Maybe I should run that test utility that find out what the card can do ... :)

THen again ... with my luck ... maybe I shouldn't ....

I have an XFX GTX280 XXX with all the following stock settings:

clock: 670, shader: 1458, memory: 2500

In my last three WU's I got:

27.644 ms,
26.656 ms, and
26.796 ms.

I believe that most GTX280's could attain these speeds without great difficulty. Just keep them cool. Mine run between 79-82°C.

Pat

I have an XFX GTX280 XXX with all the following stock settings:

clock: 670, shader: 1458, memory: 2500

In my last three WU's I got:

27.644 ms,
26.656 ms, and
26.796 ms.

I believe that most GTX280's could attain these speeds without great difficulty. Just keep them cool. Mine run between 79-82°C.

Pat

My 280 is running 27 - 32 ms per step over a bunch of tasks ... the 9800 GT is 91 - 92 ms ...

Sorry guys, dumb question..
Where you getting these numbers for ms/step? Wondering what my cards doing..Thanks!

Also, the overclocking..this is pretty much my thoughts.
number of shaders X core clock = amount of work done

So I always OC to highest stable core and the rest no matter really.
Does anyone know...My 260 won't OC. Is there a proggy besides the Nvidia stuffs? I tried Ntune and the new one but no have the perfomance tab on the 260 machine!?! It is an msi card btw.

My 9500 GT overclocks like a champ and is maybe the best rac/$ of my current setups. ..checking...Gpu-z gives it's current clocks at 700/570/1750 stock is 550/500/1375. It is made by EV3A. The 9800GTX runs 800/1115/1984.

Mahalos

---

Sorry guys, dumb question..
Where you getting these numbers for ms/step? Wondering what my cards doing..Thanks!

Look under each computer at the tasks, it is in the output. For example:

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=193826

My 280 is running 27 - 32 ms per step over a bunch of tasks ... the 9800 GT is 91 - 92 ms ...

The older posts in this thread from October were during a period where only one kind of workunit was being examined. Now we have three different kinds (with credits of 32xx, 24xx, and 18xx) that have widely varying ms per step on the same card. It would be interesting to see how cards are doing with these different types of work and how much spread there really is. I suspect that the spread is fairly tight on high-end cards with the differences becoming more substantial as one moves to the low-end. Not sure if different aspects of different OC would have different performance effects on different types of work? and yes, I could not fit another "different" into that last sentence ;)

My 280 is running 27 - 32 ms per step over a bunch of tasks ... the 9800 GT is 91 - 92 ms ...

The older posts in this thread from October were during a period where only one kind of workunit was being examined. Now we have three different kinds (with credits of 32xx, 24xx, and 18xx) that have widely varying ms per step on the same card. It would be interesting to see how cards are doing with these different types of work and how much spread there really is. I suspect that the spread is fairly tight on high-end cards with the differences becoming more substantial as one moves to the low-end. Not sure if different aspects of different OC would have different performance effects on different types of work? and yes, I could not fit another "different" into that last sentence ;)

That explains alot to me! I have'nt been following up on the message boards and probably miss a lot of topics and project progress.

I have a 280, and just quick sampled my tasks. I've noticed that the three credit wu types are almost equally spread, making things fair I suppose. Another thing I've noticed is that the 18xx tend to get close to the 35-40 ms while the 32xx tend to do 20-25 ms. the 24xx fall between 25-35 ms.

Just a crude estimate. Perhaps the project admits can come up with a more accurate picture by querying the database and averaging out the cards/tasks.

The older posts in this thread from October were during a period where only one kind of workunit was being examined. Now we have three different kinds (with credits of 32xx, 24xx, and 18xx) that have widely varying ms per step on the same card. It would be interesting to see how cards are doing with these different types of work and how much spread there really is.

I started (1) with a GTX 260/192 @stock, later I added (2) a second GTX 260/216 @stock and (3) flashed both to 666/1500/1150 (since 26./27. Nov.), meanwhile I switched the cards between computer-IDs (around 4. Jan. last time), you should not be amazed about mixed values viewing the different task-lists, here are the results for the three credit-groups 1888/2435/3232 (2933-credit-WU may be an exemption):

GTX 260/192 (666/1500/1150) (TaskID > credits > ms/step) - some examples

* 203862 > 3232 > 30.451 ms
* 202155 > 3232 > 30.363 ms
* 199331 > 3232 > 30.188 ms
* 198010 > 3232 > 43.650 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 201276 > 2933 > 57.040 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 200798 > 2435 > 36.197 ms
* 200793 > 2435 > 36.363 ms
* 196008 > 2435 > 42.375 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 202088 > 1888 > 38.864 ms
* 197912 > 1888 > 38.721 ms
* 196876 > 1888 > 39.508 ms

