if the results from now are relative the same to older ones from early 2014, the performance with cuda65 doesn't look very well?

I'm finding cuda65 to be just a bit faster than cuda60 on all my cards (Win7-64), including the Maxwell 750Ti. Could be the updated NV driver (344.11) or the app...

i cannot test the old 660ti with actual wu, but i will test both at the same time and we will see.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=13178859 last wu finished today at the morning, where the clock of the card is wrong. the card runs everytime @1266mhz because of full @stock and constant boost clock

the last long wu i ran with the 660ti gives only about 70k points, so i think there will be other things atm to run than earlier these year

PS: whats the problem with the short ones btw? http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=13146577

a bit more than half of the time of a long one, but only granted less than 20% of the points?

are there any promising results for comparing performance GTX980 to GTX780Ti,

The 980 is less than 10% faster than a 780ti.

Matt

are there any promising results for comparing performance GTX980 to GTX780Ti,

The 980 is less than 10% faster than a 780ti.

Matt

That is not what I found. When checking Retvari Zoltans's results on his GTX980 and his GTX780TI, then the 780Ti is about 2000 seconds faster. Zoltan runs both on XP and he knows how to set up a rig. Proof is that his rigs are among the fattest.
Would like to see some results with Win7.

I'm interested as I am still undecided to by another mighty 780Ti or a new 980, the price difference is not that huge, but the 980 uses less energy. But I think I wait for a 980Ti that is expected before the end of this year according to rumors.

---

Greetings from TJ

TJ, don't buy a GTX780Ti now! In fact, nobody else should do that for GPU-Grid. Even if you're not paying german electricity prices, the far more efficient Maxwell will save you money soon irregardless of actual performance.

Having said that I'm not sure you should buy a GTX980 either. The performance advantage over the GTX970 does not seem worth it. I haven't had time to follow things recently, but I glanced over some data which showed GTX970 performance at GPU-Grid very close to GTX980. Do you guys have solid numbers for this?

@eXtreme Warhead: the WUs at GPU-Grid can differ considerably in the amount of work they contain, so make sure to only compare WUs which yield the same credits. Even better would be comparisons within the same batch of work, as indicated by the WU names. Anyway, when compared properly the GTX660Ti is about half as fast as a GTX980.

Regarding the short runs: it's normal that they yield less credits per day. This is a bonus being applied to the long runs, because only fairly beefy GPUs can run them, and return them quickly enough for GPU-Grid. And the probability of failure is higher for these longer WUs. Both aspects are being compensated by giving bonus credits for long-runs.

Edit:
TJ wrote:

Matt wrote:

The 980 is less than 10% faster than a 780ti.

That is not what I found. When checking Retvari Zoltans's results on his GTX980 and his GTX780TI, then the 780Ti is about 2000 seconds faster.

Actually these don't contradict: if GTX980 is ~10% slower than GTX780Ti, it is also "less than 10% faster". I obviously see your point, though, that Matts formulation sounds much more euphemistic towards the new card ;)

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Thanks for the input ETA. I indeed want to see some real data as well.
So far I checked Zoltan's results and the 780Ti is still fastest.

I am not buying anything at the moment, I wait for the real 20nm Maxwell for a new Haswell-E based rig, that can crunch and I can use to work from home with. Will be a little expensive rig but should last for at least five years so put in the best parts.

But I have a nice quad core with a 550Ti and there could be a GTX970 or 980 in but this is an extra buy, so I want to see some numbers first.

By the way I want EVGA GPU's and they are not in stock yet in the Netherlands.

---

Greetings from TJ

Thanks for the input ETA. I indeed want to see some real data as well.
So far I checked Zoltan's results and the 780Ti is still fastest.

I am not buying anything at the moment, I wait for the real 20nm Maxwell for a new Haswell-E based rig, that can crunch and I can use to work from home with. Will be a little expensive rig but should last for at least five years so put in the best parts.

But I have a nice quad core with a 550Ti and there could be a GTX970 or 980 in but this is an extra buy, so I want to see some numbers first.

By the way I want EVGA GPU's and they are not in stock yet in the Netherlands.

