Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Low power GPUs performance comparative

Author Message
Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52615 - Posted: 11 Sep 2019 | 17:33:53 UTC

I live in Canary Islands.
Nice weather to go to beach everyday along the year.
But it is not so nice to high power electronic devices.
I´ve set a particular power boundary at 120 Watts for graphics cards I purchase, in order them to process most of the time without risk of spontaneous ignition.
No plans for air conditioning so far.

Several days ago, Toni released a limited amount of ACEMD3 test WUs.
Thank you very much, Toni. Linux users were waiting for this!
I realized that ACEMD3 test WUs might be an objective mean of testing and compare my currently working GPUs between them.
I´ve been lucky to catch at least one TONI_TESTDHFR206b WU for every GPU I have currently in production under 64 bits Linux OS, SWAN_SYNC enabled.
And here is a table comparing their performance.



Where:
GPU: Graphics card type. All of them are factory overclocked models.
Series: Graphics card micro-architecture.
Power: Card maximum rated power, as indicated by nvidia-smi command, in Watts.
Temp.: Maximum temperature reached while processing WU, as indicated by Psensor application, in ºC, at a room temperature of 26 ºC.
Time: Execution time for each WU, in seconds.
R.P. GTX: Relative performance, comparing execution time between each graphics card and the others.

Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 674
Credit: 3,247,194,909
RAC: 762,670
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52617 - Posted: 11 Sep 2019 | 18:25:53 UTC

ServicEnginIC, thanks for that! Good work :-)

rod4x4
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 14
Posts: 152
Credit: 1,766,531,870
RAC: 1,092,453
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52620 - Posted: 12 Sep 2019 | 0:02:21 UTC - in response to Message 52615.
Last modified: 12 Sep 2019 | 0:36:33 UTC

Nice work!
Very informative.
I guess you don't spend much time at the beach with all this GPUgrid testing!!

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52633 - Posted: 17 Sep 2019 | 22:19:00 UTC

I guess you don't spend much time at the beach with all this GPUgrid testing!!

+1 ;-)

Theese tests confirmed me what I previously suspected:
GPUGrid is the most power exigent Project I currently process.
Really GPUGrid tasks do squeeze GPU's power till its maximum!
Here is nvidia-smi information for my most powerful card while executing one TONI_TESTDHFR206b WU (120W of 120W used):



And here are Psensor curves for the same card from GPU resting to executing one TONI_TESTDHFR206b WU:

rod4x4
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 14
Posts: 152
Credit: 1,766,531,870
RAC: 1,092,453
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52634 - Posted: 18 Sep 2019 | 0:00:10 UTC - in response to Message 52633.

GPUGrid is the most power exigent Project I currently process.

Agreed.

here are Psensor curves for the same card

Always interesting to see how other volunteers run their systems!
What I found interesting from your Psensor chart:
- GPU running warm at 80 degrees.
- CPU running cool at 51 degrees (100% utilization reported)
- Chassis fan running at 3600rpm. (do you need ear protection from the noise?)

As a comparison, my GTX 1060 GPU on Win10 processes a89-TONI_TESTDHFR206b-23-30-RND6008_0 task in 3940 seconds. Your gtx 1660 ti is completing test tasks quicker at around the 1830 second mark.
The Turing cards (on Linux) are a nice improvement in performance!

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 918
Credit: 4,301,782
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 52636 - Posted: 18 Sep 2019 | 10:46:02 UTC - in response to Message 52634.
Last modified: 18 Sep 2019 | 10:47:12 UTC

Thanks for the data.

There may be a problem with the WINDOWS Cuda 10.1 app - it's slower than it should be. We are working on it.

SWAN_SYNC is ignored in acemd3.

rod4x4
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 14
Posts: 152
Credit: 1,766,531,870
RAC: 1,092,453
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52639 - Posted: 18 Sep 2019 | 11:46:20 UTC - in response to Message 52636.


There may be a problem with the WINDOWS Cuda 10.1 app - it's slower than it should be. We are working on it.

SWAN_SYNC is ignored in acemd3.

Thanks Toni. Good to know.

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52640 - Posted: 18 Sep 2019 | 11:50:14 UTC

- CPU running cool at 51 degrees (100% utilization reported)

CPU for this system is a low power version Q9550S, with high performance CPU cooler Arctic Freezer 13.
And several degrees in CPU temperature are rised by radiated heat coming from GPU...

- GPU running warm at 80 degrees.

I had to work very hard to maintain GPU temperature below 80's at full load for this particular graphics card.
But perhaps it is matter for other thread...
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4988

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52658 - Posted: 19 Sep 2019 | 7:48:11 UTC

For comparison:
Here is the same GTX1660TI card mentioned below, now running Einstein@Home WUs due to Toni's current requirement for not to run acemd3 test WUs in Linux systems for better testing in Windows ones.





