How does a 5 SMM, 640core/40TMU/60W-TDP GTX750ti perform (7%~) better than a 4SMX, 768 core/ 110/130W-TDP Kelper with more TMU(64), while smashing GTX650ti/boost compute time/power consumption ratios? Core/memory speed differences'? GTX 750ti is close (~5%) to GTX660 (5SMX/960Core/140w-TDP) compute times.

That's very easy to answer:
The SMXes of the GTX650Ti and the GTX660 are superscalar, so only (approximately) 2/3rd of their cores can be utilized (512 and 640, respectively).

If this is the case, then why do GPU utilization (MSI afterburner, eVGA precision) programs show +90% for most GPUGRID tasks? Are these programs not accounting for type of (scalar or superscalar) architecture? If only 2/3rd of cores are active, won't GPU utilization be at ~66%, instead of the typical 90%? These programs are capable of monitoring Bus usage, memory control (frame buffer), Video processing, amount of power, and much more.

I estimate that the new GM204 will be about 45% faster than a 780ti.

Matt

How does a 5 SMM, 640core/40TMU/60W-TDP GTX750ti perform (7%~) better than a 4SMX, 768 core/ 110/130W-TDP Kelper with more TMU(64), while smashing GTX650ti/boost compute time/power consumption ratios? Core/memory speed differences'? GTX 750ti is close (~5%) to GTX660 (5SMX/960Core/140w-TDP) compute times.

That's very easy to answer:
The SMXes of the GTX650Ti and the GTX660 are superscalar, so only (approximately) 2/3rd of their cores can be utilized (512 and 640, respectively).

If this is the case, then why do GPU utilization (MSI afterburner, eVGA precision) programs show +90% for most GPUGRID tasks? Are these programs not accounting for type of (scalar or superscalar) architecture? If only 2/3rd of cores are active, won't GPU utilization be at ~66%, instead of the typical 90%? These programs are capable of monitoring Bus usage, memory control (frame buffer), Video processing, amount of power, and much more.

The "GPU utilization" is not equivalent of the "CUDA cores utilization". These monitoring utilities are right in showing that high GPU utilization, as they showing the utilization of the untis which feeding the CUDA cores with work. I think the actual CUDA cores utilization can't be monitored.

I estimate that the new GM204 will be about 45% faster than a 780ti.

That's a bit optimistic estimation as (1216/928)*(16/15)=1.3977.
but...
1. my GTX780Ti is always boosting to 1098MHz,
2. the 1219MHz boost clock seems to be a bit high, as the GTX750Ti's boost clock is only 1085MHz, and it's a lesser chip.

We'll see it soon.

BTW there's an error in the chart, as the GTX780Ti has 15*192 CUDA cores.

[url]http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMMrecolored_575px.png
[/url]http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMX_575px.png

Here are Maxwell "crossbar", "dispatch", "issue", differences compared to Kelper feeding CUDA cores and LD/ST units, SFU.

[url] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/3[/url]

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMMrecolored_575px.png
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMX_575px.png

Here are Maxwell "crossbar", "dispatch", "issue", differences compared to Kelper feeding CUDA cores and LD/ST units, SFU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/


Same text but made it clickable.

---

Greetings from TJ

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMMrecolored_575px.png
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7764/SMX_575px.png

Here are Maxwell "crossbar", "dispatch", "issue", differences compared to Kelper feeding CUDA cores and LD/ST units, SFU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/


Same text but made it clickable.

Thank you for fixing links.

The GTX980 does quite well in the Folding@home benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

The GTX980 does quite well in the Folding@home benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

Wow! Than it's possible that the GTX980's performance improvement over the GTX780Ti will be in the 25-45% range.

The GTX980 does quite well in the Folding@home benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

Wow! Than it's possible that the GTX980's performance improvement over the GTX780Ti will be in the 25-45% range.

Well if I read the graph correct then its 6.2 and the 780Ti is 11.

The GTX 980 is available in the Netherlands and about €80 cheaper then a GTX 780Ti. However no EVGA boards are available yet. I am anxious to see the results of GTX 980 here.

---

Greetings from TJ

The GTX980 does quite well in the Folding@home benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

Wow! Than it's possible that the GTX980's performance improvement over the GTX780Ti will be in the 25-45% range.

Well if I read the graph correct then its 6.2 and the 780Ti is 11.

Double precision performance is lower but SP which is most common for folding is higher.

OK guys, how's got the first one up and running? I'd like to pull the trigger on a GTX970, but would prefer to know beforehand that it works as good, or better than expected, over here.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Well I am waiting on the 20nm Maxwell. However I will buy a GTX980 as soon as there is one from EVGA with 1 radial fan, to replace my GTX770. As soon as I have it installed I will let you all know.

Aha you changed the name of the thread ETA?

---

Greetings from TJ

Hopefully they develop an XP Driver too for these.

---

DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Aha you changed the name of the thread ETA?

Yes :)

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Hopefully they develop an XP Driver too for these.

The 344.11 driver is released for Windows XP (and for x64 too), and there are GTX 980 and 970 in it (I've checked the nv_dispi.inf file).
However if you search for drivers on the NVidia homepage, it won't display any results for WinXP / GTX 980.

GTX970 with driver 344.11
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=13109131

Stderr output

<core_client_version>7.2.42</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
(unknown error) - exit code -59 (0xffffffc5)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# GPU [GeForce GTX 970] Platform [Windows] Rev [3301M] VERSION [60]
# SWAN Device 0 :
# Name : GeForce GTX 970
# ECC : Disabled
# Global mem : 4095MB
# Capability : 5.2
# PCI ID : 0000:01:00.0
# Device clock : 1215MHz
# Memory clock : 3505MHz
# Memory width : 256bit
# Driver version : r343_98 : 34411
#SWAN: FATAL: cannot find image for module [.nonbonded.cu.] for device version 520

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I also tried with latest beta driver 344.16, but had same error.

Is that a problem with my computer, or is GTX970 not supported yet?

GTX970 with driver 344.11
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=13109131

Stderr output

<core_client_version>7.2.42</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
(unknown error) - exit code -59 (0xffffffc5)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# GPU [GeForce GTX 970] Platform [Windows] Rev [3301M] VERSION [60]
# SWAN Device 0 :
# Name : GeForce GTX 970
# ECC : Disabled
# Global mem : 4095MB
# Capability : 5.2
# PCI ID : 0000:01:00.0
# Device clock : 1215MHz
# Memory clock : 3505MHz
# Memory width : 256bit
# Driver version : r343_98 : 34411
#SWAN: FATAL: cannot find image for module [.nonbonded.cu.] for device version 520

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I also tried with latest beta driver 344.16, but had same error.

Is that a problem with my computer, or is GTX970 not supported yet?

I think that the problem is the Compute Capability 5.2 is not supported yet.

I've sent Matt a PM. Hopefully this is easy to fix!

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

ext2097, did you also try other projects like Einstein@Home?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002