8-3-2010 10:32:55 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for windows_intelx86
8-3-2010 10:32:55 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
8-3-2010 10:32:55 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
8-3-2010 10:32:55 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
8-3-2010 10:32:55 Running under account ton
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 dca pbe
8-3-2010 10:32:59 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Memory: 3.00 GB physical, 5.84 GB virtual
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Disk: 232.87 GB total, 198.75 GB free
8-3-2010 10:32:59 Local time is UTC +1 hours
8-3-2010 10:32:59 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 19634, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 596 GFLOPS peak)
8-3-2010 10:32:59 NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 19634, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 596 GFLOPS peak)

Another machine!
____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Profile liveonc
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 10
Posts: 292
Credit: 41,567,650
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15649 - Posted: 8 Mar 2010 | 19:02:56 UTC

Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
Processor: 6.00 MB cache
Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr
OS: Linux: 2.6.31-14-generic
Memory: 1.96 GB physical, 5.75 GB virtual
Disk: 581.16 GB total, 547.52 GB free
Local time is UTC +1 hours
NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 895MB, 607 GFLOPS peak)

This one is a factory OC'ed XFX GeForce® 260 GTX 896MB DDR3 Black Edition (GX-260N-ADBF) running Mint Linux 8 64 bit.
____________

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15661 - Posted: 10 Mar 2010 | 8:50:57 UTC

8-3-2010 12:02:28 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for windows_intelx86
8-3-2010 12:02:28 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
8-3-2010 12:02:28 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
8-3-2010 12:02:28 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
8-3-2010 12:02:28 Running under account christa
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8200 @ 2.66GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx smx tm2 pbe
8-3-2010 12:02:34 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Memory: 1.98 GB physical, 3.82 GB virtual
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Disk: 232.87 GB total, 215.08 GB free
8-3-2010 12:02:34 Local time is UTC +1 hours
8-3-2010 12:02:38 NVIDIA GPU 0: Quadro FX 1700 (driver version 19187, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, 59 GFLOPS peak)

I do not use this card for gpugrid. To slow.
WU - Collatz - gtx 295 - 30 min. fx 1700 - 4.3 hours.

____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15662 - Posted: 10 Mar 2010 | 8:58:33 UTC

9-3-2010 16:26:54 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for windows_intelx86
9-3-2010 16:26:54 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Running under account Administrator
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 dca pbe
9-3-2010 16:26:54 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Memory: 3.25 GB physical, 6.34 GB virtual
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Disk: 232.88 GB total, 205.44 GB free
9-3-2010 16:26:54 Local time is UTC +1 hours
9-3-2010 16:26:54 NVIDIA GPU 0: Quadro FX 570 (driver version 19187, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.1, 256MB, 29 GFLOPS peak)

I do not use this card for gpugrid. Too slow!!
____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15671 - Posted: 10 Mar 2010 | 14:18:59 UTC

10-3-2010 15:12:58 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for windows_intelx86
10-3-2010 15:12:59 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
10-3-2010 15:12:59 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
10-3-2010 15:12:59 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
10-3-2010 15:12:59 Running under account Administrator
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 dca pbe
10-3-2010 15:13:11 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Memory: 3.25 GB physical, 6.34 GB virtual
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Disk: 232.88 GB total, 205.13 GB free
10-3-2010 15:13:11 Local time is UTC +1 hours
10-3-2010 15:13:14 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTS 250 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.1, 1024MB, 470 GFLOPS peak)

Just replaced card quadro fx 570 into gts 250
____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Profile liveonc
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 10
Posts: 292
Credit: 41,567,650
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15771 - Posted: 16 Mar 2010 | 0:20:48 UTC

Starting BOINC client version 6.10.36 for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
Libraries: libcurl/7.19.5 OpenSSL/0.9.8g zlib/1.2.3.3 libidn/1.15
Data directory: /var/lib/boinc-client
Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz [Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 13]
Processor: 1.00 MB cache
Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm la
OS: Linux: 2.6.31-20-generic
Memory: 1.95 GB physical, 5.70 GB virtual
Disk: 223.62 GB total, 206.62 GB free
Local time is UTC +1 hours
NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce 8800 GT (driver version unknown, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.1, 255MB, 336 GFLOPS peak)

____________

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15925 - Posted: 22 Mar 2010 | 21:13:23 UTC - in response to Message 15771.
Last modified: 22 Mar 2010 | 21:25:10 UTC

Boinc GFlops Peak

People should note that the calculated Boinc GFlops Peak is not always a fair reflection of a cards performance. It is a rough guide only.
For example, I have a GT240 in a system with a Q6600 overclocked to 3GHz. It has a GFlops rating of 299 but takes longer to complete a similar task as one completed on another GT240 that has a lesser GFlops rating of 288 on a natively clocked 2.2GHz quad opteron system. Despite having a more highly overclocked GPU, shaders, CPU and even a bigger fan, the card with a rating of 299GFlops is actually 16% slower (at best) than the 288GFlops rated card.
Why? Because the 288 card has DDR5 RAM ;)

Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,905,056,775
RAC: 1,813,498
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15933 - Posted: 23 Mar 2010 | 9:50:56 UTC - in response to Message 15925.
Last modified: 23 Mar 2010 | 10:04:39 UTC

Comparison as far as it goes.
These cards both did the same WU. That's the only information I have.


# There is 1 device supporting CUDA
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 285"
# Clock rate: 1.48 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 2147155968 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 30
# Number of cores: 240
# Time per step: 23.829 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 20254.498 s


Above card on this system:

GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
Number of processors 2
Coprocessors NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 (2047MB) driver: 19562
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)
BOINC client version 6.10.36
Memory 4094.2 MB
Cache 6144 KB
Measured floating point speed 3934.24 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 11620.4 million ops/sec
Average upload rate 24.79 KB/sec
Average download rate 139.59 KB/sec
Average turnaround time 0.99 days
___________________________________________________________________________



# There is 1 device supporting CUDA
# Device 0: "GeForce GT 240"
# Clock rate: 1.46 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 1073741824 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 12
# Number of cores: 96
# Time per step: 64.259 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 54620.303 s


Above card on this system:


GenuineIntel
Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E6300 @ 2.80GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
Number of processors 2
Coprocessors NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 (1024MB) driver: 19621
Operating System Microsoft Windows 7
Enterprise x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
BOINC client version 6.10.18
Memory 4095.18 MB
Cache 2048 KB
Swap space 8188.51 MB
Total disk space 540.88 GB
Free Disk Space 489.41 GB
Measured floating point speed 3165.21 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9662.96 million ops/sec
Average upload rate 29.66 KB/sec
Average download rate 198.21 KB/sec
Average turnaround time 0.82 days
____________

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 16280 - Posted: 13 Apr 2010 | 13:37:34 UTC

