Hello, this are questions for the graphics cards specialists.

Where does Ti stand for with the nVidia cards? Are they better/slower/faster than cards without this addition.

And secondly, lets assume that money is no issue (it is unfortunately) what card would be best for an i7, 940 with 12Gb RAM and a 770 Watt PS?
(that is now having the GTX285 and to slow for the current WU's).

Thanks for your input highly appreciated.

---

Greetings from TJ

I think Ti just means a "performance" version of a GPU, as opposed to an SE or Eco model for example. Cards with 'Ti' are faster/offer better performance, but not necessarily best value...

A typical GTX660Ti is 20 to 25% faster than a reference GTX660, however there is a range of GTX660Ti's probably form about 15% faster to 30% faster than a reference GTX660, and there might be some modest OC versions of the GTX660.

The top GPUs are:
GTX690, 680, 670, 660Ti, 660, 650Ti Boost, 650Ti, 650.

From, http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3156&nowrap=true#29914
GTX660Ti - 100% - £210
GTX660 - 88% - £153 (73% cost of a GTX660Ti) – 20.5% better performance/£
GTX650Ti Boost 79% - £138 (66%) – 19.6% better performance/£
GTX650Ti - 58% - £110 (52%) – 11.5% better performance/£

From the above prices the GTX660 offers the best performance/purchase price for mid-range GPU's, however prices vary by region, and when a new GPU has just been released it tends to be more expensive (so perhaps the GTX650Ti Boost will fall in cost and improve it's performance/cost ratio).

I haven't included the Titan because it's not yet capable or running WU's here (new app required). It's performance will probably eclipse the GTX680's, and sit somewhere between a 680 and a 690 (dual GPU). The soon to be released GTX780 (also a CC3.5 'big Kepler', launch date May 23rd, 2013) should also surpass the GTX680, and the GTX770 (basically just a GTX680 with slightly higher clocks, CC3.0 I guess, launch date May 30th, 2013) should also slightly outperform the GTX680.

---

FAQ's

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

Thanks skgiven for your answers.

The Titan is out of reach with more than 1500 euro's.
But I have seen reasonable prices for the 660 and 650 here in the Netherlands, buying in Germany that means...cheaper there.

---

Greetings from TJ

I can see Titan there for ~900€. Not suggesting you buy one, but rather to use this nice price comparison portal :)

In your case I'd go with one reasonably high end GPU now (GTX660 or 660Ti) and decide later on whether to add another card. Try to sell both GTX285 (too inefficient for 24/7 crunching, but still OK for gamers on a budget).

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I haven't included the Titan because it's not yet capable or running WU's here (new app required). It's performance will probably eclipse the GTX680's, and sit somewhere between a 680 and a 690 (dual GPU). The soon to be released GTX780 (also a CC3.5 'big Kepler', launch date May 23rd, 2013) should also surpass the GTX680, and the GTX770 (basically just a GTX680 with slightly higher clocks, CC3.0 I guess, launch date May 30th, 2013) should also slightly outperform the GTX680.

For sure the titan will have a poor performance/price ratio at anywhere near current pricing. I made the mistake years ago buying GPUs for this project because of glowing predictions by the staff, and then they performed so poorly I had to quit the project and use them elsewhere. Lesson: don't buy the new GPU without seeing hard, cold performance figures.

Lesson: don't buy the new GPU without seeing hard, cold performance figures.

I definitely agree. But out of curiousity: which card was that?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

My guess is the GTX460, but if we go back to CC1.1 cards, it was really hit and miss and I got stung several times.

---

FAQ's

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

I can see Titan there for ~900€. Not suggesting you buy one, but rather to use this nice price comparison portal :)

Thanks ETA that is neat site. I even see some cases with lots of fans.
I will browse there for a while.

The Titan however will stay out of reach for me ;-)

---

Greetings from TJ

One more question. I see a good offer in the Netherlands for an EVGA GTX650Ti SSC 2GB. So that will be super super clocked. Is that the same as over clocking? If yes can I change it via settings?

