Noticed that your 750Ti temperature crept up to 82C:

# GPU 1 : 79C
# GPU 1 : 80C
# GPU 0 : 69C
# GPU 1 : 81C
# GPU 0 : 70C
# GPU 0 : 71C
# GPU 1 : 82C

Suggest you reduce your temp target a bit.

Thanks for that, eagle-eyed skgiven!

I reduced the target from 80C to 78C and have been running GPU-Z for several hours with GPU Temperature set to Average. The number is 76.9C.

On the down side:
...
The 750Ti’s might not hold their value as long and IMO being smaller would be more likely to fail.

I agree only with the first part of this statement.
Larger cards have higher TDP, resulting higher temperatures, which could induce shorter lifespan.

Was speaking from experience of using GT240's. The fans failed on most of the cards I went through.
My interpretation of the higher TDPs is that the cards need to be built better (able to actually dissipate 140 or 165W of heat). Not that 165W is a lot; a lot is 230W (770) or 250W (780). In my experience bigger cards can often run at higher temps because they are built better, they don't fail tasks, but that doesn't mean they should be run hot and having a higher TCP doesn't necessarily mean higher temps; GPU's with better cooling stay cooler no matter what the TDP is and that's down to the manufacturers (with the exception of ref designs).

Found that my 650Tiboost (134W) and 660 cards couldn't handle the heat too well. These were closer to the 120W TDP of the 960.

If the size of a tasks increase then there is a likelihood that the 750Ti will no longer return work in time for the full bonus. That said they should still get the 25% bonus (for reporting inside 48h) and could run short WU’s for some time.

That's why I don't recommend GTX 750Ti for GPUGrid. This card (and the GTX 750) are the smallest ones of the Maxwell series, and since there is the GTX 960 it's a much better choice taking all three aspects (speed, price and energy efficiency) into consideration.

The 960 has a couple of pluses (no issue returning in time, newer generation) but I don't have a GTX960 and have not seen any significant reports of one (actual power usage, temps, OC's, optimized runtimes/performance). It might be a better option for some but I don't like the Watts it pulls for a 1024shader GPU; a GTX970 is 25% more efficient and a GTX980 is 46% (GFlops/W SP), and they are quite pricey too. Cheapest new is £150.

The 750Ti is GM 107 whereas the 960 is GM106 and the 970/980 are GM104. The GM106 is very much a medium sized card.

---

FAQ's

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

I cannot increase the power usage of my GTX750Ti, unlike the 970’s.

A custom vBIOS could help. (Maxwell BIOS tweaker tool and NVflash) I would always hit a powerlimit when clocks were around 1320Mhz for GERALD's so I flashed. A lot of 750 series are set at a 38.5W hard limit . At 60W = 157% of the original BIOS power cap.

Second hand £120 to £160 vs £210 to £240; roughly £140 vs £225.

Secondhand custom PCB 970's are nearly commanding 100% of their MSRP in the states while the typical resale 970's are 80-90%.

Zoltan wrote:

That's why I don't recommend GTX 750Ti for GPUGrid. This card (and the GTX 750) are the smallest ones of the Maxwell series, and since there is the GTX 960 it's a much better choice taking all three aspects (speed, price and energy efficiency) into consideration.

I agree: a 960 can operate at 1.5GHz while 1.4GHz is considered a great overclock for the 750's.

A caveat: comparing host's with fast 750's - they have up to <75% output of a 960. 4/5SMM vs. 8SMM scaling has yet to show a ~50% decrease in runtime. This might be due to 960's 1024CUDA with 1024MB of L2cache (1/1 core/cacheKb) ratio while a 750 is 4/1 ratio at 2048MB of L2c with 512CUDA. Also the 960's core/128bit bandwidth ratio could be an issue in itself. I've yet to see a 960 an ACEMD runtime 50% better than the 750series. (Please correctly me if I'm mistaken) An app update could change this.

And thanks to skgiven for the informative posts.

On a another note -- a great gig in the sky occurred -- GM107 owners with a custom vBIOS: don't always trust what the temp target/overclock setting is in a non-controlled environment.

Last night a powerful sea breeze developed - dropping ambient temps from 85F to 60F. My systems are located (sun blasted room with five windows). My 750 decided to manually overclock past >1438MHz without my doing (Gerald error) during the 20hr runtime. Before I realized this behavior: a NOELIA_ETQ completed okay at 1425Mhz with no simulation error messages. A another GERALD WU down-clocked to 405MHz while at 1425MHz. No sim error but a CUDA error at 1425 for GERALD.