Some numbers:

                      Delta of    ----------------------GPU----------------------
                      PC Power    ---------------core----------------  ----Memory---
GPU    Workunit      Consumption  usage   clock  voltage  power  temp    MCL   usage   
980    NOELIA_5MG       167W       98%   1240MHz  1.218V   98%   66°C    52%   778MB
980    SDOERR_BARNA5    164W       99%   1227MHz  1.193V   92%   66°C  46-52%  946MB
780Ti  NOELIA_5MG       249W       98%    993MHz  1.125V   99%   72°C  30-31%  765MB
780Ti  SDOERR_BARNA5    247W       99%    993MHz  1.125V   96%   72°C  30-31%  925MB
780Ti  NOELIA_5MG       260W       98%   1098MHz  1.125V  102%   74°C  33-34%  765MB
780Ti  SDOERR_BARNA5    263W       98%   1098MHz  1.125V  102%   74°C    33%   925MB

CPU: Core i7-4770K @4.3GHz, 66-72°C
RAM: 8GB DDR3 1866MHz 1.5V
PSU: Enermax Modu 87+ 850W
MB: Gigabyte GA-Z87X-OC
Ambient temperature: 24.6°C
I tried to raise the 780Ti's GPU clock and the voltage a little more, but as I raise the GPU clock, the GPU voltage is lowered automatically to stay within the power limit, which is endangers the stability of the calculation.

Conclusion:
The GTX780Ti is faster by 8-10% than the GTX980, but the GTX980 consumes only the 2/3rd of the GTX780Ti.
I don't recommend to buy GTX780Ti, only if it's a very cheap 2nd hand card.
I think it's safe to buy a GTX980 or a GTX970 made on 28nm technology, as the 20nm version isn't around the corner, and I think the first chips made on 20nm wouldn't be much more energy efficient (probably they will be a little cheaper).

Thank you for the numbers Zoltan. I will replace the 550Ti by a 970. And for the rest I wait.

---

Greetings from TJ

Thanks Zoltan, those seem to be very solid numbers!

Personally I want to buy a GTX970, but would like to see a roundup first to be sure to get a sufficiently quiet and powerful cooler. The cards on my list are:

1. Asus Strix: the cooler should be excellent, with zero noise at idle enhancing the resale value. The card is not too large. I also like the single 8-pin power connector, as it means I can get away with fewer power adaptors. It's not in stock, though, and starts at 350€.

2. Gigabyte Gaming: the cooler looks really powerful, but the card is very long, which might limit its resale value. It's not in stock either and starts at 340€.

3. Galax EXOC: I like the cooling solution of my Galax GTX660Ti and this one looks pretty similar. I suspect it could stand the additional power consumption of the GTX970 while still being quiet enough for me. It's not in stock and starts at 330€.

4. A card with stock cooler, onto which I mount my Thermalright Shaman. It should provide cooling & noise equivalent to the best open air coolers. The problem: it seems like it won't fit the short PCBs, and I haven't found any of these cards with a long PCB (not so easy to find out). The Galax is said to fit that cooler, but probably doesn't need it. They start at 305€ and some are in stock.

Currently option 3 is my favorite, unless I can find a card for option 4. I'd also gladly choose option 1, if it was less expensive.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Some numbers:

                      Delta of    ----------------------GPU----------------------
                      PC Power    ---------------core----------------  ----Memory---
GPU    Workunit      Consumption  usage   clock  voltage  power  temp    MCL   usage   
980    NOELIA_5MG       167W       98%   1240MHz  1.218V   98%   66°C    52%   778MB
980    SDOERR_BARNA5    164W       99%   1227MHz  1.193V   92%   66°C  46-52%  946MB
780Ti  NOELIA_5MG       249W       98%    993MHz  1.125V   99%   72°C  30-31%  765MB
780Ti  SDOERR_BARNA5    247W       99%    993MHz  1.125V   96%   72°C  30-31%  925MB
780Ti  NOELIA_5MG       260W       98%   1098MHz  1.125V  102%   74°C  33-34%  765MB
780Ti  SDOERR_BARNA5    263W       98%   1098MHz  1.125V  102%   74°C    33%   925MB

CPU: Core i7-4770K @4.3GHz, 66-72°C
RAM: 8GB DDR3 1866MHz 1.5V
PSU: Enermax Modu 87+ 850W
MB: Gigabyte GA-Z87X-OC

Wow, great information. The 980 looks like a winner. Question, are the above power draw figures for the GPU alone or for the system as a whole? If for the system are there any CPU WUs running? Thanks for the info!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8223/an-introduction-to-semiconductor-physics-technology-and-industry

The GTX780Ti is faster by 8-10% than the GTX980, but the GTX980 consumes only the 2/3rd of the GTX780Ti.