Personally I like EVGA, have good experiences with it and have had all kinds of brands.
As always thanks for the input.

---

Greetings from TJ

It is clocking above the level nVidia suggested, but EVGA assures you it will work. And usually says it's binned the chips and only put higher performing ones onto SSC models, whereas nVidia can only create their spec to something which worse chips will achieve with enough headroom.

Call it factory overclock or just a different choice of clock speed.

You could always reduce clocks via software, but I expect this won't be neccessary before a few years of 24/7 crunching (chips degrade slightly over time). At which point EVGAs lifetime warrenty might come in handy.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

One more question. I see a good offer in the Netherlands for an EVGA GTX650Ti SSC 2GB. So that will be super super clocked. Is that the same as over clocking? If yes can I change it via settings?

Is that the one clocked at 1071MHz? It should be a good card. My 3 MSI 650 Ti cards were factory OCed at 993MHz and they're all running fine at 1084MHz. Haven't had many EVGA GPUs, but the one's I've had have been very good. I still have an EVGA GTX 460 running and it's the best of the four 460 cards that I've owned. I'd recommend MSI Afterburner for controlling the GPU settings and fans. It pretty much handles any brand GPU (both NV and ATI/AMD), multiple varied GPUs, has fewer bugs than the other control apps and is updated regularly.

My guess is the GTX460, but if we go back to CC1.1 cards, it was really hit and miss and I got stung several times.

SKG, you have a fine memory. Have you been devouring coconut oil? I bought 4 GTX 460 GPUs to run GPUGrid, as they were predicted to be the most power efficient and best bang for buck compared to the energy gulping 470 and 480. Turns out that the GPUGrid app only used 2/3 of the shaders so the performance was poor. It took 2 years to fix that software bug and that was 2 years I couldn't run GPUGrid. On the upside the 460s worked fine at all other projects like PrimeGrid, POEM, Einstein, WCG, SETI, Collatz, Dtrgn etc. Now we have a similar issue with the titan. So I'd strongly recommend waiting to see hard, cold results before considering any purchases for any project, but especially here.

The tests that the card makers use for binning the chips for overclocking are probably directed to graphics use, and not really distributed computing, which has much more stringent requirements and uses other parts of the GPU more heavily than are used for games. As the work units get harder and the temperature rises, you will probably see errors. Then, you will need to reduce the clock on the GPU chip yourself.

You will see all sorts of complaints for Noelias, SDOERR, etc. which I normally don't have a problem with using non-overclocked cards.

The tests that the card makers use for binning the chips for overclocking are probably directed to graphics use, and not really distributed computing, which has much more stringent requirements and uses other parts of the GPU more heavily than are used for games. As the work units get harder and the temperature rises, you will probably see errors. Then, you will need to reduce the clock on the GPU chip yourself.

Not really agreeing with this at least for the 650 Ti. It seems to have very modest standard clocking compared to other NV cards (SKG points out for instance that his 660 has very little OC headroom). My experience (a lot, years of GPU computing and 19 cards running at the moment on various projects) with factory OCed GPUs is that they DO generally run faster than non-factory-OCed models. As far as heat with the 650 Ti, mine are all running GPUGrid OCed at 45-49C with quite low fan speeds. That's cooler than any of my other cards except for a tie with 3 HD 7790s running at Einstein.

The more overclocking, the greater the chance for problems. I was not referring to your specific 650 Ti, but a "super super clocked" card sounds like problems to me. And the overclocking does not need to produce high temperatures for the problems to appear; I have seen problems below 60 C. A high temperature just adds to the likelihood. The binning that the chip makers do (e.g., TSMC, though I don't know that they do for GPU chips) is far beyond the capabilities of the board makers, and exercises many more functions of the chip. That is because they have access to the chip before it is even packaged, and can afford the high cost of the test machines.

