Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : 650, 660, 660Ti, 670, 680, 690 cost comparison incl. computer (CPU, PSU, Motherboard etc).

Author Message
ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 26991 - Posted: 24 Sep 2012 | 20:30:55 UTC
Last modified: 24 Sep 2012 | 20:41:46 UTC

This is a comparison of everything from single, dual, triple and quadruple 650 to quadruple 690. I have done calculations with Norwegian Kroners, but the ratios should carry over to dollars and pounds and euros with acceptable margin of error. To anyone whom already have computers to put GPUs into, this isn't much help, but to everyone who want to buy a computer or more just for the purpose of trying to live longer (speeding up medical research), this will hopefully be helpful.

The trend is that a dual/triple/quadruple setup of GTX 690 is cheaper, though dual/triple/quadruple 660Ti isn't much more expensive. Not taking electricity into account, as any ovens on temperature control will automatically turn themselves off more often if computers heat up the rooms more. Anyone in cold places, like Norway, will only require cooling a few days every year, so northern BOINCers can run 24/365 with virtually no change to electricity bill.

Here are the charts, they work best if you copy and paste it into notepad (it should line most of it neatly):

gpu #Cores mhz price NOK per core NOK per mhz/core PC PC price Prce incl GPUs NOK /core NOK/core/mhz incl PC
650 384 1058 895 2.330729166666667 0.0022029576244486 1A 3335 4230 11.01562500000000 0.0104117438563327
2x650 768 1058 1790 2.330729166666667 0.0022029576244486 2A 3935 5725 7.454427083333333 0.0070457722904852
3x650 1152 1058 2685 2.330729166666667 0.0022029576244486 3A 5895 8580 7.447916666666667 0.0070396187775677
4x650 1536 1058 3580 2.330729166666667 0.0022029576244486 4A 6800 10380 6.757812500000000 0.0063873464083176
660 960 993 1799 1.873958333333333 0.0018871685129238 1A 3335 5134 5.347916666666667 0.0053856159785163
2x660 1920 993 3598 1.873958333333333 0.0018871685129238 2B 4226 7824 4.075000000000000 0.004103726082578
3x660 2880 993 5397 1.873958333333333 0.0018871685129238 3C 6191 11588 4.023611111111111 0.0040519749356607
4x660 3840 993 7196 1.873958333333333 0.0018871685129238 4D 7798 14994 3.904687500000000 0.0039322129909366
660ti 1344 915 2299 1.710565476190476 0.0018694704657819 1A 3335 5634 4.191964285714286 0.0045813817330211
2x660ti 2688 915 4598 1.710565476190476 0.0018694704657819 2B 4226 8824 3.282738095238095 0.003587691907364
3x660ti 4032 915 6897 1.710565476190476 0.0018694704657819 3D 6294 13191 3.271577380952381 0.0035754944054124
4x660ti 5376 915 9196 1.710565476190476 0.0018694704657819 4E 8845 18041 3.355840773809524 0.003667585545147
670 1344 980 3095 2.302827380952381 0.0023498238581147 1A 3335 6430 4.784226190476190 0.0048818634596696
2x670 2688 980 6190 2.302827380952381 0.0023498238581147 2C 4231 10421 3.876860119047619 0.0039559797133139
3x670 4032 980 9285 2.302827380952381 0.0023498238581147 3E 7341 16626 4.123511904761905 0.0042076652089407
4x670 5376 980 12380 2.302827380952381 0.0023498238581147 4F 9145 21525 4.003906250000000 0.004085618622449
680 1536 1006 3595 2.340494791666667 0.0023265355781975 1B 3626 7221 4.701171875000000 0.0046731330765408
2x680 3072 1006 7190 2.340494791666667 0.0023265355781975 2C 4231 11421 3.717773437500000 0.0036955998384692
3x680 4608 1006 10785 2.340494791666667 0.0023265355781975 3E 7341 18126 3.933593750000000 0.0039101329522863
4x680 6144 1006 14380 2.340494791666667 0.0023265355781975 4G 9798 24178 3.935221354166667 0.0039117508490722
690 3072 915 7195 2.342122395833333 0.0025596966074681 1B 3626 10821 3.522460937500000 0.0038496840846995
2x690 6144 915 14390 2.342122395833333 0.0025596966074681 2D 4334 18724 3.047526041666667 0.0033306295537341
3x690 9216 915 21585 2.342122395833333 0.0025596966074681 3F 7641 29226 3.171223958333333 0.0034658185336976
4x690 12288 915 28780 2.342122395833333 0.0025596966074681 4H 9866 38646 3.145019531250000 0.0034371798155738


Here's the computers, number specifies graphics cards it can take, letter specifies which configuration. Last number is price, sum is on same line as computer designation (So for example, Computer 1A costs 3335 NOK). The numbers themselves aren't important, its the ratios between them that matter. Not all computer configurations were used, but I let them be for causal continuity.