13-4-2010 9:58:53 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.45 for windows_intelx86
13-4-2010 9:58:53 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
13-4-2010 9:58:53 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
13-4-2010 9:58:53 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
13-4-2010 9:58:54 Running under account ton
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 dca pbe
13-4-2010 9:58:55 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Memory: 3.25 GB physical, 6.34 GB virtual
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Disk: 232.87 GB total, 193.59 GB free
13-4-2010 9:58:55 Local time is UTC +2 hours
13-4-2010 9:58:55 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 480 (driver version 19741, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 2.0, 1536MB, 1345 GFLOPS peak)

____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 16311 - Posted: 15 Apr 2010 | 14:56:33 UTC

15-4-2010 15:47:35 Starting BOINC client version 6.10.45 for windows_intelx86
15-4-2010 15:47:35 log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Running under account Administrator
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Processor: 6.00 MB cache
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 dca pbe
15-4-2010 15:47:35 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Memory: 3.25 GB physical, 6.34 GB virtual
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Disk: 232.88 GB total, 204.28 GB free
15-4-2010 15:47:35 Local time is UTC +2 hours
15-4-2010 15:47:35 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 470 (driver version 19741, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 2.0, 1280MB, 1089 GFLOPS peak)
15-4-2010 15:47:36 Version change (6.10.43 -> 6.10.45)

____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 16312 - Posted: 15 Apr 2010 | 15:29:13 UTC - in response to Message 16311.

Thanks Ton,
The GTX480 appears to be 23.5% faster than the GTX470 (just going by the reported GFlops peak rating).
The GTX480 costs about 40% more, so in terms of purchase value for money the GTX470 would seem to be a better choice.
In terms of running costs, longevity, overclocking and real task completion rates, we will have to wait and see.

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 16322 - Posted: 16 Apr 2010 | 10:12:09 UTC - in response to Message 16312.

Kev,

The prices in Holland are for the GTX480 - Euro 549,-- and for the GTX470 the price is Euro 399,-- including 19% VAT.
Monday i will sending over to Barcelona 1 GTX 480 and 1 GTX 470, so the guys can develop!!!
____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Tim Lungstrom
Send message
Joined: 19 Feb 10
Posts: 1
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 16817 - Posted: 4 May 2010 | 17:00:53 UTC - in response to Message 13320.

This is nicked from another GPUGrid thread, but it is relevant here too.

tomba reported GT 220 specs:
GPU 1336MHz
GPU RAM 789MHz
GPU Graphics 618MHz
With 48 Shaders, 1024MB, est. 23GFLOPS

Wait for it, Compute Capable 1.2.
I did not even think that existed!

First there was 1.0, then there was 1.1, then 1.3 and now there is 1.2.
What strange number system you have, Mr. Wolf - Sort of like your GPU names.
Aaahhh bite me.

Funnies aside, it appears to respond to present work units similar to CC 1.3 cards, getting through work units relitively faster than CC1.1 Cards. In this case I guess it is about 23*1.3% faster. So it gets through 30% extra.

So it has an effective Boinc GFlop value of about 30GFlops – not bad for a low end card and it just about scrapes in there as a card worth adding to the GPUGrid, if the system is on quite frequently and you don’t get lumbered with a 120h task!

The letter box was open, but this one was snuck under the door all the same!


I am running a GT220 under Ubuntu 10.04 - 64-bit
Went I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04, I finally got a newer NVIDIA driver than 185.x.x. It upgraded to 195.36.15. Now I do not get computational errors with Collatz, but have not been able to get any work, yet, for GPUGrid.

The BOINC Manager shows:
Mon 03 May 2010 02:05:32 PM EDT
NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 220 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 1023MB, 131 GFLOPS peak)
for the card's info. I am told I needed 1.3 to run Milkyway, so that is out.
I just wonder how well it will run GG tasks. I also wonder why the
"driver version unknown" is shown. I think it did show 185.x.x before the
upgrade to Ubuntu 10.04.

Well above it shows a listing for 23 GFLOPS "est.".
The manager shows 131 GFLOPS peak. So what is going on with the difference?

Also I say a thread showing a GT9500 or 9400 doing GG. I have several PCI-only
computers, like a P4 server, that can only use a 9500/9400. I know that they
are SLOW cards, but are they too slow to do the work GPU work? Even a card
like 9400/9500 would crunch faster than the P4 does via CPU only.

Well, I am new to GPU, since my first successful GPU task ran a few days ago,
when I upgraded to the Ubuntu 10.04. So, I do not know the ins-and-outs of
GPU and what projects run what cards. I got the GT220 due to a budget that had
to be kept to when buying my 4-core system [Phenom 9650]. It came down to
PSU and drive size vs. GPU card size. This is my main computer and default
video editing one. So I needed the drive size, and got a 600W PSU for later
upgrades.

So any help/advice about GPU projects and tasks, would be helpful.

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 16819 - Posted: 4 May 2010 | 17:49:46 UTC - in response to Message 16817.
Last modified: 4 May 2010 | 17:51:33 UTC

Welcome to the club.

So you can run seti@home, collatz, dnetc. These are gpu related jobs.

Succes.

Just saw that you already run the jobs.
____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

roundup
Send message
Joined: 11 May 10
Posts: 31
Credit: 78,409,620
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17114 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 8:58:26 UTC
Last modified: 18 May 2010 | 9:13:59 UTC

Hi all,
what card would you recommend for a mobile device?
GTX285M? Does this one have CC 1.1 or 1.3?
Is there any potential for OCing with mobile versions?
Greetings and thanks in advance!

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17115 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 9:55:31 UTC - in response to Message 17114.
Last modified: 18 May 2010 | 9:57:34 UTC

It is generally not recommended to use a laptop GPU for crunching with; they tend to overheat and stop working!

The GeForce GTX 285M was released at the end of January this year. It uses a 55nm G92b core (CC1.3), has 1024MB DDR3 at 2040MHz, the 16GPU cores are clocked at 576MHz, and the 128 shaders at 1500MHz. It has a Manufacturer GFlops rating of 576 (not Boinc rating). The TDP is about 80W.

If you are determined to get a laptop with a GPU for crunching you might want to consider this alternative card:

GeForce GTS 260M GT215 40nm (CC1.2), 1024MB DDR5 at 3600MHz, 8 GPU cores 550MHz, 96 Shaders 1375MHz, 57.6 GDDR5 128. Manufacturer GFlops rating of 396.
The TDP is only 38W so it is less likely to overheat (40nm core, DDR5).

roundup
Send message
Joined: 11 May 10
Posts: 31
Credit: 78,409,620
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17117 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 10:28:08 UTC - in response to Message 17115.

Thanks for the many useful information, skgiven!
I need to a buy a new notebook anyway (surely with i7 CPU and ~6GB RAM), so the idea was to take one with a GPU that is suitable for GPU crunching.
I did not know that the power consumption - and therefore temperature issues - is that differently between the GTX285M and GTS260M.
Thanks again :-)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17119 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 11:28:01 UTC - in response to Message 17117.
Last modified: 18 May 2010 | 11:31:03 UTC

The power consumption of the GTS260M (similar specs to a GT240) is half that of the GTX285M:
The GTX285M also uses a 55nm core design and DDR3, while the GTX260M uses a 40nm core design and DDR5 (so the GTS260M produces less heat).