In fact, I expect that it is a misnomer to call what the card makers do "binning". It is really just qualification tests on random samples of a lot to ensure that the chips don't fail outright. That is better than nothing, but does not ensure trouble-free operation in distributed computing projects.

The more overclocking, the greater the chance for problems. ... a "super super clocked" card sounds like problems to me. ... A high temperature just adds to the likelihood. ... (e.g., TSMC, though I don't know that they do for GPU chips)

There's a lot of guessing and conjecture going on here. Any concrete experience? Evidence?

In fact, I expect that it is a misnomer to call what the card makers do "binning". It is really just qualification tests on random samples of a lot to ensure that the chips don't fail outright. That is better than nothing, but does not ensure trouble-free operation in distributed computing projects.

More conjecture. Do you know that EVGA and other board makers aren't using binning supplied by the foundry? Did you know that even chips from the same wafer can have very widely varying capabilities? My experience is that factory OCed cards work at their factory overclocks on DC projects, often significantly higher. My experience is also that DC projects are generally less demanding and do not stress GPUs as much as heavy gaming.

More conjecture. Do you know that EVGA and other board makers aren't using binning supplied by the foundry? Did you know that even chips from the same wafer can have very widely varying capabilities? My experience is that factory OCed cards work at their factory overclocks on DC projects, often significantly higher. My experience is also that DC projects are generally less demanding and do not stress GPUs as much as heavy gaming.

You can look at what Asus says; they are the best at selecting their chips that I know of in the TOP program; they test chips at random in incoming lots. And yes, I know that chips tested before packaging where all the pads are available can be tested much more thoroughly.

You are speculating; cite a source that says that Nvidia supplies binned chips, and what card makers are using them (I would not be surprised if they test chips more thoroughly for use in supercompters, but that is another matter). Of course some overclocked cards work well until they don't; check it out the next time you get a failed work unit. "Less demanding" probably means you are looking at temperature, but not the different functions of the chips. For example, DC projects don't use the rasterizing units, which can produce more heat, but will use various other functions.

OC'ed cards tend to come with a higher price tag, but as well as the improved clocks you get components of better quality than reference models. Typically, their boards have better quality components, the heatsink dissipates better and the fans are bigger, better at cooling and make less noise. If an OC'ed GPU struggles with a WU type, you can downclock it a bit or up the Voltage slightly, and it's still going to be more efficient than a reference model. If it breaks RTM it, and you are likely going to get a better warranty on such cards.

GPU makers pay a bit of a premium for the best chips, so they already know the performance, at least up to a point. I think they individually tune some GPU types after assembly, but their 'reference models' don't go through this additional testing layer (which is why you might get a good clocker or a dud).

---

FAQ's

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

You are speculating; cite a source that says that Nvidia supplies binned chips, and what card makers are using them

Interesting reversal of "logic" or lack thereof. I was taking issue with your speculation. I said:

> Do you know that EVGA and other board makers aren't using binning supplied by the foundry?
> Did you know that even chips from the same wafer can have very widely varying capabilities?

So can you cite a source that says that Nvidia doesn't supply binned chips?

One more question. I see a good offer in the Netherlands for an EVGA GTX650Ti SSC 2GB. So that will be super super clocked. Is that the same as over clocking? If yes can I change it via settings?

Is that the one clocked at 1071MHz? It should be a good card. My 3 MSI 650 Ti cards were factory OCed at 993MHz and they're all running fine at 1084MHz. Haven't had many EVGA GPUs, but the one's I've had have been very good. I still have an EVGA GTX 460 running and it's the best of the four 460 cards that I've owned. I'd recommend MSI Afterburner for controlling the GPU settings and fans. It pretty much handles any brand GPU (both NV and ATI/AMD), multiple varied GPUs, has fewer bugs than the other control apps and is updated regularly.

Yes that is the one. But I saw a GTX 660 for only little more money. Same 192bit bus but more stream processors. So I am still a bit in doubt.

---

Greetings from TJ