most if not all the articles are available in pdf from our webpage.

Don't buy from the journal! If you one is missing, we can put online the preprint, i.e. the version before the editing of the journal. The published paper is not ours anymore, most journal keep the copyright.

Most of our papers are available here:
http://multiscalelab.org/gianni/publications

just a note.

we have not tested gtx770, but we expect these to work because they are based on the chip of the gtx680.

We have now ordered few for testing with the standard cooling (one fan). I'll keep you posted.

gdf

GTX770's work - several crunchers are already using them,
Firehawk, Carlesa25, TJ

My concern is the GTX770's 230W TDP, actual power usage and performance/Watt for here.
It's likely that the additional power consumption is mostly down to the faster GDDR5 (7008MHz compared to 6008MHz for the GTX680, TDP 195W). While this facilitated a bandwidth increased from 192GB/s to 224GB/s, I don't think the GTX680 was particularly bandwidth constrained. So does 224GB/s actually result in a speed bump for here, or does it come without any performance gain? If performance is the same as a GTX680 (or within a few percentages) on Windows people might be able to drop the GDDR5 slightly to make the card more economical to run. For Linux crunchers the GTX680 might be the better card, as changing clocks on Linux isn't easy.

Of course I'm speculating and we wont know any of this until someone posts up some power and runtime info and drops the GDDR5 clocks to see if it makes any difference.

---

FAQ's

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

The GTX770 won't draw 40 W more. The increased power limit is there to let the chip turbo up more often and higher. But since at GPU-Grid cards should be able to reach the top boost bin anyway (unless it's really hot), there won't be much difference: on GTX770 the voltage for the highest bin is one step higher than on GTX680 and the memory clock.. which will contribute a few W at most.

Hence I don't think memory downclocking will improve power efficiency, it never has at GPU-Grid, as performance will drop (despite GTX680 not being particularly memory bandwidth starved).

@FoldingNator: if a card can't take the long run WUs any more switch it over to the short queue. That's exactly what this one is for. Or if the current long-runs are causing to much trouble.. I actually switched my GTX660Ti over there now due to the current Noelia experiments crashing too many POEM WUs for me. Now it works better.

And the changing WUs: you can't seriously see this as negative, do you? See it like this: what you'Re experiencing here is actually the scientists working and trying different things. When ever a WU type disappears it means we completed the work! And that afterwards we get different tasks is also a good sign: it means the scientist got his/her questions answered, or formulates a different question. That's progress, visible to us.

And I don't think the "1.5 GB is not enough" will be the norm now. I suspect Noelia was trying something, pushing the boundaries of simulated system size. It should have been handled better (BOINC is able to handle WU memory requirements, but you have tell it to do so), but I'm positive this won't be the norm from now on.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I'm only saying that the researchers should optimize their WUs for the hardware the majority of their crunching supporters have, that's all. That would give them the biggest gain and their supporters crunching satisfaction! Mega-crunchers would continue getting their mega-credit with the sheer amount of crunching work produced. That's pretty obvious methinks.

It is an obvious solution, however, it is hard to do, otherwise it would have been done a long time ago.

And I don't think the "1.5 GB is not enough" will be the norm now.

1.5GB is enough to crunch the NOELIA tasks we're talking about. My old GTX480@701MHz can handle them in 45000~48800 sec (12h30m~13h34m).

I have removed my 770 from the system as it ran fine but slow as it used 58540 seconds for a Nathan, while other 770 where around 32000 seconds for these WU's. Must be my MOBO, as the 660 had problems in the same system. But you know all that.
I will replace the MOBO and CPU asap and then I will use a power meter and post all the details here. But first the heat wave needs to be over.

---

Greetings from TJ

If anyone has actual power usage info for the GTX770 let us know.

With my Asus GTX770, I see a 168 watt difference between idle and full load measured through my UPS. And the WU is a long Nathan_Kid.

A system with a GTX770 will use around 20W more when idle than without the GPU.
Anyone have load and idle power usages for a GTX680, ideally when running a long Nathan_Kid?

---

FAQ's

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

A system with a GTX770 will use around 20W more when idle than without the GPU.
Anyone have load and idle power usages for a GTX680, ideally when running a long Nathan_Kid?

Yes I have some information. I have built my AMD rig and has ran overnight.
Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 (great board)
AMD FX8350 black edition
Asus DRW 24B5ST
Asus GTX770-DC2-OC
SanDisk SSD 128GB
Seagate barracuda 1Tb
Kingston VRAM 1066MHz 1.5V
4 case fans
1 CPU cooler stock from AMD (lot of noise, good cooling)

Power when Idle (PC only) 190W
Power when running Nathan_kid LR 320W
Power when running Santi SR and 4 fightmalaria on CPU 384W

The 770 runs smooth (but only 2SR and 1LR) with driver 320.49 and BOINC 7.0.64
SR 87000sec
LR 29700sec

[the SR are almost 4 times as fast than my GTX550Ti in a quad core]

We still have the heatwave and heavy thunder at the moment, so when the last SR has finished I will power it down.

---

Greetings from TJ

190 W at idle?! Did you deactivate all power management? Some people regularly recommend this, but I think it's really rubbish. Run with standard configuration and if things run smooth leave it at that. Because even while crunching BOINC your system on't be under load all the time (boot, project down, partly free cores etc.). No power saving means just wasted money under such circumstances. You should be looking at <70 W in idle mode.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002