Spikes in temperature graph are the transition between two consecutive E@H WUs.
Comparing data, GPU power usage drops from 120W to 83W, and accordingly temperature from peak 80ºC to 69ºC.
Toni, this speaks very well about your acemd3 Linux code optimization for getting from GPU its maximum.
Now I'm crossing fingers for your success with Windows one!

mmonnin
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 16
Posts: 278
Credit: 740,248,835
RAC: 1,639,377
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
wat
Message 52685 - Posted: 21 Sep 2019 | 1:49:31 UTC

E@H is most mining like BOINC project I've seen in that it responds better from memory OC than core OC. Try a math project that can easily run parallel calculations to push GPU temps.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 2129
Credit: 15,687,076,100
RAC: 6,682,233
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52707 - Posted: 23 Sep 2019 | 21:57:59 UTC - in response to Message 52636.

SWAN_SYNC is ignored in acemd3.
Well, the CPU time equals the Run time, so could you elaborate this?
Could someone without SWAN_SYNC check their CPU time and Run time for ACEMD3 tasks please?

mmonnin
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 16
Posts: 278
Credit: 740,248,835
RAC: 1,639,377
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
wat
Message 52710 - Posted: 24 Sep 2019 | 0:10:31 UTC - in response to Message 52707.
Last modified: 24 Sep 2019 | 0:10:42 UTC

SWAN_SYNC is ignored in acemd3.
Well, the CPU time equals the Run time, so could you elaborate this?
Could someone without SWAN_SYNC check their CPU time and Run time for ACEMD3 tasks please?


CPU Time = Run time with the new app.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=21402171

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52974 - Posted: 11 Nov 2019 | 23:24:47 UTC

I still can squeeze a bit more the data from my tests:
I'll calculate energy consumed by every of my tested graphics cards, and order them in a new table.



In this table, increasing positions are more energy efficient cards.
As can be seen, GTX 1660 Ti coincides to be the most efficient (the less energy consumed for the same kind of task) and the most powerful (the less execution time)
And I take note for myself: For example, it would be a self-amortize idea to change GTX 950 graphics card by a GTX 1650 ASAP.
GTX 1650 has consumed less than half the energy than GTX 950 to finish the same kind of task!
Something to think about...

rod4x4
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 14
Posts: 152
Credit: 1,766,531,870
RAC: 1,092,453
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52975 - Posted: 12 Nov 2019 | 1:27:26 UTC - in response to Message 52974.

Nice stats.
The Turing GPUs are an exciting GPU for efficiency and power. (If only we could get some work for them....)
I will be buying the GTX1650 SUPER (November 22nd release) to replace my Maxwell cards, once GPUgrid starts releasing ACEMD3.

Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 674
Credit: 3,247,194,909
RAC: 762,670
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52976 - Posted: 12 Nov 2019 | 6:05:40 UTC - in response to Message 52975.

(If only we could get some work for them....)

if the GPUGRID people send out some work at all in the near future ...
the developement within the past weeks unfortunately was a steadily decreasing number of available tasks :-)

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 52980 - Posted: 14 Nov 2019 | 15:11:14 UTC

How do we calculate energy consumed by GPU to process a certain Work Unit?
It is easy.
I entered my GPUGrid results page.
At current date:



Taking the execution time for my last processed Task: 59.720,55 seconds
It was processed in a GTX 1050 Ti graphics card.
Taking rated TDP (Thermal Design Power) for this GPU: 75 Watts
GPUGrid WUs are highly power demanding, and usually are able to lead GPU to its rated TDP consistently (in fact, even more if GPU is overclocked).
Therefore, aproximate energy consumed to process a WU can be calculated using this formula:
Energy (Watts x hour, Wh) = Rated GPU TDP (Watts) x WU execution time (seconds) / 3.600 (Seconds / hour)

In my example WU: 75 x 59.720,55 / 3.600 = 1.244,18 Wh (/ 1.000 = 1,24418 kWh)

the developement within the past weeks unfortunately was a steadily decreasing number of available tasks :-)

This situation remains currently the same.
Who knows, may be a change of cycle is in progress ????

Piri1974
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 18
Posts: 32
Credit: 4,377,290
RAC: 5,000
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
wat
Message 53213 - Posted: 29 Nov 2019 | 20:44:22 UTC
Last modified: 29 Nov 2019 | 21:44:01 UTC

Hello ServicEnginIC;

As you are interested in lower end graphics cards, here is a post which I earlier posted in another post.
I wanted to post them here but I accidentally posted them in another post about more powerful GPUs.

DO NOT buy the GPUs mentioned below anymore for GPUGRID:
As the work units of GPUGRID will become bigger in the future, these low-end cards will not be able to meet the 5-day deadline anymore.
So I give you this information just as information, NOT as buying advice.


