[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.

Yes, all mentioned ns/day were same task type- I edited 70205 Natoms NOELIA_5MG tasks accordingly.

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?

My metric for performance is the data could be find under the "performance" tab, which is based on the time it takes to complete a WU from the same batch by different GPUs (hosts).

                   GTX-980      GTX-780Ti    GTX-780TiOC
SDOERR_BARNA5    15713~15843   14915~15019   14892~14928
NOELIA_5MG       18026~18165   16601~16713   16826~16924
NOELIA_20MGWT    18085~18099   16849         17034
NOELIA_20MGK36I                16617~16779   16844~17049
NOELIA_20MG2                                 16674~16831
NOELIA_UNFOLD    16533                       15602

As it takes more time for the GTX-980 to complete similar workunits as it takes for the GTX780Ti, I consider the GTX-980 slower (the motherboard, CPU, RAM are similar, actually my host with the GTX 980 has slightly faster CPU and RAM).

As it takes more time for the GTX-980 to complete similar workunits as it takes for the GTX780Ti,

Yes, I can see that now looking at individual runs on your two machines. That is rather surprising, my testing in more controlled circumstances shows the opposite. I'll have to looking into that a bit more, and see if it's peculiar to your systems or if it reflects a general trend.

Matt

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?

The heading of that column reads of "Delta of PC power consumption", which is the difference of the whole PC's power consumption between the GPU is crunching and not crunching.

If for the system are there any CPU WUs running? Thanks for the info!

There were 6 SIMAP CPU workunits running on that host, the total power consumption is 321W using the GTX-980.

Yes, I can see that now looking at individual runs on your two machines. That is rather surprising, my testing in more controlled circumstances shows the opposite.

I'd like to have a pair of those circumstance controllers you use. :)

Hello fellow crunchers,

are there any promising results for comparing performance GTX980 to GTX780Ti, or have we to wait for the GTX980Ti (what Jacob is doing too)?

I am still hoping for a "real" Maxwell at 20nm but seems to be not this year anymore.

You and me both. I upgrade based on this usually (CPU and GPU).

Cheers.

---

On linux, using the cuda 6.5 app the 980 is a bit slower than the 780Ti. I only have enough data on the long SDOERR_BARNA5 WUs. The students T test gives a very low p value so it appears to be a statistically significant difference.

                                        Time (sec)
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188827	17379
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188792	17677
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188118	17309
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186657	17318
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186376	16934
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13184193	17253
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183699	17361
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183697	17209
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182886	17455
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182196	17201
		         average        17310
		         std dev	  191
			
			
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13189221	16503
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13187759	16546
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13187315	16562
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13186024	16571
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13185027	16597
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13183827	16544
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13183437	16904
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13182225	17374
SDOERR_BARNA5	780Ti	13181484	17380
		         average	16776
		         std dev          361

P value 0.00095 using student's T test

Thanks for the information. You're (Linux) GTX980 average time is 97% as fast(16667/17310) compared to you're (Linux) GTX780ti. You're cards performance closer to each other then RZ (windowsXP) who's GTX980 is around 92% compared to his quicker GTX780ti.

NVidia is suspending [4000-6300 S/GLOPS] GK110 (GTX780[ti]) shipments- if afforded- this a good time to pick a GK110 up. After much ACEMD testing- GM204 [3400-5500 S/GLOPS] on par with GK110 performance depending upon OS factors. All GTX780 are priced near (329-379usd) GTX970. GTX780ti prices under 450usd. GK110 may have higher energy consumption- eco-tuning will very easily lower GK110 wattage usage at expense of slightly lower runtimes.

Thanks for the information. You're (Linux) GTX980 average time is 97% as fast(16667/17310) compared to you're (Linux) GTX780ti. You're cards performance closer to each other then RZ (windowsXP) who's GTX980 is around 92% compared to his quicker GTX780ti.

NVidia is suspending [4000-6300 S/GLOPS] GK110 (GTX780[ti]) shipments- if afforded- this a good time to pick a GK110 up. After much ACEMD testing- GM204 [3400-5500 S/GLOPS] on par with GK110 performance depending upon OS factors. All GTX780 are priced near (329-379usd) GTX970. GTX780ti prices under 450usd. GK110 may have higher energy consumption- eco-tuning will very easily lower GK110 wattage usage at expense of slightly lower runtimes.

eXaPower, if you try to eco-tune the less efficient GK110 down to GM204 power consumption, you either loose the performance advantage or you still consume more power.

Let's start with a GTX780Ti with a mild OC: 1100 MHz @ 1.1 V, 250 W. Some cards go higher, but let's not discuss extreme cases. And significantly higher clocked ones exceed 250 W.

