I agree, and thanks for pointing that out.
The DDR5 cards performance increased by about 55% with the new application, whereas the DDR3 based cards only increased by about 45%.
When you do all the maths the DDR5 cards work out at being about 15% faster than the DDR3 cards, everything else being equal.

Of course the purchase costs can be different too, so it is worth shopping around within your budget for the correct card. It is also worth noting that some GT220 cards actually cost as much as the lesser GT240 cards, but will certainly not perform anywhere near as well. At the present time the GT240s offer the best value for money, by some way, but even within the GT240 range there are some bargains!

There is a lot of variation with these GT 240 cards:

RAM can be DDR3 or DDR5 - note the 15% performance gain from DDR5 and work out if it is worth the extra cost.

RAM can be anywhere from 512MB up to 2GB (but this makes no difference here)! So dont pay any extra for More RAM!

Shader count is generally 96, but not always! There are a few GT240's that have more (112, I think) - they are harder to find and tend to cost more. If you find one with DDR5 and good clocks, it should outperform a GTS250, and cost a fair bit less, both in terms of the initial purchase cost and especially the running costs (about 65W vs 160W +/- 30W depending on the Manufacturers)!

Clocks - well there are many factory flavours! Obviously the higher the better, but if you are into overclocking, what they have already done is what you cant do.

There is a lot of variation with these GT 240 cards:

Shader count is generally 96, but not always! There are a few GT240's that have more (112, I think) - they are harder to find and tend to cost more. If you find one with DDR5 and good clocks, it should outperform a GTS250, and cost a fair bit less, both in terms of the initial purchase cost and especially the running costs (about 65W vs 160W +/- 30W depending on the Manufacturers)!

I agree that the GT 240 is the best bang for the buck right now. I've seen it as low as $50 AR shipped for the GDDR5 version. The 96 shader GDDR5 version is already faster than the GTS 250 at GPUGRID and as you point out uses less power (the GT 240 GDDR5 uses about 15 watts less running GPUGRID than my 96 shader 9600GSO cards and is considerably faster).

Out of curiosity, where have you seen a 112 shader version? I haven't run across it. Could it be the OEM only GTS 240 that you're thinking of, which is G96 based:

GeForce GTS 240 Reference PCB Schematics Surface
In the weeks to come, NVIDIA will release yet another graphics card based on the G92 graphics processor: the GeForce GTS 240, which bears resemblance with the 8800 GT and 9800 GT. The G92 GPU has near-identical specifications to the said graphics cards, except for that the 55 nm G92b GPU will be used, and with higher reference clock speeds of 675/1674/975 MHz (core/shader/memory). To seat the new GPU, NVIDIA has designed a new reference PCB, the P361 internally called D10P2. The schematic drawings of this has been sourced by VR-Zone.

The P361 PCB covers the basics of accommodating the G92b and eight GDDR3 memory chips connected to the GPU across a 256-bit wide bus. The distinct features of the PCB lie with its VRM area, with a 3+1 phase design. The PCB draws power from a 6-pin PCI-Express power connector. Over to the connectors department, the usual two arrangement of two DVI and one composite is present. There is a single SLI bridge connector for 2-way SLI. With the 55 nm GPU being arguably as cool or cooler than the 65 nm G92 with lower reference clock speeds, one can expect a single slot cooler design to be employed.

Sorry, it was a few weeks ago that I cam accross it. I thought it was a misprint so I looked into it, but I thought it was genuine after researching it. Just have not managed to find an inexpensive one yet.
The only GTS240 I had, did not work - avoid at all cost!!!

You can also safely O.C a GT240 to GPU = 630, Memory (DDR5) 2000. Shader Clock 1580.

For DDR3 the GPU 630, Memory 840, Shader Clock 1580

These figures for clocks are obtained from Nvidias Performance Plugin with ESA and EVGA Precision and readings fron GPU-Z

I did this on Gigabyte cards but can't see why these figure wont work on any 240.

EDIT to add:

Not seeing the percentage increase you're talking mine about 30% but I am running Windows 7 x64 on all my machines.

These aren't massive push them to the edge OC's they are small but stable.

---

Radio Caroline, the world's most famous offshore pirate radio station.
Great music since April 1964. Support Radio Caroline Team -
Radio Caroline

In my case, the improvement is better on longer units as the one at 6,118.08 pts. Almost 40% inprovement in such WU (With my GTX275)

Applications: 6.01 is Windows, 6.02 is Linux.