Although the GTX285M is more powerful, it would be more likely to run hot and cause problems to the laptop; it might be able to run at 90deg C but the rest of the laptop would probably not be, especially for hours at a time.

It is just my opinion (and I have no real world experience of either card) but I would opt on the safer side and get the GTX260M, if I wanted to crunch on a laptop, which I don’t. It is probably much cheaper too; the GTX285M is really NVidias top laptop gaming card, so its going to cost. It's also 2 year old technology revamped.

Most of us buy a laptop to last several years. Although I would not let it stop me buying a laptop now, I would expect some form of Fermi to show up in a laptop within a year.

I'm guessing you want an i7 laptop to crunch CPU tasks!
Not sure that its a good idea to crunch both GPU and CPU tasks on a laptop - thats a lot of heat to try to get rid of. If you do try to crunch both, get a cooling tray to set it on.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17142 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 20:30:51 UTC

Didn't check the mobile GPU specs, but if SK isn't totally wrong (which would be unusual) I'd strongly suggest the GTS260M. Apart from what has been said the 3 years old G92 (a or b) chip is CUDA compatibility level 1.1, so the new 40 nm is considerably faster at GPU-Grid due to CUDA compatibility level 1.2. This will make up for more than the 25% disadvantage in raw FLOPS, hence the card will be faster, cheaper and cooler!

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17145 - Posted: 18 May 2010 | 21:00:46 UTC - in response to Message 17142.
Last modified: 18 May 2010 | 21:02:59 UTC

Sorry, stupid mistake. GTX285M is as you say MrS CC1.1 (must have got GTX285 stuck in my head), went off on a tangent with that too!

Just one Important thing to watch out for.

There is a GTX260 55nm G92 core (CC1.1) - avoid at all costs,

and there is the GTS260 40nm G215 core (CC1.2) - the one to get, should you decide to GPU crunch on the laptop.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17149 - Posted: 19 May 2010 | 0:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 17145.

There is another card that is almost as good as the GTS260M,
The GeForce GTS 250M
8 cores at 500MHz GT215 (40nm), 1024MB GDDR5, 96 shaders at 1250MHz, 360 GFlops, 28W TDP.
Basically its the same card, just clocked lower.

roundup
Send message
Joined: 11 May 10
Posts: 31
Credit: 78,409,620
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17167 - Posted: 20 May 2010 | 8:34:52 UTC

Thanks again for the helpful explaination. One more question concerning notebook versions:
What are the differences between GTS 260M and GTS 360M? Just the slighty higher clocked shaders in the 360M?
I cannot find any further differences here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units#GeForce_300M_.283xxM.29_series (scroll up tp see the GTS260 data).
The NVIDIA Spec pages also do not show any further differences:
GTS 260M:
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_geforce_gts_260m_uk.html
GTS 360M:
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_geforce_gts_360m_uk.html

:-/

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17169 - Posted: 20 May 2010 | 9:39:24 UTC - in response to Message 17167.
Last modified: 20 May 2010 | 10:04:16 UTC

YES, the only difference is the slightly faster clocks:
GTS360M GT215 40nm 550MHz GPU, 1436MHz shaders, 3600MHz RAM, 413 NVidia GFlops
GTS260M GT215 40nm 550MHz GPU, 1375MHz shaders, 3600MHz RAM, 413 NVidia GFlops

Basically the 300 series cards are rebranded 200 series cards. There are some dubious naming differences here and there; things to watch out for.

The NVidia site does not give much info!
Your wiki link shows the shear number of yesteryear cards they rebrand and re-release.

roundup
Send message
Joined: 11 May 10
Posts: 31
Credit: 78,409,620
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17170 - Posted: 20 May 2010 | 9:45:08 UTC - in response to Message 17169.

... interesting way to make the customers believe that there were any new products on the table.
Thanks again, skgiven :-)

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17220 - Posted: 22 May 2010 | 12:38:57 UTC - in response to Message 17170.

Yeah, it's gotten kind of disgusting. Every couple of months they take the same cards and give it a new name with a higher number to make them appear better. OK, that's a little exaggerated, but not that far from the truth either..

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17222 - Posted: 22 May 2010 | 13:18:38 UTC - in response to Message 17220.

What bugs me even more is that NVidia’s own specification pages don’t even tell you the core type!

Instead you get fobbed off with false technical waffle such as "Vibrant Multimedia"

It's as well the specs can be found on wiki - otherwise buying NVidia cards would be a lucky dip.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17223 - Posted: 22 May 2010 | 16:04:27 UTC

Makes you wonder what's more vibrant: 16 or 32 shaders? :p

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile liveonc
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 10
Posts: 292
Credit: 41,567,650
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17227 - Posted: 22 May 2010 | 19:07:05 UTC - in response to Message 17222.

There are useless ways of rebranding, playing word games, & setting the clocks slightly higher or slightly lower. But Nvidia spends more money on software, so why not do something useful with that?

There must be some way fx of reprogramming that 3D vision to also support dual view. Then 2 different people can use the same screen at the same time w/o using half the screen. Just use two shutter shades, half the refresh rate, two keyboards & mice. Heck, if Philips, Samsung, Sony, etc want to add an extra bundle with their 3D, all it takes is 2 headphones to have two people watch two different channels.
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 17229 - Posted: 22 May 2010 | 23:41:16 UTC - in response to Message 17227.

LOL! Now that's creative. At my work we're mostly using 2 19" screens per person.. mainly because we have them anyway and this gives more useable space than buying a new one. Having 2 people share a monitor would make work a little more.. intimate.

BTW: you'd also want to make sure you're running at least 120 Hz. Splitting 60 Hz would be quite unpleasant ;)

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18027 - Posted: 17 Jul 2010 | 14:14:33 UTC - in response to Message 17229.
Last modified: 9 Aug 2010 | 16:16:59 UTC

A comparative look at some of the Fermi cards and G200 cards

The following GeForce cards are the present mainstream choice, with reference clocks,

GT 220 GT216 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 128 BoincGFlops peak
GT 240 GT215 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 257 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 260 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 596 BoincGFlops peak (sp216)
GTX 275 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 674 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 285 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 695 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 295 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 1192 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 480 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1345 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 470 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1089 BoincGFlops peak
GTX 465 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 855 BoincGFlops peak

Two new cards will work here soon,
-edit; working now, but not fully optimized just yet.

GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak (768MB)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak (1GB)

Values are approximate, and unconfirmed here. There will be a large performcne variety of GTX 460 cards, as many do not follow reference design!

It is expected that a GTX 475 following the above GF104 architecture will be released in the Autumn - it should have a full complement of 384shaders and use all 8 GPU cores.

