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

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

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

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?

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 ?

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

9800GT 512Mb, 60Gflops reported by BOINC (as you'd expect same as 1Mb card)

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.

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

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,

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

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

Nothing else to complain about ;)

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

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)

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

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.

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 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

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

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.

@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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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)

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, 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)!

Thanks for posting your info,

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/

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!

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