Maximum stable frequency scales approximately linearly with voltage, whereas power consumption scales approximately quadratic with voltage (let's neglect leakage). Hence we could get GK110 down to these operation points:

- 1000 MHz @ 1.0 V -> 187 W, at 91% the performance
- 900 MHz @ 0.9 V -> 137 W, at 81.8% the performance

While these numbers looks far nicer and are indeed more energy efficient than running stock, the first one illustrates my point: less performance and still higher power consumption than GTX980.

Trying the same with GTX980 with a nice OC, starting from 1300 MHz @ 1.2 V, 165 W, I get the following:

- 1192 MHz @ 1.1 V -> 127 W, at 91.7% the performance

... at this point it probably doesn't make sense to eco-tune further, since you just spent 500$/€ on that fast card. Summarizing this, I'm not saying everyone should rush out and buy a GTX980. At least consider the GTX970, but certainly don't buy GTX780/Ti anymore for sustained GP-GPU! Even if you don't pay anything for your electricity it doesn't hurt to run the more energy-efficient setup.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

                                        Time (sec)
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188827	17379
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188792	17677
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188118	17309
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186657	17318
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186376	16934
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13184193	17253
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183699	17361
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183697	17209
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182886	17455
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182196	17201
		         average        17310
		         std dev	  191

Some numbers for GTX970 from this linux host

                                        Time (sec)
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13193684	19850
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13191852	19534
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13189355	19650
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13188418	19544
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13187452	19567
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13185793	19548
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13185723	19559
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13184931	19586
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13184168	19552
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13182398	19627
		         average        19602
		         std dev	  low :D

That's 88% of the throughput of Zoltan's GTX980. The reported clock speed of 1250 MHz is relatively high for that host, but Zoltan's card isn't running at stock speeds either. Overall that's pretty strong performance from a card with just 81% the raw horse power per clock!

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

                                        Time (sec)
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188827	17379
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188792	17677
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13188118	17309
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186657	17318
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13186376	16934
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13184193	17253
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183699	17361
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13183697	17209
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182886	17455
SDOERR_BARNA5	980	13182196	17201
		         average        17310

Some numbers for GTX970 from this linux host

                                        Time (sec)
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13193684	19850
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13191852	19534
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13189355	19650
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13188418	19544
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13187452	19567
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13185793	19548
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13185723	19559
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13184931	19586
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13184168	19552
SDOERR_BARNA5	970	13182398	19627
		         average        19602

For comparison here's the last number of SDOERR_BARNA5 times form one of my factory OCed PNY cards (no additional OC):

SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,562.77	
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,235.24	
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,313.90
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,357.37	
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,400.42
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,392.66
SDOERR_BARNA5  750Ti   43,525.33
                       Average = 43398

This on Windows 7-64 that if I remember correctly is about 11% slower than Linux on GPUGRID. That would make the above 970 about 2x faster at least on SDOERR_BARNA5 WUs than the 750Ti (19602 x 2 x 1.11 = 43,516.44) if I haven't forgotten some important factor :-)

.....
This on Windows 7-64 that if I remember correctly is about 11% slower than Linux on GPUGRID. That would make the above 970 about 2x faster at least on SDOERR_BARNA5 WUs than the 750Ti (19602 x 2 x 1.11 = 43,516.44) if I haven't forgotten some important factor :-)

So, roughly, a 750Ti produces half of the points of a 970, its TDP is about a half of the 970 and its price is about a half of the price of a 970... is there a winner?

This on Windows 7-64 that if I remember correctly is about 11% slower than Linux on GPUGRID. That would make the above 970 about 2x faster at least on SDOERR_BARNA5 WUs than the 750Ti (19602 x 2 x 1.11 = 43,516.44) if I haven't forgotten some important factor :-)

So, roughly, a 750Ti produces half of the points of a 970, its TDP is about a half of the 970 and its price is about a half of the price of a 970... is there a winner?

Personal preference. I personally like running more low power boxes, and gold/platinum power supplies in the 450 watt range are often available on sale. I also like running CPU projects so again more machines equals more CPU power. Just bought 750Ti number 11, the Asus OC Edition which will be my first ASUS GPU in the last few years. With discounts and rebate ended up being $103, hard to beat.

is there a winner?

Not a clear one. Beyond made some good points for more of the smaller cards. I tend towards the larger ones for the following reasons:

- They will be able to finish long run WUs (which yield the most credits per day here) within the time for maximum bonus for longer. The time per WU is increased slowly over time, as the average computing power increases.

- You can run more of them with less overhead, by which I mean "system needed to run the GPUs in". This improves power efficiency and, if you don't go for extremely dense systems, purchase cost. This argument is actually the exact opposite of what Beyond likes with his many machines for CPU projects.