Also expected is the release of several so-called ‘low end’ Fermi’s:
In August two cards are expected based on GF106 architecture (GTS450 and possibly GTS455).
Then in September a GF108 cards is due out.
The GF106 and GF108 will bring DX11 and Fermi architecture to mid/low end cards.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18063 - Posted: 19 Jul 2010 | 17:23:38 UTC - in response to Message 18027.
Last modified: 26 Jul 2010 | 7:48:45 UTC

People might want to note that the scarse 1GB version of the GTX 460 are about 10% faster than the 768MB version, going by recent Betas.

Relative to CC2.0 and CC1.3 cards and compared to their Compute Capability and reference GFlops peak, the GTX460 cards (CC2.1) are presently underperforming by approximately 1/3rd. This will likely change in the next few months with new drivers and app refinements. So this ball park correction factor is temporary.

jlhal
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 10
Posts: 147
Credit: 1,077,535,540
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18293 - Posted: 8 Aug 2010 | 22:10:33 UTC

Boinc GFLOPS ???

I don'tknow where to find this.
Boinc (last Win x64 version) messages give only the peak GFLOPS for my cards:

230 (yes ! two hundreds and thirty) GFLOPS peak each !!!
2 x Gigabyte 9600GT TurboForce NX91T1GHP, 64 shaders 1GB GDDR3

Where may I found Boinc GFlops ?

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18294 - Posted: 8 Aug 2010 | 22:16:19 UTC - in response to Message 18293.

Boinc Manager (Advanced View), Messages Tab, 13th line down.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18298 - Posted: 9 Aug 2010 | 7:45:14 UTC - in response to Message 18293.

Boinc (last Win x64 version) messages give only the peak GFLOPS


That's the value we're talking about. The word "BOINC" is added to this number because there are different ways to obtain such a number.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Werkstatt
Send message
Joined: 23 May 09
Posts: 116
Credit: 119,494,098
RAC: 40,878
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18301 - Posted: 9 Aug 2010 | 15:24:31 UTC - in response to Message 18027.


Two new cards will work here soon,

GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak (768MB)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak (1GB)

Values are approximate, and unconfirmed here. There will be a large performcne variety of GTX 460 cards, as many do not follow reference design!




Hi,
since I plan to replace my GTX260/192 with a GTX460 in autumn, this info is of high interest for me.
Could owners of this card type please post their experience here? Not always is the most expensive card the fastest and the cheapest the slowest.

Regards,
Alexander

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18304 - Posted: 9 Aug 2010 | 16:24:14 UTC - in response to Message 18301.

There is a GTX460 thread here.
This is just a GFlops comparison thread, so we can compare relative card performances, and discuss things such as Compute Capability and Correction Factors. When the GTX460 becomes optimised I will rebuild a table of recommended cards and their relative performances, including correction factors.

jlhal
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 10
Posts: 147
Credit: 1,077,535,540
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18307 - Posted: 9 Aug 2010 | 18:08:32 UTC - in response to Message 18294.

Boinc Manager (Advanced View), Messages Tab, 13th line down.


That's exactly what I said : Under Win64 you only get peak GFLOFS , without rhe word Boinc)

So , for a Gigabyte 9600GT NX96T1GHP Rev 3.0 , Boinc says 230 Gflops .

Cheers.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18314 - Posted: 9 Aug 2010 | 22:37:23 UTC - in response to Message 18307.

jlhal, I was just confirming that the place to read the Boinc value, is within Boinc. This is different to NVidia's theoretical Shader Processing Rate of 312 GigaFlops, which is not an applicable reference to go by when comparing cards for crunching here. Also of note on that line is the Compute Capability, which calls for a correction factor when comparing cards from different generations. The Operating System, CPU and configurations in place contribute to performance too. So the Boinc GFlops rating acts as a raw guide, and when combined with the Compute Capability gives a more accurate performance picture.
Take this card for example,
08/08/2010 23:37:44 NVIDIA GPU 3: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 25896, CUDA version 3010, compute capability 1.2, 475MB, 307 GFLOPS peak)

It is overcloced and has a peak GFlops rating (according to Boinc) of 307, but it also has a Compute Capability (CC) of 1.2. This presently means it tends to perform about 30% faster than an equal card with a CC of 1.1.
CC1.3 cards are slightly faster again, but not much. The Fermi cards are all CC 2.0 or 2.1 (so far), but these cards can still be further optimized for crunching, so we will look at the Correction Factors again, hopefully in the autumn. The purpose is to give people a clear picture of card performance across the NVidia range and allow people to make better informed decisions as to which card they select WRT crunching here.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18317 - Posted: 10 Aug 2010 | 19:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 18314.

This is different to NVidia's theoretical Shader Processing Rate of 312 GigaFlops, which is not an applicable reference to go by when comparing cards for crunching here.


[provocative]Not any less useful than the BOINC rating without correction factors, isn't it?[/provocative]

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18318 - Posted: 10 Aug 2010 | 23:07:39 UTC - in response to Message 18317.
Last modified: 19 Apr 2011 | 10:00:53 UTC

I looked at 4 cards, all on Win XP Pro and all crunching TONI_CAPBIND tasks, to re-evaluate/confirm the Compute Capable correction factors.

CC1.1
9600GT (234 Boinc GFlops peak)
h232f99r449-TONI_CAPBINDsp2-50-100-RND6951_0 (RunTime 60600, points 6,803.41) Host

CC1.2
GT240 (307 Boinc GFlops peak)
h232f99r516-TONI_CAPBINDsp2-50-100-RND8103_0 (RunTime 34981, points 6,803.41 Host

CC1.3
GTX260 (659 Boinc GFlops peak)
h232f99r91-TONI_CAPBINDsp2-64-100-RND9447_0 (RunTime 15081, points 6,803.41) Host

CC2.0
GTX470 (1261 Boinc GFlops peak)
f192r291-TONI_CAPBINDsp1-62-100-RND4969_1 (RunTime 8175, points 6,803.41) Host

CC1.1
9600GT (86400/60600)*6803.415=9699 (Average Credits per Day running these tasks)
9699/230=42.20
CC Correction Factor = 42.20/42.20=1.00

CC1.2
GT240 (86400/34981)*6803.415=16804
9699/307=54.74
CC Correction Factor = 54.74/42.20=1.30

CC1.3
GTX260 (86400/15081)*6803.41=38976
38976/659=59.14
CC Correction Factor = 59.14/42.20=1.40

CC2.0
GTX470 (86400/8175)*6803.41=71904
71904/1261=57.02 (35.5%)
CC Correction Factor = 57.02/42.20=1.35

CC2.1
GTX460 and GTS450
CC Correction Factor = roughly 0.90

Comparison of Optimized and Recommended Cards, with CC Correction Factors (in brackets):

GT 220 GT216 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 128 BoincGFlops peak (173)
GT 240 GT215 40nm Compute Capable 1.2 257 BoincGFlops peak (347)
GTX 260-216 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 596 BoincGFlops peak (834)
GTX 275 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 674 BoincGFlops peak (934)
GTX 285 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 695 BoincGFlops peak (973)
GTX 295 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 1192 BoincGFlops peak (1669)
GTX 480 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1345 BoincGFlops peak (1816)
GTX 470 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1089 BoincGFlops peak (1470)
GTX 465 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 855 BoincGFlops peak (1154)

GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak 768MB (816)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak 1GB (816)

Only Reference specs listed. The two GTX 460 cards are Recommended, but the applications are not fully cabable of supporting these cards, hence the low correction factor. The limitations of this table are accuracy and lifetime; comparable but different systems (CPUs) were used, not all cards used the same drivers, only one task type was looked at, and only the Fermi ran the v6.11 app. 6.13 for the GTX460 and GTS450

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 18354 - Posted: 16 Aug 2010 | 20:52:05 UTC - in response to Message 18318.