GTX 260/216 (666/1500/1150) (TaskID > credits > ms/step)

* 202904 > 3232 > 27.505 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 202898 > 3232 > 27.503 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 182989 > 3232 > 27.513 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 185601 > 2435 > 33.772 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 185199 > 2435 > 33.813 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 184240 > 2435 > 34.298 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 186263 > 1888 > 35.726 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 185932 > 1888 > 35.593 ms (MDIO ERROR)
* 185160 > 1888 > 37.406 ms (MDIO ERROR)

Are those MDIO errors signs of serious problems ? Do not hope with OC-settings.

Regarding and comparing the values from the oced GTX 280 I can assume there is a measurable effect in the difference of the shaders 192-216-240, which can be reduced by high overclocking, rudimental at least.

Okay...On the low end I have numbers from a 9500GT with 512mb(700 core, 1750 shader, 2000 memory) and a mid-range 9600 GSO with 384mb(600, 1700, 1800). Using 6.5.0 for all unless noted otherwise.

9500GT

3232> 210ms
2435> 272ms
1888> 293ms


9600GSO

3232> 85ms to 89ms
2435> 111ms to 116ms
1888> 102ms to 115ms

Odd thing with the 9600GSO 1888 credit units is that the range is deceiving since there were really no middle units--couple at 102ms with the rest around 115ms.

It does appear that the spread does magnify as one moves from faster to slower cards.


*Note that 1)The 9500GT numbers are from single workunits for each credit level 2)The 9500GT shader clock increased from 1750 to 1800 for 3232 credit unit 3)The 9600GSO 1888 credit units all with BOINC 6.3.21

I've noticed that the three credit wu types are almost equally spread, making things fair I suppose.

The WUs do differ in ms/step because they differ in complexity. They also differ in number of steps, so that the overall time consumed corresponds to the credits and therefore the statistical spread of the WU types does not matter (no fair or unfair). Currently the 1888 credit WUs are off and give less credits per time, but the problem is already reported.

Not sure if different aspects of different OC would have different performance effects on different types of work?

I don't think there'll be any dramatic effects here.. the WUs are not that much different. The more complex ones could respond stronger to memory frequency increases, though.

So I always OC to highest stable core and the rest no matter really.

No. You need both, core and shader frequency. Some utilities clock both up synchronously, maybe that's why you didn't notice the shader went up as well? And memory clock also matter, just not as much as the other two.

Does anyone know...My 260 won't OC. Is there a proggy besides the Nvidia stuffs?

If RivaTuner can't do it probably noone can do it ;)

Are those MDIO errors signs of serious problems ? Do not hope with OC-settings.

Nope. They just tell you there was no file to resume computation from, because you didn't stop & restart BOINC during the WU.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Are those MDIO errors signs of serious problems ? Do not hope with OC-settings.

Nope. They just tell you there was no file to resume computation from, because you didn't stop & restart BOINC during the WU.

Ah, good to know, thanks !

9600GSO

3232> 85ms to 89ms
2435> 111ms to 116ms
1888> 102ms to 115ms

Update for the 9600 GSO

29xx workunit > 175ms

Also, since this one took about 4 hours longer than the 3232 credit units, it looks like these might be 'off' in a similar manner as the 18xx credit units.

I was having the same problem and I found an app put out by EVGA simply called

EVGA_Precision_1.40.exe that I had read worked on almost any brand of card.

I have a BFG card and it seems to be working for me, by that I mean, I just started using it today and don't understand the effect the various changes mean as far as decreasing my run times. GPU over-clocking is new territory for me, CPU'S yes GPU'S no. It seems really simple to use, it simply has four sliders, which are Core Clock, Shader Clock, Memory Clock, and Fan Speed which I was glad to see as my fan was stuck on Auto and never moved, it was always 40% no matter what the conditions were, now I can increase it as needed. The danger posed by overheating when overclocking CPU's I am very familiar with and I assume the same holds for GPU's and I can't afford to risk hurting my GTX 260.

Hope this helps you

I was having the same problem and I found an app put out by EVGA simply called

EVGA_Precision_1.40.exe that I had read worked on almost any brand of card.