Computer 1A: 3335
XFX 550W 599
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Asus M5A78L-M LX V2 395
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 1B: 3626
XFX 650W 890
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Asus M5A78L-M LX V2 395
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 1C: 3631
XFX 750W 895
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Asus M5A78L-M LX V2 395
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 1D: 3734
XFX 850W 998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Asus M5A78L-M LX V2 395
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2A: 3935
XFX 550W 599
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2B: 4226
XFX 650W 890
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2C: 4231
XFX 750W 895
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2D: 4334
XFX 850W 998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2E: 5381
XFX 1050W 2045
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 2F: 5681
XFX 1250W 2345
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Cooler Master Elite 430 485
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 995
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3A: 5895
XFX 550W 599
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3B: 6186
XFX 650W 890
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3C: 6191
XFX 750W 895
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3D: 6294
XFX 850W 998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3E: 7341
XFX 1050W 2045
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3F: 7641
XFX 1250W 2345
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

Computer 3G: 8294
Silverstone 1500W 2998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-4100 (4x3,6ghz) 869

COmputer 3H: 8504
Silverstone 1500W 2998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS V Formula-Z 2095
AMD FX-6200 (6x3,8ghz) 1079

Computer 4A: 6800
XFX 550W 599
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4B: 7690
XFX 650W 890
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4C: 7695
XFX 750W 895
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4D: 7798
XFX 850W 998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4E: 8845
XFX 1050W 2045
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4F: 9145
XFX 1250W 2345
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4G: 9798
Silverstone 1500W 2998
2x4gb 1600mhz 2x169
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec P280 miditower 1345
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i5-3570(4x3,4ghz) 1589

Computer 4H: 9866
2x XFX 850W 2x998
Corsair 2133MHz 2x4GB 449
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec Dark Fleet DF-85 1398
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i7-2700K 2495

Computer 4i: 10864
3x XFX 850W 3x998
Corsair 2133MHz 2x4GB 449
Corsair SSD 120gb 649
Antec Dark Fleet DF-85 1398
ASUS Maximus V Extreme 2879
Intel i7-2700K 2495


The real victory would be to find a real bargain of a motherboard that can support 4x 690 cards. If a quad pci-e 16x motherboard cost lets say the same as a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 (socket AM3+)(under 995 NOK), a quad 690 ready setup would cost about 30% less (excl graphic cards), making it 7231+28780=36011, divided by cores= 2.930582682291667, divided by mhz= 0.0032028226035974, beating all other configurations for price per core per mhz.

Let me know if you spot calculating errors, I also would really like some more of these types of datasheets with newegg prices and so forth.

PS: I chose XFX PSUs because they have all the power on one rail, so no complicated distribution of load. Not too updated on PSUs so I do not know which others have this feature but XFX.
PPS: I do welcome other configurations, perhaps with cheaper PSUs, other choice of motherboards etc. Perhaps there is a configuration that makes 660Ti better or worse etc.

ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 27001 - Posted: 25 Sep 2012 | 2:05:36 UTC

To make it easier to read, here's a sum up of the data in the first code bit:

Price /core incl. PC and price per core/mhz incl pc and last computer config.
11.01562500000000 0.0104117438563327 650 1A
7.454427083333333 0.0070457722904852 650x2 2A
7.447916666666667 0.0070396187775677 650x3 3A
6.757812500000000 0.0063873464083176 650x4 4A
5.347916666666667 0.0053856159785163 660 1A
4.075000000000000 0.004103726082578 660x2 2B
4.023611111111111 0.0040519749356607 660x3 3C
3.904687500000000 0.0039322129909366 660x4 4D
4.191964285714286 0.0045813817330211 660Ti 1A
3.282738095238095 0.003587691907364 660Tix2 2B
3.271577380952381 0.0035754944054124 660Tix3 3D
3.355840773809524 0.003667585545147 660Tix4 4E
4.784226190476190 0.0048818634596696 670 1A
3.876860119047619 0.0039559797133139 670x2 2C
4.123511904761905 0.0042076652089407 670x3 3E
4.003906250000000 0.004085618622449 670x4 4F
4.701171875000000 0.0046731330765408 680 1B
3.717773437500000 0.0036955998384692 680x2 2C
3.933593750000000 0.0039101329522863 680x3 3E
3.935221354166667 0.0039117508490722 680x4 4G
3.522460937500000 0.0038496840846995 690 1B
3.047526041666667 0.0033306295537341 690x2 2D
3.171223958333333 0.0034658185336976 690x3 3F
3.145019531250000 0.0034371798155738 690x4 4H

(In two first columns, lower is better)

ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 29491 - Posted: 18 Apr 2013 | 0:38:25 UTC

I see there is some on and off discussion of the benefits of single or multiple GPU's, single and dual GPU cards, and other relevant discussions about what hardware to buy.
I think this data is still relevant. It shows multiple GPU's are more financially viable than high-end single GPU's simply because of the GPU to total hardware ratio. The more GPU you have to each PSU, motherboard, CPU, RAM and harddrive, the more value you get for your money. With a strict regime of not spending extra money on CPU, RAM and motherboard, 2-4 GPU's seem the better option, even if you must buy a new motherboard.
I recommend the cheaper 8x, 8x, 8x, 8x, or 16x, 8x, 8x, motherboards, that fit your existing CPU (or cheap triple/quad core CPU, most GPU's don't require more than around 2-2.5ghz per GPU, so dual cores can work for quad GPU's, but then it costs so much 1 dollar extra buys a triple core CPU). And I recommend either 660Ti (cheap buy-in price), or 680 (more long-term work will be done per dollar you spend on it). Remember to get one with 2 or 3 fans on, not the stock 1 fan cooler (MSI Twin Frozr are recommended). triple or quad 690 can work, and is very financially efficient, if you are prepared to spend a lot of time with the software part, but it'll either make so much noise you'll burn it down yourself, or it will catch fire and burn down the building, but it will do so quietly.

I imagine AMD GPU's have roughly the same price range and give the same result.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2688
Credit: 1,172,901,099
RAC: 215,290
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29576 - Posted: 27 Apr 2013 | 11:33:29 UTC - in response to Message 29491.

It shows multiple GPU's are more financially viable than high-end single GPU's simply because of the GPU to total hardware ratio. The more GPU you have to each PSU, motherboard, CPU, RAM and harddrive, the more value you get for your money.

I almost agree. What I would read out of your data:
- higher end single GPUs provide better bang for the buck
- the more GPUs, the more price-efficient

The 2nd point is true for any GPU performance class, since - as you already mentioned - the fixed cost per PC becomes less of an issue the more GPUs you drive from each PC. There should also be power savings in one PC with multiple GPUs versus the same GPUs in individual PCs. Of course, cooling & noise become a serious issue then, which might require water cooling and lead in hotter running GPUs, which increases their power consumption.

An important issue with multi-GPU setups is the PCIe speed and line width. Intuitively you'd want maximum bandwidth for each GPU. However, on Intels mainstream platform "only" 16 PCIe 3 lanes are routed directly to the CPU. Anything more has to pass through the chipset and possibly a PLX PCIe extender chip. The chipset communicates with the CPU over DMI 2.0 at 20 Gbit/s, i.e. approximately 4x PCIe 2 speed. If you buy an expensive board with several real 16x slots the GPUs will be able to communicate faster with each other, which is nice for games, but will all have to share the limited bandwidth to the CPU (which is the only reason we care for PCIe speed running BOINC). AMD should have similar limitations, whereas socket 2011 fares better.. although this gets one into a whole new cost region. And still doesn't provide official PCIe 3 support, as far as I know.

Anyway, thanks for the massive amount of work you'Ve put into this!

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Simba123
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 11
Posts: 147
Credit: 69,970,684
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29580 - Posted: 27 Apr 2013 | 12:44:09 UTC - in response to Message 29576.