Thanks for the effort, looks good to me!

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Stephen
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 10
Posts: 1
Credit: 9,485
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 19580 - Posted: 21 Nov 2010 | 6:31:52 UTC - in response to Message 18354.

Hi there. my boinc and gpu setup reports this
11/21/2010 4:12:53 PM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce 9600 GT (driver version 26306, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, 208 GFLOPS peak)
It's now november 2010, so hopefully I can get a new nvidia with a higher number of "GFLOPS peek

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1813
Credit: 9,932,225,894
RAC: 5,903,996
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 19962 - Posted: 16 Dec 2010 | 23:13:07 UTC - in response to Message 18318.

GeForce GTX 580 (driver version 26309, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 2.0, 1536MB, 1741 GFLOPS peak)
It's OC'ed to 850MHz

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1813
Credit: 9,932,225,894
RAC: 5,903,996
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 19963 - Posted: 16 Dec 2010 | 23:29:15 UTC - in response to Message 19962.

On standard clock rate:
GeForce GTX 580 (driver version 26309, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 2.0, 1536MB, 1581 GFLOPS peak)

Profile MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 730
Credit: 189,243,545
RAC: 308
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 19973 - Posted: 17 Dec 2010 | 13:56:56 UTC
Last modified: 17 Dec 2010 | 13:57:29 UTC

GTX570 (standard version, default clocks)
GeForce GTX 570 (driver version 26309, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 2.0, 1248MB, 1405 GFLOPS peak)

caveh
Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 6,322
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 20174 - Posted: 17 Jan 2011 | 11:51:30 UTC - in response to Message 19973.

EVGA GTX 570 superclocked (012-P3-1572-AR) with factory clocking:

GPU 797
memory 975
shader 1594

driver 26309, 1248MB, 1530 GFLOPS peak.

Hypernova
Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 10
Posts: 22
Credit: 24,712,746
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20184 - Posted: 18 Jan 2011 | 17:16:09 UTC - in response to Message 20174.

Finally I received the two Asus GTX 580 boards I had ordered beginning of December. I have just installed them and they are running now on stock speeds, no OC. We will see how they impact the RAC. They run on desktops with 980X CPU running at 4.2 Ghz.

Driver 266.58
Processor clock: 1'564 Mhz
Graphic clock: 782 Mhz
Memory clock : 2'004 Mhz x2 (4'008 Mhz)
Memory: 1.5 Gb DDR5

Gflop: 1'602 peak.

Skip Da Shu
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 09
Posts: 38
Credit: 41,955,165
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20532 - Posted: 26 Feb 2011 | 22:32:10 UTC
Last modified: 26 Feb 2011 | 22:39:44 UTC

I've got a question...

I've got an XUbuntu Linux i7-860 with a GTS-250. Boinc runs on it w/ access to 7 threads (pseudo cores, HT quad) because the machine has some other server like functions it needs to do so a 'core/thread' is left open.

Then for totally non-BOINC reasons I was testing some low-end vid cards in the 2nd, empty PCIx slot of this machine last night. The cards being tested were all under $50 and under 50w. 8400GS, GeForce 210 and a GT-430.

I noticed that BOINC recognized and would run PrimeGrid & Collatz on the GT430 but with low-power or non-3d clocks being reported. I upgraded the driver today from a 195.36.xx out of the repositories to a 270.18.xx beta driver from a PPA and the GT-430 now reports proper clocks. I re-enabled GPUGrid on this machine and the GTS-250 is working on a WU that it looks like it might finish by the deadline ~5 days away.

Finally to the question... Is there a chance in he** of the GT-430 ever starting & completing a GPUGrid WU within the deadline with it's BOINC reported 179 GFLOP rating? If so, I can leave GPUGrid on this machine. The little, low profile GT-430 is just filling an otherwise empty PCIx slot and since it's so small/low it doesn't cause any temp problems to the GTS-250 behind it.

Thanx, Skip


BOINC log startup entries:

Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz [Family 6 Model 30 Stepping 5]
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Processor: 8.00 MB cache
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni dtes64 monito
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST OS: Linux: 2.6.32-28-generic
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Memory: 3.83 GB physical, 2.27 GB virtual
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Disk: 14.76 GB total, 11.05 GB free
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST Local time is UTC -6 hours
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTS 250 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 1.1, 1023MB, 470 GFLOPS peak)
Sat 26 Feb 2011 03:42:42 PM CST NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GT 430 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 512MB, 179 GFLOPS peak)
____________
- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20534 - Posted: 27 Feb 2011 | 12:50:27 UTC - in response to Message 20532.

If I was you I would pull the apparently unreliable and slow 150W GTS250 and test the 49W (if non-OEM) GT430 to find out for sure. The other cards would be of no use. Post back how you get on - it would be good to know either way.

179 GFlops peak:
In theory, a GT430 is supposed to be 268.8 GFlops peak, but because it's CC2.1 it's more likely to behave as if it has 64 cuda cores, at GPUGrid, which would give you 179GFlops peak - Boinc must be reading this from the new drivers.

The actual performance of your GT430 card running the 6.13app will be largely down to your Linux setup/configuration; only trying it will tell. I know that a GT240 outperforms a GTS250 at GPUGrid running 6.12apps (and previous apps), and that many GTS250's are unreliable, but I also know that the GT240 takes a huge performance hit when trying to run the 6.13app (I expect this is the case for CC1.1 cards as well). Hopefully the GT430 will not see this hit, being a Fermi. So, my guess is that it could complete an average task inside 2days, if the system was optimized as best as possible to run GPUGrid tasks.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20535 - Posted: 27 Feb 2011 | 15:40:34 UTC

So much has changed - give it try and report back :)

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Skip Da Shu
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 09
Posts: 38
Credit: 41,955,165
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20537 - Posted: 27 Feb 2011 | 23:15:40 UTC - in response to Message 20535.

So much has changed - give it try and report back :)

MrS


Errors out right away...

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=375025

____________
- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1813
Credit: 9,932,225,894
RAC: 5,903,996
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20808 - Posted: 29 Mar 2011 | 17:20:12 UTC

On standard clock rate (607MHz/1215Mhz/1707MHz)
GeForce GTX 590 (driver version 26791, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 2.0, 1536MB, 1244 GFLOPS peak)
There are two of these on one card of course. :)

mickael
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 11,901,754
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20864 - Posted: 6 Apr 2011 | 18:08:44 UTC

what about a solution like GTX295 + GTX480 ? I already own the 480 and i can buy the gtx295 for a very low price...

