Yeah, this makes judging real world performance harder since we seldomly know the real clock speed a GPU is running at.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Don't buy GTX460 for GPU-Grid now, it's simply not efficient enough any more for 24/7 crunching. I'd rather think about replacing the cooler on your current card with some aftermarket design. That will probably also use 3 slots, but be strong & quiet. MrS

Are the GPUGrid apps still only using 2/3 of the GTX 460 shaders, or has that been fixed?

Edit: Must be fixed since the GPU utilization is showing as 95% with 6 CPU WUs running (on an X6). Big improvement.

Are the GPUGrid apps still only using 2/3 of the GTX 460 shaders, or has that been fixed?

Edit: Must be fixed since the GPU utilization is showing as 95% with 6 CPU WUs running (on an X6). Big improvement.

It can't be fixed by GPUGrid, because it comes from the chip's superscalar architecture (= there are 50% more shaders than shader feeding units on a CC2.1 and CC3.0 chip). The GPU utilization is not equivalent of shader utilization, most likely it is showing the utilization of the shader feeding units. The good news is that you can overclock the shaders (of a CC2.1 card) more, because the power consumption inflicted by the GPUGrid client on the whole shader array is less than the maximum.

Zoltan is right. Although it could theoretically be fixed by some funny re-writing of the code, the result would likely be slower overall.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Another mobile GK for comparsion:
2.7.2013 1:14:29 | | CUDA: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 560M (driver version 320.49, CUDA version 5.50, compute capability 2.1, 1536MB, 1244MB available, 625 GFLOPS peak)

Firstly note that this set of data is from WUprop and has flaws, but it at least doesn't appear to include erroneous data. It won't be as good as accurate reports from crunchers of their specific cards running apps on similar setups.

Long runs on GeForce 600 series GPU's, Windows app

GPU Computation time (minutes) (min - max) CPU usage (min-max)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 10,256.3 (7,321.1-13,191.4) 1.8% (1.3%-2.3%)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 4,672.1 (4,672.1-4,672.1) 9.7% (9.7%-9.7%)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 2,032.9 (1,713.9-2,839.3) 94.8% (17.1%-99.8%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 1,725.0 (1,622.7-2,047.0) 99.2% (98.6%-99.6%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650Ti 1,237.7 (518.5-1,914.5) 91.7% (58.8%-99.9%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 784.6 (352.9-1,045.9) 97.3% (47.6%-100.3%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660Ti 659.5 (312.9-1,348.0) 99.2% (83.0%-102.4%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 593.9 (455.3-992.8) 98.6% (90.7%-100.2%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 595.8 (471.4-899.8) 98.4% (80.3%-101.2%)

Long runs on GeForce 500 series cards Windows app

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550Ti 1,933.7 (1,510.4-2,610.4) 14.8% (3.0%-23.3%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 1,253.3 (1,090.0-1,820.8) 20.3% (6.0%-27.3%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560Ti 1,001.7 (710.2-2,011.6) 18.4% (6.4%-37.1%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 870.6 (691.5-1,743.7) 20.2% (5.5%-36.3%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 711.0 (588.8-1,087.6) 18.8% (9.2%-32.5%)

As this is 'Windows' it includes ~25% XP systems and 75% Vista+W7+W8
The GT 610 and 630 are Fermi, the rest of the 600's are GK.


Long runs on GeForce 500 series GPU's, Linux app

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 797.9 (712.8-966.7) 15.7% (8.5%-18.8%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 351.3 (351.3-351.3) 5.3% (5.3%-5.3%)

Long runs on GeForce 600 series GPU's, Linux app

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650Ti 1106.2 (986.9-1324.4) 97.7% (94.5%-98.5%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650TiBOOST 774.6 (769.2-780.5) 99.1% (98.8%-99.4%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 718.5 (651.3-874.1) 89.6% (86.1%-95.1%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660Ti 587.1 (541.2-717.2) 94.9% (90.9%-99.6%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 533.9 (494.6-639.1) 99.4% (98.7%-99.7%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 471.9 (450.1-562.4) 98.7% (97.2%-99.5%)

This data will include different types of work from the Long queue. It's probably skewed by the misreporting of GPU's (when there are two GPU's in a system only one is reported but it's reported twice).

---

FAQ's

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

Hi, Good work, very interesting, congratulations.

I help in changing GPUs I'm preparing, in view of the results (if I played well) on Linux GTX 580 are the best by a landslide and the best platform for Linux computers. Greetings.

Going by the results below, on Linux a GTX660 is almost as fast as a GTX580 (~3% short), but costs less to buy and costs less to run,

http://www.gpugrid.net/hosts_user.php?sort=expavg_credit&rev=0&show_all=0&userid=25378

GTX580 v GTX660

GTX580:
I92R6-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_2-0-41-RND9338_0 4565518 4 Jul 2013 | 4:35:14 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 19:59:48 UTC Completed and validated 38,258.75 2,732.66 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)
I57R9-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_2-0-41-RND6129_0 4565155 3 Jul 2013 | 21:57:40 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 13:01:29 UTC Completed and validated 37,291.86 2,869.94 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)
I20R7-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_1-7-41-RND9392_0 4564152 3 Jul 2013 | 11:34:28 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 2:37:22 UTC Completed and validated 37,936.45 2,874.42 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)

GTX660:
I63R3-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_2-0-41-RND7987_0 4565212 4 Jul 2013 | 3:43:54 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 19:38:15 UTC Completed and validated 39,537.31 39,500.98 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)
I38R7-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_2-0-41-RND4496_0 4564951 3 Jul 2013 | 23:05:39 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 15:02:38 UTC Completed and validated 39,331.53 39,307.00 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)
I21R5-NATHAN_KIDKIXc22_2-0-41-RND8033_0 4564771 3 Jul 2013 | 16:44:48 UTC 4 Jul 2013 | 8:38:10 UTC Completed and validated 39,480.50 39,443.40 138,300.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42)


The WUProp results below are probably misleading (contain some oddities),
Long runs on GeForce 500 series GPU's, Linux app

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 797.9 (712.8-966.7) 15.7% (8.5%-18.8%)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 351.3 (351.3-351.3) 5.3% (5.3%-5.3%)

---

FAQ's

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

Hello: I'm sorry but I do not understand these latest data, I think are changed. those of the GTX 580 does not add up.

On the other hand never considered the more CPU GTX600 series to almost zero frenta the GTX500.


Edit: Now I see that if you add up, thanks

Yeah, I accidentally listed results from a 650TiBoost on Linux (16% slower) that I was using to check against just in case there was any issue with the results below (as two cards were in use).

I've cleared the list up now, thanks.

---

FAQ's

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

Hello: I want to insist on high consumption of CPU (90-100%) of the GTX600 cards against 5-30% CPU of the GTX500.

Wear and secure energy consumption that cancel out the advantage of energy efficiency of the 600 series.

You are certainly correct that a GK600 card will use 1 CPU core/thread while a GF500 will only use ~15% of a CPU core/thread, however the power difference does not cancel itself out.
I've measured this and GF400 and GF500 cards use ~75% of their TDP at GPUGrid while the GK600 cards use ~90%.
So, a GTX580 will use ~244*.75W=183W and a GTX660 will use 140*.9W=126W. The difference is 57W. The difference of my i7-3770K using 6 CPU threads or 7 CPU threads is ~4W to 7W (dependent on the app). So by running a GTX660 you save at least 50W. I'm not belittling the loss of a CPU thread (though it's actually 85% of a thread and perhaps mostly polling) as I know it can be used to crunch CPU projects, however on multicore processors the more of the CPU you use the less of an increase in CPU performance you get (diminished returns).

---

FAQ's

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

SK is right here: especially with HT you're not loosing a full core. Depending on the project that additional logical would only have increased CPU throughput by 15 - 30% of a physical core. Hence the low additional power used.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

So, for potential buyers seeking advice, is it already possible to make a side by side comparison between GK104's and GK110's in points per watt?.

A Titan is roughly 50% faster than a GTX680.

GTX680 has a TDP of 195W and the Titan's TDP is 250W. That said you would really need people measuring their power usage and posting it along with run times and clocks.

---

FAQ's

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

A Titan is roughly 50% faster than a GTX680.

GTX680 has a TDP of 195W and the Titan's TDP is 250W. That said you would really need people measuring their power usage and posting it along with run times and clocks.

A GTX690 has a TDP of 300W and it provides around 100% more work than a GTX680. So it would have better point per watt ratio than a Titan, am I correct?

A GTX690 does around 80% more work than a GTX680; each GTX690 core is about 90% as fast as a GTX680.
Assuming it used 300W (or an equal proportion of it compared to other KG104's and the KG110 GPU's) and a GTXTitan used 250W then it's reasonably accurate to say that a GTX690 is overall equally as efficient as a Titan (for crunching for here in terms of performance per Watt).

GTX680 - 100% for 195W (0.53)
Titan - 150% for 250W (0.60)
GTX690 - 180% for 300W (0.60)

If a GTX680 used 195W to do a certain amount of crunching, the Titan or the GTX690 would do the same amount of work for 167W.

Both the Titan and the GTX680 are about 12% more efficient than the GTX680.

To bring in the purchase factor,
In the UK a GTX690 costs the same as a Titan (~£770), but would do 20% more work. A GTX780 on the other hand costs ~£500, but might bring around 90% the performance of the Titan (would need someone to confirm this).

---

FAQ's

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

I've measured our 4xTitan E5 systems at about 1000W (4.5A rms @ 220Vac) under ACEMD load. (GPUs generally don't hit max power when running ACEMD).

MJH

The GK104 GPU's tend to operate at around 90% of their TDP, but there is variation; my GTX660 is presently at 97% TDP and my GTX660Ti is at 88% (both running NOELIA Beta's).

Taking an estimated 100W off for the other components (CPU, motherboard, HDD and RAM) that's 900W at the wall. So with a 90% PSU the GPU's are drawing just over 200W. So more like 80% of their TDP. That's definately a bit less than the GK104's and closer to what the Firmi's use ~75% TDP.

Anyway, the benefit's of the Titan are FP64, faster single GPU performance and better cooling (as in, you could realistically use 4 in the one system).

---

FAQ's

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

On my rigs, 2 GTX680's with an FX-8350 with all 8 cores at 100% pulls 630 watts water cooled. When they were on air, they were using 640 watts.

When I'm using only 2 cores to feed the GPU's the computer used 521 on water and 530 watts on air

On my rigs, 2 GTX680's with an FX-8350 with all 8 cores at 100% pulls 630 watts water cooled. When they were on air, they were using 640 watts.

When I'm using only 2 cores to feed the GPU's the computer used 521 on water and 530 watts on air

That seems like a lot of power. Is it the 680s or the 8350 that makes it that high. Just curious.