RZ, what is your metric for performance? The best measure of performance is to look in the output of tasks completed by the cuda65 app. You'll see the line:

# PERFORMANCE: 70208 Natoms 27.553 ns/day 0.000 ms/step 0.000 us/step/atom

The "ns/day" figure gives the rate of the simulation - the higher the better. The "Natoms" figure gives the size of the system - the greater the number of atoms, the slower the simulation, in a not-quite linear relationship (cf our performance estimator at http://www.acellera.com/products/molecular-dynamics-software-gpu-acemd/ ).

Matt

The output of the linux cuda6.5 app doesn't provide performance information.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=13184193

<stderr_txt>
# SWAN Device 0 :
# Name : GeForce GTX 980
# ECC : Disabled
# Global mem : 4095MB
# Capability : 5.2
# PCI ID : 0000:01:00.0
# Device clock : 1215MHz
# Memory clock : 3505MHz
# Memory width : 256bit
# Time per step (avg over 3750000 steps): 4.600 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 17250.095 s
03:26:48 (21843): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>

Taken from RZ GTX980 host---Let's see if I have this straight- NOELIA_5MG for a GTX980- # PERFORMANCE: 70205 Natoms 3.624 ns/day 0.000 ms/step 0.000 us/step/atom
Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 18118.868 s

GT650m-NOELIA_5MG-PERFORMANCE: 70208 Natoms 27.553 ns/day 0.000 ms/step 0.000 us/step/atom
Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 137765.137 s

[1] GTX980 completes an average of 8 long tasks in the time it takes [1] GT650m to finish a single task. How does a (GT650m/27.553ns/day) in one task worth, have nearly the same ns/day (GTX980/3.624ns/day*8tasks=28.992ns/day) for 8 tasks?

Comparing these cards-- 8/1 task completion ratio leads to similar number of ns/day?

Actually, there's a bug there.

The time reported isn't the daily rate, but the iteration time. That's inversely proportional to the daily rate, so use 1000/[value] instead.

biodoc

The output of the linux cuda6.5 app doesn't provide performance information.

Quite right. Slightly different code-base. I'm not going to rev the applications just to include that. If you are really keen, you can get the rates by looking for the "Simulation rate" lines in the 0_0 output file in the task's slot directory.


Matt

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8223/an-introduction-to-semiconductor-physics-technology-and-industry

That's a nice article. If you want to get really technical, dive in to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors reports.

http://www.itrs.net/Links/2013ITRS/Summary2013.htm

MJH

The GTX780Ti is faster by 8-10% than the GTX980, but the GTX980 consumes only the 2/3rd of the GTX780Ti.

RZ, what is your metric for performance? The best measure of performance is to look in the output of tasks completed by the cuda65 app. You'll see the line:

# PERFORMANCE: 70208 Natoms 27.553 ns/day 0.000 ms/step 0.000 us/step/atom

The "ns/day" figure gives the rate of the simulation - the higher the better. The "Natoms" figure gives the size of the system - the greater the number of atoms, the slower the simulation, in a not-quite linear relationship (cf our performance estimator at http://www.acellera.com/products/molecular-dynamics-software-gpu-acemd/ ).
Matt

If the higher the better for ns/day then is the GTX780Ti still better. But uses more energy and produces more heat.

Have you already your hands on a 980 Matt, to improve the app?

---

Greetings from TJ

70205 Natoms NOELIA_5MG tasks With 1000/[value]-- GTX980= 275.938ns/day -- GT650m= 36.293ns/day

[1]GT650m ns/day rate renders 13.1% of [1]GTX980. It would take [7.60] GT650m cards to match GM204 ns/day.

70205 Natoms NOELIA_5MG tasks---RZ faster GTX780ti (time per step 3.327ms) rate at 300.571ns/day compared to his GTX980 (time per step 3.624ms) is 275.938ns/day

RZ GTX980ns/day rate is around 91.8% of his faster GTX780ti.

[1]GT650m ns/day rate renders 13.1% of [1]GTX980. It would take [7.60] GT650m cards to match GM204 ns/day.

Those numbers are only directly comparable if the Natoms for the two tasks are very similar, remember.