When the GPU core dropped to 70C: the OC crept higher and higher on it own. The cool 53F dense sea air has the 750 GPU at 70C OP when the temp target is 80C allowing the boost bins to past a designated 1412MHz. OV is at the standard 1.2V. OV can be raised .025 but without water cooling I wont risk it.

After a reset and a new overclock to 1359MHz with 80C target since it really cool at the moment - boost currently at 1346/1359MHz which is completely stable for GERALD and NOELIA's. My former NV inspector overclock was 1412MHz (80C temp target) for a counter against the hot ambient that would down clock a few boost bins - the 80C temp target is fighting heat. (WC will fix this) During hot days: clocks mostly bounce around 1333-1372MHz (lowest is 1293MHz/1.081V) if ambient is near 100F.

My GM107 hard limit for GERALD's seems to be 1412MHz and 1425 for NOELIA's. Anything above 1400MHz is considered golden for GM107. If temps are below target and a GPU isn't hitting it's power limit - all Maxwell's expect GM107 might be able to clock ACEMD 1.5GHz stable. 1.5GHz GM200 yet to be proven at ACEMD but once I get one this will my goal and hopefully long-term stable. A user reported 1465MHz. This is highest known GM200 ACEMD clock so far.

1.5GHz sounds good but with only 1024MB of L2cache and a 128bit bus the 960 is badly bottlenecked and the high freq. comes at the cost of power.

Lots of good posts and valid opinions in this thread.

---

FAQ's

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

I cannot increase the power usage of my GTX750Ti, unlike the 970’s.

A custom vBIOS could help. (Maxwell BIOS tweaker tool and NVflash) I would always hit a powerlimit when clocks were around 1320Mhz for GERALD's so I flashed. A lot of 750 series are set at a 38.5W hard limit . At 60W = 157% of the original BIOS power cap.

Where do I get a custom vBIOS or the software for building one? It might help with my problems trying to install a GTX 750 Ti in one of my computers - apparently the standard BIOS blocks use of all brands of GTX 750 Ti by some problem that prevents the boot procedure from paying any attention to the keyboard if a GTX 750 Ti is installed. I've already tried two different brands; both block the boot procedure at the point where keyboard input is needed to go any further.

I've already found and tried what appears to be the latest BIOS update for that computer model; no difference.

Robert, the custom vBIOS referred to below is for the GPU not the motherboard, so it won't help you out. Your only solution is a different motherboard/system.

---

FAQ's

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

Robert, the custom vBIOS referred to below is for the GPU not the motherboard, so it won't help you out. Your only solution is a different motherboard/system.

A different motherboard might be an option if I can get sufficient information to choose one that will fit into that case, run with the original power supply, and work the first time I try to boot it. I have not yet found sufficient information on how to match motherboards to cases and power supplies, though.

A new computer would require rather extreme measures, such as not running it at the same time as both of my current desktops, or even moving to a different building first.

An MSI Z77A-G45 (and many similar boards) has 3 x16 PCIe slots, and you could additionally use up to 3 of the PCIe X1 slots (albeit at a performance loss of 15% or more depending on setup).

Yes - looks like it could support three double-width GPUs though I doubt there's room for more than one GPU on an x1 and that would have to be single-width.

Unfortunately, when I built my main rig 18 months ago I went for the ASUS Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 'cause it had four PCIe x16 slots. I found that only two double-width GPUs fit in it! Should have done my homework...

On another topic, today I got my first Gianni since February. It's gunna take 24+ hours on my OCed 750Ti. Looks like there's a trend for our goodly scientists to demand ever more processing power.

I doubt there's room for more than one GPU on an x1 and that would have to be single-width.

Powered PCIe Risers :)

---

FAQ's

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

I doubt there's room for more than one GPU on an x1 and that would have to be single-width.

Powered PCIe Risers :)

OK. Checked 'em out. Watched a couple of videos but they were illustrating the riser connections with the mobos on the work bench.

Where do the riser-attached GPUs go when the PC is closed up??

When you start using risers it's gone way past basic closed case design. It's very much an open case/bench worktop design.

---

FAQ's

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

When you start using risers it's gone way past basic closed case design. It's very much an open case/bench worktop design.

Ah! Got it. Thanks.

On June 23 I reported this comparison of my three GPUs:

On June 27 I made some changes:

Rig 1 - 780Ti & 750Ti:
Activated SWAN_SYNC and upped the 750Ti GPU clock from 1150 to 1275.

Rig 2 - 770:
Activated SWAN_SYNC.