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20870 - Posted: 7 Apr 2011 | 2:02:22 UTC

I'm not sure if that will require waiting for a major change in BOINC - the ability to set up a separate job queue for each of multiple unlike GPUs, and the abilty of the BOINC clients to make separate job requests for each queue. There are so few people with each configuration of multiple unlike GPUs on the same computer that I don't consider it likely that the GPUGRID software will be changed to able have a workunit use two unlike GPUs at once.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20871 - Posted: 7 Apr 2011 | 5:44:27 UTC - in response to Message 20870.

Already works with 6.13.

mickael
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 11,901,754
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20873 - Posted: 7 Apr 2011 | 9:03:13 UTC - in response to Message 20871.

ok thank you :)

Profile [SG]ATA-Rolf
Send message
Joined: 27 Jul 07
Posts: 1
Credit: 25,110,675
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20992 - Posted: 18 Apr 2011 | 7:51:13 UTC
Last modified: 18 Apr 2011 | 8:25:10 UTC

Nvidia ------- driver ---- CUDA --- compute -- RAM - GFLOPS
Geforce: --- version: - version: - capability: --- MB ----peak:
ION ----------- 26658 --- 3020 ------- 1,2 -------- 412 ----- 17
8600 GS ---- 26658 --- 3020 ------- 1,1 -------- 500 ----- 38
GT 430 ------ 26658 --- 3020 ------- 2,1 -------- 993 ---- 201
GTX 260 ---- 26658 --- 3020 ------- 1,3 -------- 896 ---- 477
GTX 560 Ti - 26666 --- 3020 ------- 2,1 ------ 1024 ---- 901

ION and 8600 GS: to slow for GPUGrid
GTX 260 with 192 Shader: don´t go.
____________
[SG-ATA]Rolf, formerly known as [SG]Rolf, also known as
[NL-ATA]Rolf, formerly known as [Nordlichter]Rolf, also known as
[FT/ TL-ATA]Rolf, formerly known as [FT/ TL]Rolf, also known as
[P3D-ATA]Rolf, formerly known as [P3D]Rolf

Profile CJ in Seattle [BlackOps]
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Mar 09
Posts: 34
Credit: 250,755,287
RAC: 623,647
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21001 - Posted: 18 Apr 2011 | 22:02:22 UTC

So much to go through. Didn't know if you had these official BOINC speeds posted for the GTX 460. I have the 1GB model at 605 GFLOPS peak and the 768MB (Superclock from EVGA) at 684GFLOPS peak. I hope this helps. Let me know if you need/want more info.
____________

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21005 - Posted: 19 Apr 2011 | 10:42:53 UTC - in response to Message 21001.
Last modified: 29 Apr 2011 | 15:19:34 UTC

The update is just to include the more recent cards.

Relative Comparison of Recommended Cards, with approximated CC Correction Factor values (in brackets):

GTX 590 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 2488 BoincGFlops peak (3359)
GTX 580 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1581 BoincGFlops peak (2134)
GTX 570 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1405 BoincGFlops peak (1896)
GTX 480 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1345 BoincGFlops peak (1816)
GTX 295 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 1192 BoincGFlops peak (1669)
GTX 470 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1089 BoincGFlops peak (1470)
GTX 465 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 855 BoincGFlops peak (1154)
GTX 560 GF114 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 1263 BoincGFlops peak (1136)
GTX 285 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 695 BoincGFlops peak (973)
GTX 275 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 674 BoincGFlops peak (934)
GTX 260-216 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 596 BoincGFlops peak (834)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak 768MB (816)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 BoincGFlops peak 1GB (816)
GTX 550 GF116 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 691 BoincGFlops peak (622)
GTS 450 GF106 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 601 BoincGFlops peak (541)

This update is based on the previous table produced, and is by performance, highest first.
I have only included CC1.3, CC2.0 and CC2.1 cards, but the comparison is originally based on CC1.1 cards.
Only Reference specs listed and only for optimized cards by the recommended methods. As usual, there are accuracy limitations and it’s lifetime is limited by the apps/drivers in use. New cards were just added, rather than a new survey made. Comparable but different systems (CPUs) were used, not all cards used the same drivers, only one task type was looked at. Some of these comparisons are adapted from when we used the 6.11app but the correction factors are still valid.
At some stage I will try to look at these cards again, running the long tasks 6.13, to produce a new relative performance table.

Correction Factors Used

CC1.1 = 1.00
CC1.2 = 1.30
CC1.3 = 1.40
CC2.0 = 1.35
CC2.1 = 0.90

Thanks for the posts,

jlhal
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 10
Posts: 147
Credit: 1,077,535,540
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21158 - Posted: 5 May 2011 | 21:23:00 UTC - in response to Message 21005.

1st system Win 7 Pro x64:
Gigabyte GTX460 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 (driver version 27061, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 962MB , 641 GFLOPS peak)

2nd system Xubuntu 11.04 AMD64:
Gigabyte GTX460SO 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 (driver version unknown , CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 1024MB , 730 GFLOPS peak)

____________
Lubuntu 16.04.1 LTS x64

jlhal
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 10
Posts: 147
Credit: 1,077,535,540
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21221 - Posted: 22 May 2011 | 10:18:54 UTC - in response to Message 21158.

1st system Win 7 Pro x64:
Gigabyte GTX460 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 (driver version 27061, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 962MB , 641 GFLOPS peak)

2nd system Xubuntu 11.04 AMD64:
Gigabyte GTX460SO 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 (driver version unknown , CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 1024MB , 730 GFLOPS peak)


Minor precisions:

1st system Win 7 Pro x64: Gigabyte GTX460OC 1GB
GeForce GTX 460OC(driver version 2.70.61, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 962MB (?) , 641 GFLOPS peak)

2nd system Xubuntu 11.04 AMD64: Gigabyte GTX460SO 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 SO(driver version 270.41.06 , CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 1024MB , 730 GFLOPS peak)
____________
Lubuntu 16.04.1 LTS x64

Profile robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 09
Posts: 400
Credit: 130,462,246
RAC: 370,892
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21293 - Posted: 3 Jun 2011 | 7:28:02 UTC

I suspect that the 962 MB is 1 GB minus whatever Windows 7 has reserved for its own use.

Kate Cowles
Send message
Joined: 4 May 10
Posts: 3
Credit: 2,734,534
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21304 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 1:54:16 UTC - in response to Message 20534.

I run GPUgrid on a GT 430 under Ubuntu 10.04.2. WUs take about 32 hrs. so there's no problem getting them returned in time.

Thu 02 Jun 2011 07:48:48 AM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 430 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 2.1, 1023MB, 45 GFLOPS peak)


Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21305 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 10:06:59 UTC - in response to Message 21304.