I have a BFG card and it seems to be working for me, by that I mean, I just started using it today and don't understand the effect the various changes mean as far as decreasing my run times. GPU over-clocking is new territory for me, CPU'S yes GPU'S no. It seems really simple to use, it simply has four sliders, which are Core Clock, Shader Clock, Memory Clock, and Fan Speed which I was glad to see as my fan was stuck on Auto and never moved, it was always 40% no matter what the conditions were, now I can increase it as needed. The danger posed by overheating when overclocking CPU's I am very familiar with and I assume the same holds for GPU's and I can't afford to risk hurting my GTX 260.

Hope this helps you

The EVGA Precision only works in Windows & only Overclocks 1 Core of a GTX 295 though. For now though I'm using EVGA Precision to control the Fan Speed & the Gainward EXPERTool to control the Second Core of the 295.

I didn't know about the program only controlling one core of a GTX 295 because I have yet to work out the nerve to buy one. I am looking to build a new system but am going nuts trying to figure out what hardware to purchase. It's main purpose will be crunching Boinc App's and a lot of video conversions, both of which can benefit from a great GPU, but I am going to be putting together a whole system, case, power supply, video card, motherboard, ram, processor, the list seems endless. I am hoping that during the time I spend trying to get the nerve up to lay out what for me will be a small fortune, the prices on video cards at least will stabilize. I saw a BFG GTX 280OC for $365 CAN today and the 295 is around $660 but I think the 295's and now the 285's will push the 280's price down even further very soon. The problem is I don't game at all, it is something I have never been interested in and while this will not only date me it's also a little embarrassing to say the last game I played was something like frogger or Pac-Man back in University. I was even considering getting dual 295's as I can probably scrap up the cash but can I justify that kind of outlay just to increase my RAC and hopefully do some worthwhile science in the process.

The problem is I don't game at all, it is something I have never been interested in and while this will not only date me it's also a little embarrassing to say the last game I played was something like frogger or Pac-Man back in University.

Frogger!
Wasn't there a 3D remake of that? :-)

I was even considering getting dual 295's as I can probably scrap up the cash but can I justify that kind of outlay just to increase my RAC and hopefully do some worthwhile science in the process.

The GTX 295 offers very good performance per dollar because it's two-in-one. You can always buy one now, and get the second later. Get at least a 750 or 850 Watt power supply up front so in the future you can simply add the second card without additional PSU swapping.

If this is going to be the rig for a few years ... get the best MB with 3 PCIe slots. Then the best and fastest CPU and memory you can afford ... if needs be, skimp on the memory as that can be replaced more cheaply than the CPU ... the high quality MB for the same reason.

Get the best GPU you can afford with what is left. YOu have expansion slots and can slowly add GPUs as money comes in later on ... so, for a start lets say you get a 9800GT for $100 ... does about 5K per day ... a year from now you get a 295 ... and now you are well above 15K a day add another 295 ... then replace the 9800 GT with a third ... by then may be you will be in the market for a new PC ... but now you have a small farm of GPUs to start ...

Rinse ... repeat ...

Then the best and fastest CPU and memory you can afford ...

-> Then the best and fastest CPU and memory you want to afford ...

;)

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

h

hello everybody,i would want your advices on my overclocking,it is good?

geforce gtx 260 216sp 55nm (original clock (576/1242/999)

now overclocked at: (gpu:756/shader:1512/memory:1188)
temp idle:55°c
temp full load with furemark in extreme mode:81°c


Task ID 282813
Name hG13938-SH2_US_5-3-10-SH2_US_51910000_1
Workunit 210038
Created 6 Feb 2009 0:48:21 UTC
Sent 6 Feb 2009 0:49:32 UTC
Received 6 Feb 2009 7:39:45 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 22576
Report deadline 10 Feb 2009 0:49:32 UTC
CPU time 2416.602
stderr out

<core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 260"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Number of multiprocessors: 27
# Number of cores: 216
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
# Time per step: 31.006 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 15503.221 s
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 2478.98611111111
Granted credit 2478.98611111111
application version 6.59
***********************************
Task ID 281496
Name Fm24458-GRA1-4-5-acemd_0
Workunit 210000
Created 5 Feb 2009 14:10:57 UTC
Sent 5 Feb 2009 19:55:55 UTC
Received 6 Feb 2009 7:23:43 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 22576
Report deadline 9 Feb 2009 19:55:55 UTC
CPU time 2636.021
stderr out

<core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 260"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Number of multiprocessors: 27
# Number of cores: 216
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 260"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Number of multiprocessors: 27
# Number of cores: 216
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 260"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Number of multiprocessors: 27
# Number of cores: 216
# Time per step: 24.897 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21162.294 s
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 3215.36111111111
Granted credit 3215.36111111111
application version 6.59

it is good job for a gtx260?

---