Here are the numbers since those changes:



Noelias:
10%+ improvement on the 750Ti, 15+% on the 770 just with SWAN_SYNC, and only 4% on the 780Ti.
The 780Ti lost 12 percentage points against the 750Ti
The 780TI lost 13+ percentage points against the 770(!) How can this be since the only changes relative to these two GPUs was SWAN_SYNC on both...
Even with a faster 750Ti, the 770 gained 6 percentage points against it.

Gerards
The 770 gained 8%+ from SWAN_SYNC, the 780Ti only 4%+.
The 780Ti lost 5 percentage points against the 770.

Summary:
OCing the 750Ti gives, for me, 10% more credits.
SWAN_SYNC is a worthwhile freebee, especially on my 770: 15%+ more credits on Noelias and 8%+ more on Gerards.

Tomba - thanks again for sharing.

Here is a Gerald credit/power rating:
Average credit/hr divided by the (GPU) BTU/h

(250W) 780ti (853BTU/h) = 23.6 credit/h per BTU/h. (credit/hr = 20190)
(230W) 770 (784BTU/h) = 19.3 credit/h per BTU/h (credit/hr = 15135)
The 780ti has 18.3% higher credit/h per BTU/h

NOELIA's:

(60W) 750ti (204 BTU/h) = 43 credit/h per BTU/h (credit/hr = 8849)

The 750ti/770/780ti NOELIA/GERALD combined credit for 8 days is 8635000 =(1079375 RAC/day) and 44973 RAC/hr.

The 750ti/770/780ti together = 44208 BTU/day or 1842BTU/hr.
All (540W) GPU's together have a 24.4 credit per BTU rating.
The 770 is bringing down the overall average due to power hungry dynamics.
Maxwell's credit per BTU rating is >50% higher than 770.

The higher a credit/h per BTU/h - the more efficient a GPU.

Average credit/hr divided by the (GPU) BTU/h

Me no understand BTU/h...

The British thermal unit (BTU or Btu) is a traditional unit of energy equal to about 1055 joules.

The BTU is often used to express the conversion-efficiency of heat into electrical energy in power plants. Figures are quoted in terms of the quantity of heat in BTU required to generate 1 kW·h of electrical energy. A typical coal-fired power plant works at 10,500 BTU/kW·h, an efficiency of 32–33%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit

At the bottom is my post of 6 July. Since then I have continued to monitor the performance of my three GPUs.

A feature of these past 2+ months has been the narrow ranges of credit delivery, by GPU and WU; NOELIA & GERARD, illustrated by the standard deviation percentages below. So I am confident that, for me, the percentage comparisons are truly representative.

Final conclusions?

* the 780Ti has been a big disappointment. Much less than 2x the 750Ti and only 22% to 25% better than the 770.
* SWAN_SYNC does little for the 780Ti but much for the 770 and 750Ti
* wish I had some more-recent GPUs to put through their paces!

On June 23 I reported this comparison of my three GPUs:

On June 27 I made some changes:

Rig 1 - 780Ti & 750Ti:
Activated SWAN_SYNC and upped the 750Ti GPU clock from 1150 to 1275.

Rig 2 - 770:
Activated SWAN_SYNC.

Here are the numbers since those changes:



Noelias:
10%+ improvement on the 750Ti, 15+% on the 770 just with SWAN_SYNC, and only 4% on the 780Ti.
The 780Ti lost 12 percentage points against the 750Ti
The 780TI lost 13+ percentage points against the 770(!) How can this be since the only changes relative to these two GPUs was SWAN_SYNC on both...
Even with a faster 750Ti, the 770 gained 6 percentage points against it.

Gerards
The 770 gained 8%+ from SWAN_SYNC, the 780Ti only 4%+.
The 780Ti lost 5 percentage points against the 770.

Summary:
OCing the 750Ti gives, for me, 10% more credits.
SWAN_SYNC is a worthwhile freebee, especially on my 770: 15%+ more credits on Noelias and 8%+ more on Gerards.

[list=][/list]

With four GTX 750 Tis set up as I indicated above, my RAC has now stabilized at 1,059,238.69 PPD, or 264810 PPD/card. Each card draws 90% of TDP according to GPU-Z, or 54 watts per card. So each card yields 4904 PPD/watt.

I know that is significantly above my GTX 960 when I tried it, and now use that card on POEM or Folding. But the 128 bit memory bus on the 960 (the same as for the GTX 750 Ti) seems to limit it here, and also on Einstein as I recall.

EDIT: If you look at the 960 on a value basis, it is a very good card, and it is still very energy-efficient as compared to the others; nothing beats the Maxwells that I have found. I just happen to have the 750 Tis and need to find the best use for them in the projects I support.