The new GTX 460 could be quite good in terms of performance for gpugrid. Possibly faster than a GTX480 with a little overclock.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king

GDF

If you have one let us know here, to make some benchmark with the beta tests.

I think you are getting carried away. I expect it will be faster than a GTX285 and a GTX465. It might even come close to a GTX470, especially if you get an 800MHz one, but I doubt it will do more than a GTX480. That said two GTX460's should do more than one GTX480, and cost about the same.



Also,
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx460_071110174503/23755.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx460_071110174503/23756.png

Interestingly in the above test there was no difference between the cheaper and more expensive versions of the card when it came to crunching at Folding. We will have to wait and see if that holds true here.

GDF, perhaps if you had a fixed test WU to crunch people would be able to bench according to that, and reviewers would add GPUGrid to their reviews!

Maybe we will have to wait for the GTX475 then for a faster performance.
The new design of the cores makes much more sense and it's perfect for our application.
I am still curious to test on GPUGRID. How do they do at F@H to give the benchmark away?

gdf

I was just about to pull the trigger on one of the GTX 460 cards but at the last minute thought to check other hosts running the Fermis. Turns out the GTX 470 is only 10-35% faster (depending on OC) than my GTX 260 and the only GTX 465 I could find is actually slower. Think I'll wait till we see some real results. The price looks good if the performance lives up to the hype though.

Hopefully the new design will actually work better for GPUGrid than for Folding@Home, but these cards seem to have been introducing more technology rather than trying to improve on existing performances. That said, I agree the architecture is much better, and the cards are more sellable! I’m slightly worried about the shaders, but we wont know for sure how they perform until someone actually buys one, attaches it to GPUGrid and successfully runs a work unit. I think they will be an excellent card to buy for those just wanting one descent card in their system; they look like good value for money.

It’s probably still best just to look at the GTX460 compared to the GTX465, GTX470 and GTX480, rather than the GT200s. All the Fermi’s are likely to benefit from driver and CUDA improvements relatively evenly in the future, while any such improvements would make all the Fermi cards improve against the GT200 cards. So is the GTX460 better value for money than a GTX465, GTX470 or GTX480, and do they do more work per Watt? With respect to gaming the answer is Yes and Yes, but we have to wait and see about GPUGrid performance.

I think the Folding test just involves folding a known Protein, using different GPU cards and then comparing the time taken, and power used.
So for example, if they folded a reference, 236aa transcription regulator CL Protein (Lambda Repressor), using one app they could test multiple cards relative performances. In six months or a year when a new card comes out, as long as they use the same app and other hardware, then they don’t have to test all the cards again, just the new one!

At the time being Fermi's still only work well on Linux and XP when crunching here - there is a 40% hit running on W7.

That graph style is Anandtech, but I can't find any GP-GPU stuff in the 2 launch day reviews. Where is it from? I thought it was unsatisfying to bench games only, as there's not much to see there anyway..

@GDF: when I ran F@H (a few years ago) it was basically a command line app. For benchmarking purposes people mostly compared run times of the same project (=different clients / algorithms) and same WU (=protein I think, they'd just conquered nr. 2000 back then) which saw small variance.
However, for reliable benchmarking it may have been possible (and could still be) to copy a WU file into the same directory and launch the client with other (or none) parameters. It would then just process the data, write an output file but don't attempt to upload anything.

Actually.. the more I think about it, the less I trust my memory on this one. Could have mixed it up with some other project.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Looks to be a couple of choices on the 460 ... I am open to all opinions on the following psuedo poll ... I'll get one just because I want to see what it can really do and GDF sounds much to enthused for me not to :-)

This will be a crunching card. No water cooling / air only.

The price difference between the options is negligable so is not an important factor but if the different options won;t make a difference I willgo with the cheapest.

Mfg: EVGA is my personal preference but if anyone has a compelling reason to go with a differetn Mfg I'll take it under consideration.
MEM: 1024/ 768 - anyone think this will make a difference?
Speed: Stock or any of the factory OC'd verions?
EVGA has the standard cooling and then they have a pre-order for External exhaust. It will be installed in an open case so I'm not concerned about the internal case temps, more like what's going to keep the GPU itself coolest.

Like I said, all things being equal I will go with the least expensive, no external exhaust, stock clocks (I'll be OCing myself anyway) and the 768 MEM.

GDF ... which card would would YOU most like to see?

---

Thanks - Steve

Looks to be a couple of choices on the 460 ... I am open to all opinions on the following psuedo poll ... I'll get one just because I want to see what it can really do and GDF sounds much to enthused for me not to :-)

Contrary to my post above, just ordered the EVGA 768MB Superclocked (763 MHz factory OC). It was $20 more than the stock version but has a lifetime warranty instead of 2 years. Couldn't pass up the price though, under $167 after discounts and Bing cashback. Hope it's faster than my GTX 260 :-)

We have to test on one to know the performance. I am just saying that it is better designed and should allow higher overclock than the original Fermi.

gdf

There is no doubt it is more competitively designed – designed to sell, and they will, partially because they will overclock well; 800MHz for the GPU should be the standard, but the problem might be the memory controller. I suspect this is not the case and that Beyond made a good choice; nice high factory clock, the less expensive 768MB card, and with a lifetime warranty :) I'm guessing at least 30% faster than a GTX260. In the UK we can pick a GTX460 up for just over £150 - My GTX470 cost more than twice that!
Although I expect there will be little or no difference in performance for cards with more RAM (1GB), we will have to wait and see. I hope these do not suffer from driver issues, as is the case with GT240's that only have 512MB (Vista/W7 only).
Also, when the CUDA 3.1 issue is resolved there could be significant improvements.