- Resale value: once a GPU is not energy efficient enough any more to run 24/7 GP-GPU it can still provide a decent gaming experience.Finding interested gamers is easier if the GPU in question is 2-3 times as fast. This might not necessarily get you more money, since you're selling fewer cards, but IMO it makes things easier.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Looking at performance tab- someone has finally equaled RZ GTX780ti host time. Host 168841 [3] GTX980 with same OS as RZ (WinXP) is competing tasks as fast. (RZ GTX780ti been the fastest card for awhile)

Looking at performance tab- someone has finally equaled RZ GTX780ti host time. Host 168841 [3] GTX980 with same OS as RZ (WinXP) is competing tasks as fast. (RZ GTX780ti been the fastest card for awhile)

That GTX980 is an overclocked one, so its performance/power ratio must be lower than the standard GTX980's. However it's still better than a GTX780Ti.

<core_client_version>7.2.42</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# GPU [GeForce GTX 980] Platform [Windows] Rev [3212] VERSION [65]
# SWAN Device 0	:
#	Name		: GeForce GTX 980
#	ECC		: Disabled
#	Global mem	: 4095MB
#	Capability	: 5.2
#	PCI ID		: 0000:04:00.0
#	Device clock	: 1342MHz
#	Memory clock	: 3505MHz
#	Memory width	: 256bit
#	Driver version	: r343_98 : 34411
# GPU 0 : 79C
# GPU 1 : 74C
# GPU 2 : 78C
# GPU 1 : 75C
# GPU 1 : 76C
# GPU 1 : 77C
# GPU 1 : 78C
# GPU 1 : 79C
# GPU 1 : 80C
# GPU 0 : 80C
# Time per step (avg over 3750000 steps): 	4.088 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU:  	15331.500 s
# PERFORMANCE: 87466 Natoms 4.088 ns/day 0.000 ms/step 0.000 us/step/atom
00:19:43 (3276): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

1342/1240=1.082258, so this card is overclocked by 8.2% which equal to the performance gap between a GTX780Ti and the GTX980.

1342/1240=1.082258, so this card is overclocked by 8.2% which equal to the performance gap between a GTX780Ti and the GTX980.

The base clock may not correspond to the real clock, with Maxwell more so than ever before. Still, it's safe to say that this card is significantly overclocked :)

BTW: your GTX780Ti is (factory-)overclocked as well, isn't it?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

BTW: your GTX780Ti is (factory-)overclocked as well, isn't it?

I have two GTX780Ti's: one standard, and one factory overclocked. I had to lower the memory clock of the overclocked one to 3.1GHz...

The GTX970 Maxwell is only about 10% more energy efficient than a GTX750Ti Maxwell. Considering efficiency scales well with core count this suggests an issue with the GTX900's.

WRT the GTX980 and the GTX970, for most people the GTX970 is the better choice; it's significantly cheaper than the GTX980 (started out at half the price) and as pointed out comes close to matching performance (initially thought to be 80% but looks more like 88% for here). Why? Both are Memory Controller constricted but more so the 980. The 750Ti does not have such Memory Controller issues. We've seen this Memory Controller Factor before especially with smaller Kepler GPU's.
This obviously suggests better performance would come from OC'ing the GTX900's GDDR5, and it might even be worth while researching which memory chips various cards use before purchasing. It could also hint at what's to come, one way or another...
In the UK the GTX970 has increased in price from ~£250 at release to ~£263 (5% rise) while the GTX980 has fallen in price from ~£500 to £419.99 (19% drop). This mostly reflects the relative gaming value. It wouldn't surprise me if we found that the actual performance/Watt for the GTX970 here was slightly better than the GTX980 (2% or so)...
Anyway, unless you need quad Sli, the GTX980 is too pricey.
Presently in the UK three GTX970's would cost £789, while two GTX980's would cost £840. The three 970's would do 32% more work (assuming they actually perform at 88% of a GTX980 for here) and cost £51 less.

---

FAQ's

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

Also at Einstein the GTX750Ti is slightly more efficient than GM204. Einstein is known to be very memory-bandwidth hungry. Compared to GTX750Ti it looks like this:

GTX970: 2.6 times the shaders, 2.5 times the bandwidth
GTX980: 3.2 times the shaders, 2.5 times the bandwidth

There's also the L2 cache size, which helps avoid memory accesses. It's 2 MB for all of them, with the bigger chips keeping many more "threads" in flight. This devalues the cache size for them compared to the smaller chip.

So far GTX970 seems to be able to make better use of its raw horse power than GTX980. Energy efficiency may be about equal, though, as the TDP of GTX980 is hardly any higher.

Regarding GM204 energy efficiency: German THG published a very good article, scaling GTX970's power target. It's obvious that the sweet spot is between 125 and 150 W, which is not by coincidence close to nVidias default setting. Most custom cards use higher power targets, though.

Especially when we consider that both current GM204 cards may be at least somewhat restricted by memory bandwidth, it may make a lot of sense to lower the power target for high efficiency (as the GPU couldn't make all that good use of higher core boost clocks anyway).

And regarding different memory chips: from what I've seen they seem to all be using Samsung 7 GHz chips. They can take up to 8 GHz (at least in games), sometimes less.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002