Message boards :
Number crunching :
Top GPU models
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
boincadm/DA has done a couple of changesets: [trac]#24069[/trac], [trac]#24071[/trac] and [trac]#24072[/trac] that shows the Top GPU models here at Seti, (the link is beneath Statistics on the front page), I assume this is with the Stock GPU apps, as Linux, Mac and ATI/AMD are unfilled. Claggy |
AI4FR Send message Joined: 13 Apr 11 Posts: 57 Credit: 23,590,991 RAC: 0 |
Interesting, thanks for the link. Some thing doesn't look right in the line-up though. http://www.AI4FR.com |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
We also need to work with David to help him refine the list into something more useful. The stated thinking behind the list is: I added a page that shows the most productive GPU types, It looks as if the data is being pulled from recently returned results, so it should be up-to-date. But so far (and it's very early days yet) the list would be positively misleading as a buyer's guide: for a single card, no way can 9600GT>9800GT>9800GTX+ be right. I presume the scores must be strongly influenced by the number of each type of card in use here: the 9800GT was pretty much 'most bang for the buck' three years ago, and there'll be lots of them around, but that doesn't make it a 'best buy' in 2011. Do we have anyone reading the board today who could analyse gpu_list.php, and work out exactly what's being shown in the lists? My guess is that it's the raw total credits for results in the database for each card type - and I'm wondering if it might be for people running stock apps only. My first suggestion, given space constraints, would be to add the count of cards in brackets after the model name, and to sort the list by average (total/count). But I'm sure between us we can help make it even better than that. Any ideas? |
Blake Bonkofsky Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 617 Credit: 46,383,149 RAC: 0 |
Is this based on computation potential or purely the number of cards that are present on the project? Surely it can't be based on processing power, listing a 9600GT over a GTX580... Perhaps it is just total contribution based on card type? |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
...Do we have anyone reading the board today who could analyse gpu_list.php, and work out exactly what's being shown in the lists? My guess is that it's the raw total credits for results in the database for each card type - and I'm wondering if it might be for people running stock apps only... A quick look suggest it's counting number of results in the last day for each model. I'll look again to check when my eyes decide to cooperate better with the PhP code. [Edit:] I would suggest, if that's so, that it reflects a compound value of raw performance x number in circulation of each model, rather than performance alone. They would need to divide the figures by some complicated figure based on active hosts with the given model. Unfortunately Boinc doesn't identify mixed card setups properly, but if a count of the cards per machine is available it might provide something 'near enough' Jason "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Highlander Send message Joined: 5 Oct 99 Posts: 167 Credit: 37,987,668 RAC: 16 |
A quick look suggest it's counting number of results in the last day for each model. I'll look again to check when my eyes decide to cooperate better with the PhP code. and i vote for an overview of incoming results of the last 30 days, but like jason said, thats near enough - Performance is not a simple linear function of the number of CPUs you throw at the problem. - |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
David has changed the sort order - does that look better, everyone? |
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
David has changed the sort order - does that look better, everyone? Yep, that looks a bit more reasonable, some figures would be nice, and what happened to the 8400 GS? has it dropped off the bottom? Claggy |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
David has changed the sort order - does that look better, everyone? The code in [trac]changeset:24085[/trac] seems to consider the first 5,000 results it encounters in a list of tasks created in the last 30 days. With SETI turning over 50,000 tasks an hour, that's a pretty sparse sample - my guess is that the 8400 GS just hasn't reported in the last 5,000. It's still not right - although David (brownie point for this one) has skipped tasks running for less than 100 seconds, basically the -9s - he's done nothing to account for shorty storms. I'd prefer to see a page like list of recently connected client types, with some explanations and cautions. And like that list, I'd like to see the query run periodically, and the results cached - the time it takes to refresh the 'Top GPU models' page suggests the code hits the servers pretty hard. Caching the page would help, though hopefully with a refresh interval of less than 10 months. Remind me to try and find a way of celebrating the anniversary of the current list ;-) |