I almost agree. What I would read out of your data:
- higher end single GPUs provide better bang for the buck
- the more GPUs, the more price-efficient

The 2nd point is true for any GPU performance class, since - as you already mentioned - the fixed cost per PC becomes less of an issue the more GPUs you drive from each PC. There should also be power savings in one PC with multiple GPUs versus the same GPUs in individual PCs. Of course, cooling & noise become a serious issue then, which might require water cooling and lead in hotter running GPUs, which increases their power consumption.

An important issue with multi-GPU setups is the PCIe speed and line width. Intuitively you'd want maximum bandwidth for each GPU. However, on Intels mainstream platform "only" 16 PCIe 3 lanes are routed directly to the CPU. Anything more has to pass through the chipset and possibly a PLX PCIe extender chip. The chipset communicates with the CPU over DMI 2.0 at 20 Gbit/s, i.e. approximately 4x PCIe 2 speed. If you buy an expensive board with several real 16x slots the GPUs will be able to communicate faster with each other, which is nice for games, but will all have to share the limited bandwidth to the CPU (which is the only reason we care for PCIe speed running BOINC). AMD should have similar limitations, whereas socket 2011 fares better.. although this gets one into a whole new cost region. And still doesn't provide official PCIe 3 support, as far as I know.

Anyway, thanks for the massive amount of work you'Ve put into this!

MrS



In my experience, PCIE speed means very, very little, if anything.
I currently run my cards in a PCIE2 board(Asus P8P-67 Pro), 1 @ x8 (660Ti) and 1 @ x4 (560Ti)
and the runtimes are identical to running them at x16 and x8.
GPUGrid simply does not pass enough data over the Bus to run into a problem.


In fact, we have discussed this before herehttp://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3246

One important thing to remember is that you should never run more than 2 GPUs into a cheap board. Even if there are enough slots for them, you will burn out the board. If you want to run more than 2 GPUs, you need to drop the extra $$$ on getting a board designed to run 3 or 4 GPUs, and they are not cheap.

GPUGRID
Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 11
Posts: 91
Credit: 2,730,095,033
RAC: 131
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29582 - Posted: 27 Apr 2013 | 21:45:25 UTC
Last modified: 27 Apr 2013 | 21:46:38 UTC

4 way GTX 690 won´t work. 2x590+2x690 yes; 3x690+1x680 maybe, with some bios trick (i did once, but heat is prohibitive). Won´t talk about PSU needs.
4x690 is a no way due to lack of mobo resources (mostly irqs, it seems).
Tryed by some SETI folks and myself several times.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2688
Credit: 1,172,901,099
RAC: 215,290
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29591 - Posted: 28 Apr 2013 | 10:36:49 UTC

I know GPU-Grid doesn't need much PCIe bandwdith. however, there are other projects, with POEM being an extreme on the other side: we compared almost similar PCs (i7 Ivy with HT, 4+ GHz, fast DRAM, same OS, drivers etc, almost similar clock speeds on GTX660Ti) and mine running at 16x PCIe 3 was almost twice as fast as his running 16x PCIe 2.

Sure, that's (luckily) an exception.. but since the author commented explicitely on this issue

ronny wrote:
I recommend the cheaper 8x, 8x, 8x, 8x, or 16x, 8x, 8x, motherboards

I thought I'd put those lane number requirements into perspective (i.e. GPU-Grid wouldn't need the bandwidth anyway, whereas other projects wouldn't be able to use them for communication to the CPU).

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: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 116,996
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29593 - Posted: 28 Apr 2013 | 14:04:43 UTC - in response to Message 29591.
Last modified: 28 Apr 2013 | 14:05:15 UTC

The present GPUGrid apps are less reliant on PCIE bandwidth than previous apps, but that might change. Some future research might require an increase in CPU usage and would therefore benefit from additional PCIE bandwidth and CPU speed...
____________
FAQ's

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

Simba123
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 11
Posts: 147
Credit: 69,970,684
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29595 - Posted: 28 Apr 2013 | 16:08:43 UTC

Ah! I thought we were talking strictly about GPUGrid.

That's pretty amazing about POEM needing that much bandwidth.
That has to be one of the few things that can saturate 16 lanes of PCIE2 let alone PCIE3.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2688
Credit: 1,172,901,099
RAC: 215,290
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29597 - Posted: 28 Apr 2013 | 19:53:32 UTC - in response to Message 29595.