Here is a copy/paste.
You may use these data to add them into your list if you like:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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



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

Piri1974
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 18
Posts: 32
Credit: 4,377,290
RAC: 5,000
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
wat
Message 53214 - Posted: 29 Nov 2019 | 21:20:02 UTC - in response to Message 53213.
Last modified: 29 Nov 2019 | 22:09:43 UTC

And by the way, as you mentioned that you live in the Canary Islands and prefer low-power devices, here is some more info about my GPUs:

- The GT710 has a TDP of only 19 Watts for the DDR3 version, the DDR5 version consumes a little more.
- The GT730 has a TDP of 38 Watts for the DDR5 version, the DDR3 version consumes a little less.
- The GT1030 has a TDP of 30 Watts.
- The GTX745 has a TDP of 55 Watts.

So they are all low-power devices.
My preferred website to find info on GPUs is Techpowerup.
Just Google "GT710 Techpowerup" for example and you will find it.

I would not recommend buying these GPUs anymore unless for a PC with low requirement-applications like an office pc, an htpc or maybe for some light gaming with older games.

For example, the slowest of my cards, the GT710, can perfectly run an old but beautiful game called "Bioshock". I run that game on it in an old PC with a Core2Duo cpu, just 2Gb of RAM and Windows 10. It runs perfectly fluid.

But anyway, I would not recommend buying the GT710 or GT730 anymore unless you need their very low consumption.
The GT1030 is the fastest of them all.
The GTX745 is just a little slower than the GT1030, but it was sold to OEMs only. But like me, you can find it new or second hand on the internet. The Fujitsu model which I have even has a nice blower-style fan which blows the hot air directly outside the pc. There is both a normal model and a low-profile model.
You can find some pictures of it here:
https://picclick.fr/Fujitsu-GPU-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-745-2GB-FH-264493447418.html

If low-power is important to you, I can recommend using some of AMDs APUs with integrated video chips.
I have for example a rather old APU called AMD A8-9600.
Believe it or not, I currently play the latest Star Wars game "Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order" on this old A8-9600. :-) (in 720p resolution)
But as these APUs have Radeon GPUs, you cannot use them for CUDA projects like GPUGRID. For OpenCl projects like Milkyway, you can use them.
And my A8-9600 runs circles around my GT1030 in Milkyway... strange but true. It's about 5 times faster than my GT1030... yes, 5 TIMES faster:
My GT1030 completes a Milkyway work unit in about 15 minutes, the A8-9600 does it in about 3 minutes.
That means that in Milkyway, the A8-9600 is probably even faster than a GTX1050.
That is what I call fantastic performance per Watt or per Dollar. :-)

Cheers from Cold Brussels ;-)
Carl

Profile ServicEnginIC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 10
Posts: 140
Credit: 1,358,697,160
RAC: 1,331,939
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 53367 - Posted: 16 Dec 2019 | 22:38:44 UTC - in response to Message 53214.

Thank you very much for your appreciations, Carl.
I've read them twice to the end.
Many points to comment:

My preferred website to find info on GPUs is Techpowerup.

I didn't know about Techpowerup site. They have an enormous database with GPU data and very exhaustive specifications. I like it, and take note.

But anyway, I would not recommend buying the GT710 or GT730 anymore unless you need their very low consumption.

I find theese both models perfect for office computers.
Specially fanless models, that offer a silent and smooth working for office applications, joining their low power consumption.
But I agree that their performance is rather scarce to process at GPUGrid.
I've made a kind request for Performance tab to be rebuilt
At the end of this tab there was a graph named GPU performance ranking (based on long WU return time)
Currently this graph is blank.
When it worked, it showed a very useful GPUs classification according to their respective performances at processing GPUGrid tasks.
Just GT 1030 sometimes appeared at far right (less performance) in the graph, and other times appeared as a legend out of the graph.
GTX 750 Ti always appeared borderline at this graph, and GTX 750 did not.
I always considered it as a kind invitation for not to use "Out of graph" GPUs...

The GTX745 is just a little slower than the GT1030, but it was sold to OEMs only

That was the first time I heard about GTX 745 GPU.
I thought: a mistake?
But then I searched for "GTX 745 Techpowerup"... and it appeared as an OEM GPU! Nice :-)

Pop Piasa
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Aug 19
Posts: 31
Credit: 61,883,525
RAC: 848,444
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
wat
Message 53948 - Posted: 19 Mar 2020 | 1:43:43 UTC

Thanks very much for the info.
I recently installed a couple of new Dell/Alienware GTX 1650 4GB cards and they are very productive. They run 60-65 deg.C and around 1850 MHz with a steady 4001 MHz DDR5 speed. I haven't tried overclocking as they appear to be running faster than NVidia advertises already.
At US$135 apiece (Ebay) and slot-powered, I'm pleased.

Post to thread

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Low power GPUs performance comparative