Sutaru Tsureku Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
What about double chip grafic cards: 9800GX2, GTX295, GTX590? As I looked GTX295 #13, GTX260 #11. Maybe x2 or /2 (depend of how the place is calculated), so the double chip grafic cards are higher placed. 1. GeForce GTX 570 2. GeForce GTX 580 3. GeForce GTX 480 4. GeForce GTX 470 5. GeForce GTX 560 Ti 6. GeForce GTX 465 7. GeForce GTX 460 8. GeForce GTX 280 9. GeForce GTX 275 10. GeForce GTX 285 11. GeForce GTX 260 12. GeForce GTS 450 13. GeForce GTX 295 14. GeForce 8800 GTX 15. GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ 16. GeForce GTX 560 17. GeForce GTX 460 SE 18. GeForce 9800 GTX+ 19. GeForce GTS 250 20. GeForce 8800 GTS 512 21. GeForce 9800 GT 22. GeForce 8800 GT 23. GeForce 8800 GTS 24. GeForce GT 440 25. GeForce GT 240 26. GeForce GT 220 27. GeForce GT 430 28. GeForce GT 330M 29. GeForce 9600 GT 30. GeForce 8600 GT 31. GeForce 9500 GT 32. GeForce 210 33. GeForce 9400 GT - Best regards! - Sutaru Tsureku, team seti.international founder. - Optimize your PC for higher RAC. - SETI@home needs your help. - |
EdwardPF Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 389 Credit: 236,772,605 RAC: 374 |
where is my GeForce GTX 550 Ti ?? Ed F |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19062 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
With so few tasks sampled and so many gpu's, and with the processing of mid range AR's and VHAR's havin at least a 30% variation. This exersize seems pointless and misleading, especially if it takes up a lot of server power. It is nice to see that -9's etc can be disregarded, now maybe Dr A. can apply it where it is most needed, calculating APR. |
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
This is what the Top GPU models list looks like now: 1.GeForce GTX 590 2.GeForce GTX 570 3.GeForce GTX 480 4.GeForce GTX 580 5.GeForce GTX 470 6.GeForce GTX 465 7.GeForce GTX 560 Ti 8.GeForce GTX 460 9.GeForce GTX 285 10.GeForce GTX 275 11.GeForce GTX 260 12.GeForce GTX 295 13.GeForce GTS 450 14.GeForce 8800 GTX 15.GeForce 8800 GTS 512 16.GeForce 8800 GT 17.GeForce GTS 250 18.GeForce 9800 GT 19.GeForce GT 240 20.GeForce GT 430 21.GeForce 8800 GTS 22.GeForce GT 220 23.GeForce 9600 GT 24.GeForce GT 330M 25.Quadro FX 580 26.GeForce 9500 GT 27.GeForce 9400 GT some GPU have now made the list, while others have vanished like the GTX 9800/GTX 9800+, wouldn't it be better if it was a running average of app times, ie update the list, don't make a new list. Claggy |
BMH Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 419 Credit: 166,294,083 RAC: 125 |
A performance graph would be nice ;) For example I'm using both GTX 460s and 560ti's, but there is quite a price jump, I wonder if the performance increase reflects this - I'm still trying to find out from my own tests. Useful information though, I'm not sure how it compares to other performance comparisons which I tend to refer to when buying new stuff... also referring to power consumption and price. Brian. |
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
The Top GPU models list now has some numbers, not sure what they mean: 1.(1.000) GeForce GTX 570 2.(0.839) GeForce GTX 480 3.(0.779) GeForce GTX 560 Ti 4.(0.628) GeForce GTX 470 5.(0.569) GeForce GTX 460 6.(0.507) GeForce GTX 275 7.(0.493) GeForce GTX 260 8.(0.475) GeForce GTX 550 Ti 9.(0.432) GeForce GTX 295 10.(0.423) GeForce GTS 450 11.(0.317) GeForce GTX 460M 12.(0.312) GeForce 8800 GTX 13.(0.298) GeForce GTS 240 14.(0.285) GeForce 8800 GT 15.(0.284) GeForce GT 240 16.(0.268) GeForce GTS 250 17.(0.227) GeForce 9800 GT 18.(0.223) Quadro FX 3800 19.(0.220) GeForce GT 330 20.(0.208) GeForce 8800 GTS 21.(0.106) Quadro FX 2700M 22.(0.100) GeForce 9500 GT 23.(0.087) GeForce 8600 GT 24.(0.058) GeForce 9400 GT 25.(0.056) GeForce 210 Claggy |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
The Top GPU models list now has some numbers, not sure what they mean: They're relative performance, presumably what fraction of the current 'top dog' each card is achieving. I added a new web page, html/user/gpu_list.php (from the 'BOINC Projects' mailing list, for those who don't monitor it regularly) |
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
Thanks for that, i hadn't noticed the 'Relative speeds are shown in parentheses.' entry, Claggy |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Thanks for that, i hadn't noticed the 'Relative speeds are shown in parentheses.' entry, It may not have been there at first - I got it from an off-list email. He may still be tuning the code - it hasn't been committed into trac yet. |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
This should help answer those "best video card bang for the buck" questions. I wonder how big of a mess it would be to do this for CPUs as well. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
Khangollo Send message Joined: 1 Aug 00 Posts: 245 Credit: 36,410,524 RAC: 0 |
|
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.