Yes, that's seldom. The somewhat official programming advice concerning data transfers over PCIe is: "Data transfers are evil. Don't do it." ;)

Most projects which can make decent use of a GPU get there by avoiding those transfers. POEM needs to run some actual calculations on the CPU, though, as the GPU would be much slower running these. You then need to run several WUs in parallel, a high performance CPU with at least 4 physical cores, decent main memory bandwidth.. and it's then that you're saturating the PCIe bus.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 31025 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013 | 20:34:50 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jun 2013 | 20:52:15 UTC

I am pleased that you appreciate the time I put into it.

I recommended 8x, 8x, 8x, 8x, or 16x, 8x, 8x, motherboards assuming it would be used for GPUgrid only. And my example computers only used AMD motherboards (one or two exceptions I think), where the top-end motherboard at the time had 8x, 8x, 8x, 8x when all four were in use and 16x, 8x, 8x with three in use, and 16x, 16x with two in use. And the top-end motherboard in question was cheap compared with all the rest of the hardware put together.

I have not taken xeon or opteron or the most high-end i7 motherboards into account, but over time they will probably do more work than the cheaper stuff for every dollar put in (with or without power use taken into account). But since hardware has to be updated every X years buying the very top-end stuff will be too expensive, even if the heat from the hardware is used to heat the whole house.

I hear Gigabyte is going to make motherboards where the heat can be transferred off the chip more efficiently, so the heat can be used for heating or even run gas turbines that produce electricity, but that's a couple of years out. I gave them the concept drawings only a few months back.

Edit: I would like to add that buying a high-end PSU so big that you only use as much power as the PSU can deliver most efficiently, is a bigger power-saver than energy efficient light-bulbs. But PSU manufacturers to my knowledge aren't easily distributing this information.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2688
Credit: 1,172,901,099
RAC: 215,290
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 31029 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013 | 21:26:14 UTC - in response to Message 31025.

Edit: I would like to add that buying a high-end PSU so big that you only use as much power as the PSU can deliver most efficiently, is a bigger power-saver than energy efficient light-bulbs. But PSU manufacturers to my knowledge aren't easily distributing this information.

You'll find measured efficiency curves in good reviews. Actually from what I'm seeing efficiency versus load is pretty flat on good modern PSUs, so that you'll only loose ~1% at say 30% or 80% load versus peak efficiency load (still somewhere around 50%). It's going to be tough to recoup the higher price of bigger high-end PSUs due to this efficiency gain.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 31346 - Posted: 8 Jul 2013 | 7:09:47 UTC - in response to Message 31029.
Last modified: 8 Jul 2013 | 7:10:09 UTC

I can agree that the gain is often small, but a high up-front price is better than a high recurring price. I'm not saying its THE right thing to do when it comes to PSU's, but I like to lower recurring fees, because you never know what month you'll need that recurring fee for something else. While it is in a year cheaper to pay 10 dollars and have 10 dollars of annual recurring fees than to pay 20 dollars and have 9 dollars of annual recurring fees, the second one makes more sense to me, since I know I can afford the 20 dollars now, and don't know for sure that I can afford the recurring fee in a year.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2688
Credit: 1,172,901,099
RAC: 215,290
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 31347 - Posted: 8 Jul 2013 | 8:00:20 UTC - in response to Message 31346.

I view it this way: if I couldn't afford 10€ per year instead of 9€ per year, then I really shouldn't put my money into running BOINC at all (or retire the oldest rig / GPU).

What I want to optimize is total cost of ownership. Which in your example would only show a benefit of the "20$ first case" after 10 years. How sure could you be to use a PSU for sustained crunching for 10 years? It could break at some point between 10 years and the warrenty end, there could be natural disasters, robbery.. or new hardware could be available which obsolete this one. If any of these happen, you actually lost money by going for the better stuff. Or energy prices could rise.. but then you could still sell the smaller PSU and upgrade, which might be cheaper and/or better by the time you actually need it. Well, in any way it really depends on the actual numbers.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

ronny
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 17
Credit: 19,131,325
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 31815 - Posted: 4 Aug 2013 | 15:36:52 UTC - in response to Message 31347.