MrS, I remember something similar.

Don`t worry, I am waiting for two new GTX 460 of 786Mb. One arrive tomorrow, and the second the next week. I will mount a SLI but, during several days I will word with one.
This weekend my first 460 will "said" what it can do. The next week two in SLI (672 CUDA cores, cheaper than a single 480 of 480 CUDA cores)

@SnowCrash:
I'd also go for a factory clocked one, if OC'ed ones cost more and OC myself. The factory OC'ed ones might be binned for better chips - but who knows. The difference is not going to be huge.

The amount of 786 MB RAM should be fine. The main difference is 33% more bandwidth and L2 cache for the 1 GB version (the 33% more ROPs don't matter for crunching, only for pushing many pixels). In the game benchmarks I've seen there was a surprisingly small difference between both versions. On the other hand we do know that GPU-Grid requires some memory bandwidth. Without actually testing it's impossible to say which difference it's going to make, though.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I use GTX460-1GB now. But it dose not work well.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2669990

<core_client_version>6.10.56</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -40 (0xffffffd8)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using device 0
# There are 2 devices supporting CUDA
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 460"
# Clock rate: 1.40 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 1073283072 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56
# Device 1: "GeForce GTX 460"
# Clock rate: 1.40 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 1073414144 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56
SWAN : Module load result [.fastfill.cu.] [200]
SWAN: FATAL : Module load failed


</stderr_txt>
]]>

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2669959
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2672409

I tried the reset of the project, but did not work well.

Specifications
M/B: ASUS P5E
CPU: Inel Xeon X3360
RAM: PC2-6400 2GBx2
GPU: Kuroutoshikou GF-GTX460-E1GHD (made by Sparkle Computer) x2
Driver: FW258.96
OS: Windows XP Pro SP3 x86

Doesn't seem that any of the Fermi cards are being correctly identified:

GTX 480:

# Number of multiprocessors: 15
# Number of cores: 120


GTX 470:

# Number of multiprocessors: 14
# Number of cores: 112


GTX 460:

# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56

The core is so different, that it is likely that CUDA3.0 does not work the GTX460.
Tomorrow I will updload the working cuda31 application.

gdf

I challenged ACEMD beta version v6.32 (cuda31) in GTX460, but after all did not work well.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2600191
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2599853

<core_client_version>6.11.1</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -40 (0xffffffd8)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using device 1
# There are 2 devices supporting CUDA
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 460"
# Clock rate: 1.40 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 1073283072 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56
# Device 1: "GeForce GTX 460"
# Clock rate: 1.40 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 1073414144 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56
SWAN: Using synchronization method 0
SWAN : Module load result [.fastfill.cu.] [200]
SWAN: FATAL : Module load failed


</stderr_txt>
]]>

The BOINC client revised it to 6.11.1.

Does the person used GTX460 else for come? As for it, does GPUGRID work well?

Might be an idea to close Boinc and then open it again (wait for 10sec before opening it).
I did this before running a beta on my GTX470, and it finished OK; different card I know but might be worth a try!

PS might be better to post back to here.

My new gtx460 don't work in GPUGRID!!!!

Every unit send error in 1-2 seconds.

The other projects work fine, perhaps the new gtx 460 don't work fine in the new program.

I will not download more work for the gtx460 in several days. I hope that this is fix in a short rime.

The 460 came today.

I'll give it a go late tonight (after midnight) on both XP and Linux.

Contrary to my post above, just ordered the EVGA 768MB Superclocked (763 MHz factory OC). It was $20 more than the stock version but has a lifetime warranty instead of 2 years. Couldn't pass up the price though, under $167 after discounts and Bing cashback. Hope it's faster than my GTX 260 :-)

Received the GTX 460 today. Good & bad news so far, all results at stock factory OC.

The good news: The above GTX 460 runs Collatz very well for NVidia. WU time was 14:30 versus 30 minutes for the GTX 260 and 58 minutes for the GT 240, both of which have the shader clocks well over stock. Temps are 53C at full load. As a comparison with ATI my HD 4770 cards average 15:45 per WU.

More good news: It runs DNETC well too, 23:52 versus 101 minutes for both my 9600GSO and GT 240 which have the shaders pushed to as high as they will run reliably.

The bad news: So far will run neither the GPUGRID Fermi WUs nor the latest beta WUs. Here's the error message for the beta, always the same:

<core_client_version>6.10.57</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -40 (0xffffffd8)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using device 0
# There is 1 device supporting CUDA
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 460"
# Clock rate: 0.81 GHz
# Total amount of global memory: 774307840 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 7
# Number of cores: 56
SWAN : Module load result [.fastfill.cu.] [200]
SWAN: FATAL : Module load failed

</stderr_txt>