Hi Kate,
45 GFlops peak for a GT430 does not sound right, more like your Ion ;)
A GT430 should be reporting as about 180 GFlops peak, and that's after considering it can't use all the cuda cores, otherwise it would be about 270.
Perhaps you are using a very old version of Boinc (for Linux systems we cannot see the Boinc version)?

Kate Cowles
Send message
Joined: 4 May 10
Posts: 3
Credit: 2,734,534
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21306 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 12:47:38 UTC - in response to Message 21305.
Last modified: 5 Jun 2011 | 12:48:21 UTC

Hi skgiven,

I'm using BOINC 6.10.17, so not all that old. Maybe I'll upgrade to 6.10.58 one of these days and see whether that makes a difference in the GFLOPs calculation.

I noticed on an earlier message in this thread that somebody was reporting 179 GFLOPs for this card. I had been startled when I first ran BOINC on it and saw the 45 GFLOPs (you're right -- not much different from my ION 2, which shows 39). The GT 430 runs GPUgrid WUs a little over 3 times as fast as the ION 2, so there is indeed something wrong with the GFLOPs calculation for the 430. It's slow -- but not THAT slow.

In any case, I'm pretty happy with the GT 430 for my purposes. It's not going to set any speed records, but it runs cool (nvidia-smi is showing it at 54 C right now while working at 98% capacity on a GPUgrid WU), and doesn't draw much power. It's double-precision, so I can run Milky Way. And it's just fine for testing and debugging CUDA code for Fermi cards.

Kate

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,310,570,320
RAC: 1,405,317
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21307 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 13:00:54 UTC - in response to Message 21306.

I'm using BOINC 6.10.17, so not all that old. Maybe I'll upgrade to 6.10.58 one of these days and see whether that makes a difference in the GFLOPs calculation.

Kate

Yes, that will explain it. The corrected GFLOPs calculation for Fermi-class cards (assuming 32 cores per multiprocessor, instead of 8) wasn't introduced until v6.10.45 - your version 6.10.17 dates back to October 2009, which is long before details of the Fermi range were available.

Note that your GT 430 actually has 48 cores per MP, so the calculation will still be a bit on the low side. BUT: - that only affects the cosmetic display of speed in the message log at startup. It doesn't affect the actual processing speed in any way.

Kate Cowles
Send message
Joined: 4 May 10
Posts: 3
Credit: 2,734,534
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21308 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 15:00:31 UTC - in response to Message 21307.


Yes, that will explain it. The corrected GFLOPs calculation for Fermi-class cards (assuming 32 cores per multiprocessor, instead of 8) wasn't introduced until v6.10.45 - your version 6.10.17 dates back to October 2009, which is long before details of the Fermi range were available.

Note that your GT 430 actually has 48 cores per MP, so the calculation will still be a bit on the low side. BUT: - that only affects the cosmetic display of speed in the message log at startup. It doesn't affect the actual processing speed in any way.


Thanks for the clear explanation. So BOINC v6.10.17 calculates correctly for the ION (which does have only 8 cores per MP) but not for the GT 430. Well, this gives me a reason (if only cosmetic) to upgrade to 6.10.58.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21309 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 15:18:34 UTC - in response to Message 21306.

It's double-precision, so I can run Milky Way.


You can - just don't do it, if you can help it ;)
Your "not-so-fast" card is only 1/12th its sp performance under dp. Any ATI is going to walk all over it. I think GPU-Grid and Einstein can make much better us of this (sp) power.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Dagorath
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 11
Posts: 509
Credit: 179,005,236
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21311 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011 | 20:49:26 UTC

Fri 03 Jun 2011 02:34:07 PM MDT Starting BOINC client version 6.12.26 for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
.
.
.
Fri 03 Jun 2011 02:34:07 PM MDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 570 (driver version unknown, CUDA version 3020, compute capability 2.0, 1279MB, 1425 GFLOPS peak)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23179 - Posted: 29 Jan 2012 | 20:45:27 UTC - in response to Message 21311.
Last modified: 26 Mar 2012 | 21:42:09 UTC

The update is just to add three cards (GTX 560 448 Ti, GTX 560 and GT 545)

Relative Comparison of Recommended Cards, with approximated CC Correction Factor values (in brackets):

GTX 590 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 2488 GFlops peak (3359)
GTX 580 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1581 GFlops peak (2134)
GTX 570 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1405 GFlops peak (1896)
GTX 560 Ti 448 GF110 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1311 GFlops peak (1770)
GTX 480 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1345 GFlops peak (1816)
GTX 295 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 1192 GFlops peak (1669)
GTX 470 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 1089 GFlops peak (1470)
GTX 465 GF100 40nm Compute Capable 2.0 855 GFlops peak (1154)
GTX 560 Ti GF114 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 1263 GFlops peak (1136)
GTX 285 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 695 GFlops peak (973)
GTX 560 GF114 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 1075 GFlops peak (967)
GTX 275 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 674 GFlops peak (934)
GTX 260-216 GT200b 55nm Compute Capable 1.3 596 GFlops peak (834)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 GFlops peak 768MB (816)
GTX 460 GF104 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 907 GFlops peak 1GB (816)
GTX 550 Ti GF116 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 691 GFlops peak (622)
GTS 450 GF106 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 601 GFlops peak (541)
GT 545 GF116 40nm Compute Capable 2.1 501 GFlops peak (451)

This update is based on the previous table, and is by performance after considering compute capability, highest first. I have only included CC1.3, CC2.0 and CC2.1 cards, but the comparison was originally based on CC1.1 cards.

Only Reference clocks are listed and only for optimized cards by the recommended methods. As usual, there are accuracy limitations and it’s lifetime is limited by the apps/drivers in use. New cards were added based on GFlops peak and CC, rather than resurveying different cards (demonstrated to be reliable). Comparable but different systems (CPUs) were used, not all cards used the same drivers, only one task type was looked at. Some of these comparisons are adapted from when we used the 6.11app but the correction factors are still valid.

When a new app is released I will review these cards/values for consistency; normally the cards relative performances don't change too much, but on at least 2 occasions things did change in the past. For CC2.0 and CC2.1 it's less likely. When the next generation of NVidia turns up things will probably start changing, and obviously an ATI app would add a few cards.

Correction Factors Used

CC1.1 = 1.00
CC1.2 = 1.30
CC1.3 = 1.40
CC2.0 = 1.35
CC2.1 = 0.90

Thanks for the posts,
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile oldDirty
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 09
Posts: 22
Credit: 3,569,857
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23211 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012 | 22:44:23 UTC

ATI means only GCN 1D Cards?
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23222 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012 | 20:12:54 UTC - in response to Message 23211.

