Is the GTX 295 still the best card for CUDA? (Better than a GTX 470?)


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Is the GTX 295 still the best card for CUDA? (Better than a GTX 470?)

Previous · 1 · 2
Author Message
Profile MadMaC
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 01
Posts: 201
Credit: 47,158,217
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1050400 - Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 22:57:59 UTC - in response to Message 1050107.

Yes, the 295 is still the card to beat. Although on some projects, ATI is a killer.

Not here, though.

Two 295's in one rig are a powerful couple of crunchers.

I have 2 465's in another rig, and they are rather lame.

Very dissapointed in them, I be.



Mark, you can run upto 3 wu's per card on fermi - that will bump your RAC up :-)
____________

msattler
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38338
Credit: 561,772,836
RAC: 643,817
United States
Message 1050406 - Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 23:24:07 UTC - in response to Message 1050400.

Yes, the 295 is still the card to beat. Although on some projects, ATI is a killer.

Not here, though.

Two 295's in one rig are a powerful couple of crunchers.

I have 2 465's in another rig, and they are rather lame.

Very dissapointed in them, I be.



Mark, you can run upto 3 wu's per card on fermi - that will bump your RAC up :-)

I dunno....
I thought I tried that and they just took 3 times as long to run, so no real gain.
Maybe I'll give it another go when work starts flowing here again.
____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Profile SciManStev
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4792
Credit: 79,843,761
RAC: 36,270
United States
Message 1050408 - Posted: 22 Nov 2010, 23:33:54 UTC - in response to Message 1050406.
Last modified: 22 Nov 2010, 23:35:08 UTC

Hello Mark,
You can run up to 3 at a time, and there is a definite time increase for two, but you get more out in a given time period, as that is what I did to get a RAC of 47,000, with pendings in the 700,000 range for my one rig. I am set for three now, but since I switched, SETI has not been able to provide enough constant worf to see if there is a gain. The times are not doubled, but are a little longer. That alone means that you will get more out in a given time. At the moment I am set up with hyperthreading on, and 3 wu per card. That would give 18 wu's at a time, and I'm iunterested in seeing how it performs. I believe that with the new servers, I'll be able to get enough work to see where I'm at, and tune the system. It's just too hard to get a good read on where a system will top out when there is not enough work to keep it supplied.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

zoom314
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 45809
Credit: 36,430,711
RAC: 6,797
Message 1050421 - Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 0:20:37 UTC - in response to Message 1050408.

Hello Mark,
You can run up to 3 at a time, and there is a definite time increase for two, but you get more out in a given time period, as that is what I did to get a RAC of 47,000, with pendings in the 700,000 range for my one rig. I am set for three now, but since I switched, SETI has not been able to provide enough constant worf to see if there is a gain. The times are not doubled, but are a little longer. That alone means that you will get more out in a given time. At the moment I am set up with hyperthreading on, and 3 wu per card. That would give 18 wu's at a time, and I'm iunterested in seeing how it performs. I believe that with the new servers, I'll be able to get enough work to see where I'm at, and tune the system. It's just too hard to get a good read on where a system will top out when there is not enough work to keep it supplied.

Steve

Either that, Or You'll be the first person to have figured out how to Tune a Fish. ;)
____________

Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4920
Credit: 72,653,184
RAC: 4,377
Australia
Message 1050498 - Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 6:01:49 UTC - in response to Message 1050406.
Last modified: 23 Nov 2010, 6:03:19 UTC

Yes, the 295 is still the card to beat. Although on some projects, ATI is a killer.

Not here, though.

Two 295's in one rig are a powerful couple of crunchers.

I have 2 465's in another rig, and they are rather lame.

Very dissapointed in them, I be.



Mark, you can run upto 3 wu's per card on fermi - that will bump your RAC up :-)

I dunno....
I thought I tried that and they just took 3 times as long to run, so no real gain.
Maybe I'll give it another go when work starts flowing here again.


Ahhh, I wondered when the reasons would come out ;)

For reference on my 480, with x32f:
1 Mid AR task at a time: ~8 mins total, 8 mins each
2 Mid AR tasks at a time: ~14 mins total, 7 mins each
3 Mid AR tasks at a time: ~18 mins total, 6 mins each
4 Mid AR ... too long

So I've been running 3 at a time, and the dual core with the single 480 reached a RAC high of 26000. I'm not sure what the 465 dynamics would be, but at least 2 tasks at a time should hide some of the CPU usage that the GPUs would have been otherwise idle. The same operation wasn't workable on the GTX 260 in the other room, and dynamics of the best number of tasks to run on Fermi at a time may vary with future application optimisation levels, as well as model of card.

Jason
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : Is the GTX 295 still the best card for CUDA? (Better than a GTX 470?)

Copyright © 2014 University of California