Message boards : Number crunching : PCIe 2.0 and GTX 970
Author | Message |
---|---|
I just picked up a GTX 970 to add to this project and am contemplating where to place it in the computer. I have three PCIe slots I could place it in on my Asus Sabertooth Z97 board. The top two are PCIe 3.0 x16 and the bottom is PCIe 2.0 x16. The top slot has a GTX 980Ti in it and I was thinking about placing the new 970 in the bottom slot to give the cards a little more "breathing room" but I don't know how much of a difference placing it in a PCIe 2.0 slot makes. | |
ID: 42762 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
PCIe 2 slot will show no noticeable difference. | |
ID: 42764 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
PCIe 2 slot will show no noticeable difference. Okay. Thanks for the reply! | |
ID: 42765 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just picked up a GTX 970 to add to this project and am contemplating where to place it in the computer. I have three PCIe slots I could place it in on my Asus Sabertooth Z97 board. The top two are PCIe 3.0 x16 and the bottom is PCIe 2.0 x16.The bottom slot is mechanically x16, but electrically it's only x4, so it's 8 times slower than the top slot. The top slot has a GTX 980Ti in it and I was thinking about placing the new 970 in the bottom slot to give the cards a little more "breathing room" but I don't know how much of a difference placing it in a PCIe 2.0 slot makes.It depends on the workunit type. For example the recent GERARD_A2AR workunits will be significantly slower in that slot, the others won't. Both cards are EVGA with the ACX 2.0 cooling which means they're dumping heat into the case, but I have a rather large case with really good airflow (Phanteks Enthoo Primo) so I don't know how much of a problem it will be with a second card. For reference, my 980Ti nearly always stays under 60C on GPUGrid with the default fan curve.For these cards a fan placed on the side plate blowing the hot air outwards is recommended. So it comes down to, is it better to place both cards in PCIe 3.0 slots and have them run warmer, or to skip a slot and have one card in a PCIe 2.0 slot?I would place it in the lowest slot to give breathing room for the 980Ti, regardless of the performance decrease it could bring. Moreover if you put the 2nd card in the 2nd PCIe3.0 slot, then both will run at only x8, reducing the PCIe bandwith for the GTX980Ti, which should be avoided. | |
ID: 42766 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks, Retvari. I was kind of hoping you would see this as you always give good detailed replies. | |
ID: 42767 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I was just thinking, another option might be to swap some cards around between rigs. I have another machine with two 750Ti cards. I could mix them up so that one case has 980Ti + 750Ti and the other with 970 + 750Ti. I could then put the 970 in a PCIe 3.0 slot in the other machine and put the 750Ti in the second slot on both machines as they don't put out much heat. That way, all 4 cards would be in PCIe 3.0 slots and the heat management may not be as much of a concern. | |
ID: 42768 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I would put the GTX 750Ti to the PCIe 2.0 slot as well. Your hosts have OSes with WDDM, and the PCIe bandwidth limitation has lower impact on GPU performance than WDDM, so there's no point giving a mid-range card (like the GTX 750Ti) a PCIe3.0x8 slot and limit the airflow of a high-end card and limit its PCIe bandwidth to x8 at the same time. | |
ID: 42769 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So the CPU's 16 PCIe lanes don't divide up evenly between the 3.0 and 2.0 slots? I like your idea if that is the case. | |
ID: 42770 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So the CPU's 16 PCIe lanes don't divide up evenly between the 3.0 and 2.0 slots? I like your idea if that is the case.No, the PCIe3.0x16 comes directly from the CPU, and divided between the two PCIe3.0 slots if necessary (when there is a GPU in the 2nd PCIe3.0 slot), while the PCIe2.0 comes from the "South Bridge" (Z97) chip. | |
ID: 42771 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So the CPU's 16 PCIe lanes don't divide up evenly between the 3.0 and 2.0 slots? I like your idea if that is the case.No, the PCIe3.0x16 comes directly from the CPU, and divided between the two PCIe3.0 slots if necessary (when there is a GPU in the 2nd PCIe3.0 slot), while the PCIe2.0 comes from the "South Bridge" (Z97) chip. Okay. Thank you for clearing that up. Always learning here. | |
ID: 42772 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The 970 won't arrive for a few days yet. I'll try that configuration with the 980Ti and the 970 occupying the top slot in each machine with a 750Ti in the bottom slot of each. In support of this setup I've been looking at my app_config and trying to figure out how to adjust it such that the top card (980Ti/970) will run two tasks at once and the bottom card (750Ti) only run one task. Is this possible? I'm not seeing any tags on the BOINC Client Config guide that would apply to this. | |
ID: 42775 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The 970 won't arrive for a few days yet. I'll try that configuration with the 980Ti and the 970 occupying the top slot in each machine with a 750Ti in the bottom slot of each. You can't do it, with an app_config.xml file. I was in a similar situation to you a while back, where I had 3 GPUs, but only 1 beefy GPU could support 2-task-per-GPU. I had to just run 1-task-per-GPU, across the 3 GPUs, until I upgraded the GPUs again. You *MIGHT* be able to do something strange, like setup GPU Exclusions and an app_info.xml file such that the beefy GPU runs one app at 2-tasks-per-GPU, while the non-beefy GPU runs another app at 1-task-per-GPU... but I don't recommend it, for 2 reasons. First, GPUGrid barely has tasks for 1 app, and it's likely a GPU would starve if you limited to a certain app type. Second, work fetch isn't really designed to handle this scenario. The client doesn't ask the host for work from a specific app type. Instead, work fetch treats all the GPUs as "NVIDIA" when fetching work, or deciding if work is needed. Sorry you can't really do what you want. Like I said, I was the same way... until I upgraded my GPUs. | |
ID: 42783 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks, Jacob. I had some of those same thoughts and figured it wouldn't work. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. | |
ID: 42784 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
How does a 970 compare to 2 750Tis on GPUGrid? Here's a great post, that describes GPU Grid performance (column 1), along with performance-per-watt (useful for those conserving electricity): https://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=1150&nowrap=true#41294 | |
ID: 42786 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
In support of this setup I've been looking at my app_config and trying to figure out how to adjust it such that the top card (980Ti/970) will run two tasks at once and the bottom card (750Ti) only run one task. Is this possible? I'm not seeing any tags on the BOINC Client Config guide that would apply to this.I can imagine only one way to achieve this: to install two separate BOINC managers in separate program & data folders, then set up the 1st to run two workunits on the GPUs and exclude the lesser GPU; then set up the 2nd to exclude the bigger GPU. I've never done it, but theoretically it could work. | |
ID: 42787 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
In support of this setup I've been looking at my app_config and trying to figure out how to adjust it such that the top card (980Ti/970) will run two tasks at once and the bottom card (750Ti) only run one task. Is this possible? I'm not seeing any tags on the BOINC Client Config guide that would apply to this.I can imagine only one way to achieve this: to install two separate BOINC managers in separate program & data folders, then set up the 1st to run two workunits on the GPUs and exclude the lesser GPU; then set up the 2nd to exclude the bigger GPU. I've never done it, but theoretically it could work. That's another thought I had. Probably more than I really want to deal with. I'll set it up for 1x initially and see how it goes. Thanks, everyone. | |
ID: 42788 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Just an update on this to illustrate the difference between PCIe 2.0 and 3.0 on this project. | |
ID: 43217 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : PCIe 2.0 and GTX 970