ATI is not clear yet, since the development of the app is not finished.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 136
Credit: 554,330,968
RAC: 442,778
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 24258 - Posted: 5 Apr 2012 | 12:48:00 UTC

I did a comparation of longrun tasks crunched by GTX560Ti CC2.1 (host ID 31329, 875GHz) and GTX570 (host ID 101638, 730GHz). Host with GTX570 is running Linux, all cores free for GPUGRID, SWAN_SYNC set. Host with GTX560Ti is running Win XP x64, no CPU core free, Swan_sync not used.
.................................Run time................theoretical RAC
task type...........GTX560i...GTX570......GTX560i...GTX570..Ratio (Run time)
PAOLA...............61 500......35 600.......126 400.....219 000.....1.74
NATHAN_CB1....25 700......14 700.......120 400.....210 500.....1.75
GIANNI...............54 200......30 000.......116 200.....201 000.....1.8
NATHAN_FAX4..74 800.......34 000........82 470.....181 440.....2.2
What to think about it? PAOLA, NATHAN_CB1 and GIANNI tasks uses all CUDA cores of GTX560Ti CC2.1 or anything different?

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 24261 - Posted: 5 Apr 2012 | 15:02:33 UTC - in response to Message 24258.

The GTX560i has 384shaders of which 256 are usable by GPUGrid, due to the science requirements/projects app and GPU architecture.
A reference GTX560i has a GPU @ 822MHz
A reference GTX570 has a GPU at 732MHz and 480 shaders.
480*732/256*822=1.67. Your slightly higher ratio can be explained by SWAN_SYNC being used on Linux.

All this has been known for some time, hence my table with Correction factors:

    Correction Factors Used

    CC1.1 = 1.00
    CC1.2 = 1.30
    CC1.3 = 1.40
    CC2.0 = 1.35
    CC2.1 = 0.90


1.35/0.9=1.5=2/3 of the shaders.
Take GPU frequency into the equation and you can see it all adds up:
822/732=1.12, 1.5*1.12=1.68
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Robert Gammon
Send message
Joined: 28 May 12
Posts: 61
Credit: 600,232,525
RAC: 298,642
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26209 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012 | 17:21:36 UTC - in response to Message 23179.

Is it time for another update of this table, especially with a new batch of cards out to replace most of the 200 series cards (increasingly hard to find)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26232 - Posted: 8 Jul 2012 | 20:36:09 UTC - in response to Message 26209.

The GeForce 600 series cards are about 60% more efficient in terms of performance per Watt, compared to the GeForce 500 series.

There are several issues.
The range is quite limited - we only have 3 high end cards (690, 680 and 670). These are all CC3.0 and all expensive.
At the low end there is the GT 640 (a recent release), and some GK OEM cards.
We are still lacking the mid range cards, which tend to make up a large portion of cards here. When they turn up we might be in a position to start comparing performances and price.

The present cards have a variety of clock rates, making relative comparisons somewhat vague, and I cannot see the GPU freq. as this is not reported in the tasks 'Stderr output' file when run with the 4.2 app, and the 600 cards can't run tasks on the 3.1app.

The old issue of system setup is still there, but now has an additional dimension; the same GPU in a low end system with a low clock CPU is going to under perform compared to a well optimized system with a high end CPU. Now we also have to consider PCIE3 vs PCIE2 performance. Thus far this has not been done for here (anyone with a PCIE3 system post up PCIE3 vs PCIE2 performances).

There is also the issue of so many different task types. The performance of each varies when comparing the 500 to 600 series cards. I think it's likely that GPUGrid will continue to run many experiments, so there will continue to be a variety of tasks with different performances. This will make a single table more difficult and may necessitate maintenance for accuracy.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2667
Credit: 698,406,074
RAC: 847,476
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26236 - Posted: 8 Jul 2012 | 21:09:33 UTC - in response to Message 26232.

In the past there hasn't been much of a performance difference between PCIe 2 at 16x and 8x lanes, so I suspect 16 lanes at PCIe 2 or 3 won't matter much either. We'd "need" significantly faster GPUs (or smaller WUs) to make the difference count more.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26238 - Posted: 8 Jul 2012 | 22:02:50 UTC - in response to Message 26236.

Going back to the GTX200 series, that was the unmeasured speculation - x16 vs x8 didn't matter. With the Fermi cards it was measured. Zoltan said he saw a ~10% drop in performance from PCIE2 x16 to x8 on a GTX480, for some tasks. For x4 vs x16 the drop was more like 20%. ref. I think I eventually came to a similar conclusion and did some measurements.

With a new app, new performances, and new cards it's worth a revisit. That said, present tasks utilize the GPU more on the new app. I think GPU memory might be better utilized for some tasks and generally speaking the CPU is used less. While tasks will change, this suggest less importance for PCIE at present. How much that offsets the increase in GF600 GPU performance remains to be seen/measured.

What I'm not sure about is the controller. How much actual control does it have over the lanes? Can it allocate more than 8 lanes when other lanes are free; is a 16 lane slot absolutely limited to 8 lanes when the first slot is occupied, for example (on an x16, x8 board but both having x16 connectors)?
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1813
Credit: 9,932,225,894
RAC: 5,903,996
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26239 - Posted: 8 Jul 2012 | 22:41:02 UTC - in response to Message 26238.

What I'm not sure about is the controller. How much actual control does it have over the lanes? Can it allocate more than 8 lanes when other lanes are free; is a 16 lane slot absolutely limited to 8 lanes when the first slot is occupied, for example (on an x16, x8 board but both having x16 connectors)?

It could be limited by the motherboard as well, but according to ark.intel.com, both Ivy Bridge CPU line, the socket 1155 CPUs and the socket 2011 CPUs have only one PCIe 3.0 x16 lane, configurable in three variations: 1x16, 2x8, 1x8 & 2x4. There are simply not enough pins on the CPU socket to support more PCIe lanes. So if a MB had two (or more) real PCIe 3.0 x16 connectors, it would have to have one (or more) PCIe 3.0 x16 bridge chip (like the one the GTX 690 has on board). I don't know how the AMD CPUs support PCIe 3.0, but I think they are the same.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,802,507,589
RAC: 480,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26241 - Posted: 8 Jul 2012 | 23:10:19 UTC - in response to Message 26239.
Last modified: 8 Jul 2012 | 23:23:27 UTC

I thought 2011 had 40 PCIE3 lanes? That should be enough for 2*16. I know 1155 can only support 1GPU@x16 or two @x8, even if it is PCIE3 (by Bios hack/upgrade), though the on die IB effort should be faster.

AMD CPU's don't support PCIE3 at all! Only their GPU's are PCIE3.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1813
Credit: 9,932,225,894
RAC: 5,903,996
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 26246 - Posted: 9 Jul 2012 | 12:08:11 UTC - in response to Message 26241.

Sorry, I've put (and I've taken in consideration) a bad link in my previous post:
The Intel Core i7-3770K is actually socket 1155 too, so it has only one PCIe 3.0 x16 lane. That's my fault.

Socket 2011 CPUs (Core i7-3820, Core i7 3930K, Core i7-3960X) have two x16, and one x8 lane.
Here is a PDF explaining Socket 2011. See page 10.

5pot
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 12
Posts: 411
Credit: 2,083,882,218
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwat