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

Thanks again,

Corrected 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 GTS 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS
GeForce 9800 GX2 512MB, est. 138 GFLOPS

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)

---

FAQ's

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

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)

The GTX275 is coming up as 120 Gflops (stock speed) on my one machine that has it. What is the number in brackets after the Gflops?

---

BOINC blog

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

Actually a factor of 1.41 or 141% or +41%, which ever you prefer. It makes the BOINC-GFlop ratings comparable between GT200 and older cards.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Just for the notes:
Nforce 700-Series onboard-graphics:

CUDA 1.1 beacuse of onboard gforce8200/8300 , but with 3 GFlops and i think 16 SPs an extreme NO-GO for gpugrid. But it works well on seti.

=Lupus=

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

Boinc 6.6.36 for windows_x86_64:
CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18618, compute capability 1.3, 896BM, est/ 104GFLOPS)

CUDA-Z 0.5.95:
32-bit Integer 115236 Miop/s

They now seem a bit disprate, but 115 is perhaps more realistic than Boincs estimate!

---

FAQ's

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

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)


Is that correct that the 280 is (slightly) faster than the 285? From the board specs, the 285 should be a bit faster....

is ACEMD bandwidth bound? it seems like it should be getting closer to peak flops or does gpugrid use double precision? if so these numbers are impressive.

Not sure about the Tesla C1060 numbers above, AFAIK all C1060s have 4096MB of GDDR3.

My C1060s report (standard from the factory), no OC as :

CUDA device: Tesla C1060 (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.3, 4096MB, est. 111GFLOPS)

"compute capability 1.3" is the core architecture version.

GeForce GTX 250 1024MB, est. 84GFLOPS

It's a GTS-250 not a GTX-250.

But my numbers match up -->

MSI GTS-250, 185.18.36 driver, Linux 2.6.28-15 64b @ default clocks(760/1150)

Wed 30 Sep 2009 11:43:46 AM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTS 250 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2020, compute capability 1.1, 511MB, est. 84GFLOPS)


XFX sp216 GTX-260, 190.36 driver, Linux 2.6.28-15 64b @ default clocks(576/999)

Thu 01 Oct 2009 07:55:04 PM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 895MB, est. 96GFLOPS)

Same card with GPU @ 650 (linked shaders) mem @ 1100

Thu 01 Oct 2009 08:08:46 PM CDT NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 0, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.3, 895MB, est. 108GFLOPS)

---

- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

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.

@SKGiven: this is such a great piece of work you've put up here. It should be a sticky thread because it's so informative. I confirmed that you had good data by comparing your numbers to my 9800 GTX+ and 9800 GT...dead-nuts-on.

So I did some research on NVIDIA's site, EVGA's site, eBay, and e-comm vendors. My conclusion: if you have double width room in your rig, the GTX 275 is the bang-for-the-buck champ, by virtue of being virtually the same performance as the 280 or 285, but can be had for $200 (EVGA GTX 275 after rebate from Microcenter.com), plus upgrading the PSU if necessary ($59 after rebate for a Corsair 550W from newegg.com). $260 bucks for ~170 Gflops......wow! (To do the same with the GTX 295 would be over $600... for +67% performance, you'd pay +130%.)

Forget putting any money or KWh running extra CPUs of any sort....the game is to find places to stuff these boards into PCs of family and friends. "Here, let me upgrade your graphics card...."

@SKGiven, great work. I've had some people asking me about what they want to buy, this may help them make a decision.

Here's a few to confirm your readings, native settings

I have 4 computers with one 8800GT each. Two at the moment have an older client and don't report this info.

GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS)
GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 60GFLOPS)

I have an additional one that is factory overclocked. It runs just as kool as the others, XFX did a good job on building these. It has a higher reading because of the overclocking. Throwing this in just for comparison.

GeForce 8800 GT (driver version 19038, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 65GFLOPS)

One thing about the XFX 8800GT is they are single slot width boards. I choose them for two reasons, I needed single width slot boards and they come with a double lifetime warranty. They also only take one six pin power connector.

One thing to note about upgrading, be sure your power supply has enough power and you have the required power connector(s) for these cards. Also check if you have room for a double wide card or not. Most manufacturers will list these requirements on thier website under the product description or technical specs.

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,

@SKG: just put in the GTX 275 (stock,892 MB, not overclocked). Your number is 127 reported (x1.41 for actual GFlops.) BOINC reported 125 to me...so it's another good data point I can vouch for, in addition to the 9800 GTX+ and the 9800 GT.

Yay! Another 170+ GFlops for GPUGrid. Now I have to find a home for the 9800 GTX +. Have a couple of relatives who are already letting me run BOINC on their desktops. Just need to pick up another Corsair 550 and let them let one of them let me do a little quick surgery. My 3-card total will be 310+ GFlops.

Can't wait to see what kind of numbers the 300 series will turn in...and what it will do to the prices of the GTX 295.

Keep it going, SKG! It's all 'cause of this thread, man!

And to further underscore the validity of some of this data:

Now that my new GTX 275 has crunched and reported it's first GPUGrid work unit, I went into my account history to compare. I was able to find 3 work units of identical size (3977 credits claimed/5369 awarded) that had been done by my 3 different boards. Took run time (sec)/3600= hours each. These numbers, by the way, are in line with what I've observed.

To wit:

GTX 275: 7.25 hours (173 Gflops, per this thread)

9800 GTX+ 14.5 hours (84 Gflops)

9800 GT 20.38 hours (60 Gflops)

Any way that you normalize these 3, you'll find that the results are quite linear. Bottom line: double your Gflop rating, double your work. Sounds obvious, I know, but I thought I'd throw some empirical data out here to further validate SKGiven's table. I was not sure that the 1.41 factor for compute capability 1.3 vs 1.1 would hold true, but it seems to.