I agree that it depends on the actual numbers. But for me at the time it made sense to go big on the PSU front. My computers heat the majority of the house and are on 99% of the time. The more expensive PSU is almost worth it entirely because of a more expensive and long-lived fan. But a more expensive PSU also helps ensure a more accurate and healthy waveform in the voltages (the DC current is not actually smooth, its converted from an oscillating 50hertz AC current and still keeps the peaks and valleys to some extent). My computers are also on expensive surge protecting hardware with insurance payoff if something goes wrong from the outside.
But I agree, its not for everyone.

I view it this way: if I couldn't afford 10€ per year instead of 9€ per year, then I really shouldn't put my money into running BOINC at all (or retire the oldest rig / GPU).

I'm not suggesting my margins are that tight, but that does not make the argument any less sound. High recurring expenses are not good for liquidity.

John C MacAlister
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 13
Posts: 180
Credit: 144,701,536
RAC: 59
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 32051 - Posted: 18 Aug 2013 | 18:28:44 UTC

Hi, GPUGrid Folks:

How long will I still be able to use my GTX650Ti GPUs on GPUGrid? There appears to be a push to the newer cards....

John

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 348
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 32056 - Posted: 18 Aug 2013 | 21:02:51 UTC - in response to Message 32051.
Last modified: 18 Aug 2013 | 21:03:28 UTC

Hm, that's a hard one, which I don't think anyone can predict/answer you (except maybe Gianni-GDF could give a guess if you want to send him a message). On the short queue definitely for some time. On the long queue I have no idea as from the scientific side pushing the limits is what keeps us in "business". Personally I don't really simulate so I cannot tell you.

John C MacAlister
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 13
Posts: 180
Credit: 144,701,536
RAC: 59
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 32061 - Posted: 19 Aug 2013 | 9:13:20 UTC

Hi, Stefan:

That's OK- as long as I can use them to process short WUs for some time I'm happy.

Thank you,

John

Profile MJH
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 696
Credit: 27,266,655
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 32062 - Posted: 19 Aug 2013 | 10:03:05 UTC - in response to Message 26991.

Thanks, very interesting!

The Asus Z87-WS, P8Z77-WS and P9X79-WS all support 4 690s, I believe. Individually more expensive than your selection but cheaper over several systems.


MJH

juan BFP
Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 11
Posts: 21
Credit: 145,256,218
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 32460 - Posted: 29 Aug 2013 | 14:11:03 UTC
Last modified: 29 Aug 2013 | 14:20:45 UTC

For 3x690 Host or more, use nothing less than a X79 MB you will need the extra lines sooner or latter.

Just and update 4x690 realy does not work for crunching, at least on windows, so the actual limits is 3x690+1x590, or 3x690+xxx where xxx could be any GPU besides the 690 itself, actualy the limitation is only with 4x690, and is not related to the MB capacity itself. Any onther combiantion of 4 GPUs works, even 4x590 for example.

Of course you need to have the PSU and a way to handle the heat problem if you realy want to "play" with this kind of monsters.
____________

Profile MJH
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 696
Credit: 27,266,655
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 32461 - Posted: 29 Aug 2013 | 14:15:53 UTC - in response to Message 32460.

What's wrong with 4x690? Is is a Windows or firmware problem?

MJH

juan BFP
Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 11
Posts: 21
Credit: 145,256,218
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 32462 - Posted: 29 Aug 2013 | 14:28:31 UTC - in response to Message 32461.
Last modified: 29 Aug 2013 | 14:31:31 UTC

What's wrong with 4x690? Is is a Windows or firmware problem?

MJH

When we try the answer from NVidia itself, simply the windows have no resources to control 4x690, i just don´t know what "no resources" means but it´s related to the windows itself. So is possible that confiuration work on other OS, but i never try.

One mate even receive a new BIOS from NVidia to try to bypass the problem, the resoult was he need to send back the GPU to NVidia for repairs, so we all stop to try to make any further tests in so "high expensive" GPus.

All that happening about a year ago, and after that i never hear someone else who try, and realy works, any other mix of 4 GPUs works. I personaly try 4x690 and not work, then i switch to 3x690+590 works perfect, hot as a well but works (with 1x1000+1x1350 PSU), actualy i split the GPU´s on smaller hosts because is more easy to handle the heat since i can´t use watercooling here and have no AC.
____________

Post to thread

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : 650, 660, 660Ti, 670, 680, 690 cost comparison incl. computer (CPU, PSU, Motherboard etc).