I've interrupted a task for 6.02 app (mysterious Ubuntu 9.10). Too much time for such a too small progress. Is an old application still have a scientific value (my PC can process it, but with a little bit of UI freezes...)?

---

From Siberia with love!

There are no tasks in the ACEMD 2 queue.

We're revising the ACEMD 2 application to try to solve the performance problem some Ubuntu, FC Linux users have seen.

MJH

New smaller revisions for acemd ver 2 are out. 6.03/6.04.
The Linux application should work better, for Windows we just fixed a minor issue on some input files.

gdf

We have put the first WUs in the new acemd2 application.

I am trying different distributives of GNU/Linux now, and since I tired of all these experiments, temporarily there is Kubuntu 9.10 amd64 installed.

ACEMD2 6.04 is working slow enough on this fresh installation (195.36.03 nVidia driver, as it shown in nvidia X Server Settings) on GTS250, and taking almost full CPU core for it's work. The progress at present is about 2% for 14 minutes.

A 6.70 app working with it's usual speed, but GUI is freezes from time to time anyway. CPU consuptioon is about 30-40% of one core.

Both apps "warming" GPU core equally.

p.s. btw, I could not find a way to force openSUSE 11.2 x64 (KDE, if any) run BOINC and let it use GPU. No one advice from the web was useful and successful, so as me could not find my own solvation.... Does anyone know the remedy?..

---

From Siberia with love!

Oh, by the way, a GUI hangs much rarely and just for a couple seconds while use XRender instaed of OpenGL for desktop effects.

---

From Siberia with love!

Just had my first task failure (across three 9800GT-class GPUs) since the new app (v6.03) was released. I've mostly been allocated GIANNI_BIND, but this was an OTTO_HERG:

SWAN : FATAL : Failure executing kernel sync [frc_sum_kernel] [700]
Assertion failed: 0, file ../swan/swanlib_nv.cpp, line 203

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.

So here I am ;-)

Just had my first task failure (across three 9800GT-class GPUs) since the new app (v6.03) was released. I've mostly been allocated GIANNI_BIND, but this was an OTTO_HERG:

SWAN : FATAL : Failure executing kernel sync [frc_sum_kernel] [700]
Assertion failed: 0, file ../swan/swanlib_nv.cpp, line 203

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.

So here I am ;-)

Usually, this error is overheating or mild overclocking.

gdf

how use only
acemdx WU and blok FuLL-Atom ?

---

go to your project preferencs.

gdf

NO there only
select
ACEMD
ACEMD ver 2.0
ACEMD beta

where blok FuLL-Atom ?

---

Deselect (remove box tick for) ACEMD


It is confusing that the tasks are called,
Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.71 (cuda23) and ACEMD - GPU molecular dynamics v6.03 (cuda).

While the respective projects are called,
ACEMD and ACEMD ver 2.0.

Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.71 (cuda23) uses ACEMD
ACEMD - GPU molecular dynamics v6.03 (cuda) uses ACEMD ver 2.0

In practice select only:
ACEMD ver 2.0

The old application will be on until we have finished the old tasks.
gdf

Hi

I have a problem with the new application, all WU crashing after a few second. But with the old application, it works without problem. Have you an idea about this problem ?

I'm on vista 32 bits with a 8800 GT and 185.85 driver

Thanks you

Just had my first task failure (across three 9800GT-class GPUs) since the new app (v6.03) was released. I've mostly been allocated GIANNI_BIND, but this was an OTTO_HERG:

SWAN : FATAL : Failure executing kernel sync [frc_sum_kernel] [700]
Assertion failed: 0, file ../swan/swanlib_nv.cpp, line 203

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.

So here I am ;-)

Usually, this error is overheating or mild overclocking.

gdf

OK, that was on my factory-overclocked Zotac AMP 9800GTX+ - which has nevertheless completed 12 GIANNI_BIND in succession.

So, what are you going to say about this OTTO_HERG - same error message on an absolutely stock Zotac 9800GT, no overclocking at all, and a run of 10 successful completions - mostly, but not exclusively, GIANNI_BIND - to its name?

Please spare me the boilerplate answer this time.