Does anyone have a 660 (non-Ti) yet?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Does anyone have a 660 (non-Ti) yet?

Author Message
tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1284969 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 21:33:20 UTC

If someone does, would they please run Fred's Performance program on it and post the results?

Thanks.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,866,275
RAC: 13,144
United States
Message 1285641 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 20:50:36 UTC - in response to Message 1284969.
Last modified: 19 Sep 2012, 21:44:07 UTC

Seconded, please do if you do!
____________

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 944
Credit: 25,164,816
RAC: 2,408
Australia
Message 1286545 - Posted: 22 Sep 2012, 6:41:32 UTC

Just ordered 4 of them. The Palit overclocked variety (base clock 1006Mhz). Not quite as fast as the EVGA Superclocked ones. They will be replacing a bunch of GTX560Ti's.
____________
BOINC blog

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1286550 - Posted: 22 Sep 2012, 7:02:57 UTC - in response to Message 1286545.

Just ordered 4 of them. The Palit overclocked variety (base clock 1006Mhz). Not quite as fast as the EVGA Superclocked ones. They will be replacing a bunch of GTX560Ti's.


I can't wait to hear about your experience with them. Thanks for sharing.

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1287634 - Posted: 25 Sep 2012, 7:51:13 UTC

When do you expect them?

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 944
Credit: 25,164,816
RAC: 2,408
Australia
Message 1287641 - Posted: 25 Sep 2012, 9:24:10 UTC - in response to Message 1287634.

When do you expect them?


They arrived at shop this morning. I'll be picking up on Thursday (I have something on tomorrow evening).
____________
BOINC blog

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,866,275
RAC: 13,144
United States
Message 1288089 - Posted: 26 Sep 2012, 15:43:42 UTC - in response to Message 1287641.
Last modified: 26 Sep 2012, 15:52:10 UTC

Nice!
I recently picked up a gtx 570 classified, but would liquidate that for a set of 660's if they perform well.
____________

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 944
Credit: 25,164,816
RAC: 2,408
Australia
Message 1288374 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 10:41:43 UTC
Last modified: 27 Sep 2012, 10:53:44 UTC

Okay first one is installed. Just downloaded a few multibeams for it and its running.

27/09/2012 8:37:28 PM | | NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 660 (driver version 306.23, CUDA version 5.0, compute capability 3.0, 2048MB, 1930MB available, 2057 GFLOPS peak)
27/09/2012 8:37:28 PM | | OpenCL: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 660 (driver version 306.23, device version OpenCL 1.1 CUDA, 2048MB, 1930MB available)


Links to the first WU:
1st
2nd
3rd
4th

Looking slightly faster at the moment than the 560Ti that it replaced, but this is a very small sample and these are all shorties.
____________
BOINC blog

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 944
Credit: 25,164,816
RAC: 2,408
Australia
Message 1288396 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 11:44:51 UTC

Completed a couple of Einstein WU. 560Ti average is 46 min. On a miniscule sample size of 2 the 660 came in at 34.5 mins.

Need more samples to get a decent comparison
____________
BOINC blog

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1288494 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 17:22:22 UTC - in response to Message 1288396.
Last modified: 27 Sep 2012, 17:32:21 UTC

Completed a couple of Einstein WU. 560Ti average is 46 min. On a miniscule sample size of 2 the 660 came in at 34.5 mins.

Need more samples to get a decent comparison


Can I convince you to run Fred's Performance tool V1.4 on them? (the automatic test)

Please?

I'd like to compare the results of my 660Tis with your 660s, especially since you seem to get better times with the 660s than with 560Tis. That's a surprise and if it holds true, you've discovered a gem.



Here are my results, 660Ti - reference cards at reference clocks, for .5 and .33 (two and three work units at a time; which are of most interest to most of us), using x41g included with the tool:



27 September 2012 - 11:30:38 Start, devices: 2, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 332, average time on device: 166 Seconds (2 Minutes, 46 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 2, average time / count: 330, average time on device: 165 Seconds (2 Minutes, 45 Seconds)





27 September 2012 - 11:36:16 Start, devices: 2, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 473, average time on device: 157 Seconds (2 Minutes, 37 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 477, average time on device: 159 Seconds (2 Minutes, 39 Seconds)



The differences in my two cards can be explained by slight differences in the automatic "Boost Clock" performance (bought from the same store shelf within days of each-other).




I'll throw-in these fresh results, using V1.4 for consistency; 560Ti - reference cards running reference clocks, for .5 and .33, using x41g included with the tool:



27 September 2012 - 11:59:50 Start, devices: 2, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 273, average time on device: 136 Seconds (2 Minutes, 16 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 2, average time / count: 275, average time on device: 137 Seconds (2 Minutes, 17 Seconds)




27 September 2012 - 12:04:28 Start, devices: 2, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 405, average time on device: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 407, average time on device: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds)




As you can see, my 560Tis beat the times of my 660Tis, so I am especially anxious to get your 660 numbers for comparison.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,866,275
RAC: 13,144
United States
Message 1288623 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 0:55:55 UTC
Last modified: 28 Sep 2012, 0:57:47 UTC

Please for the sake of future research relocate this conversation to Freds thread...
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=69136&sort_style=6&start=150

Thanks guys :)
____________

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1288625 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 0:57:28 UTC - in response to Message 1288623.

Please for the sake of future research relocal this conversation to Freds thread...
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=69136&sort_style=6&start=150

Thanks guys :)



If he answers here, I will repost it over there.

That thread is getting a little... difficult to find anything in.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,866,275
RAC: 13,144
United States
Message 1288626 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 0:58:31 UTC - in response to Message 1288625.

I hear ya there :) seems to be the nature of these things...
____________

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 561
Credit: 1,684,169
RAC: 542
Greece
Message 1288762 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 10:56:31 UTC - in response to Message 1288494.

As you can see, my 560Tis beat the times of my 660Tis....


Heh? WHAT? Why?

Is this the case in real-world crunching too? I totally expected the 660Ti to be around 30% better @seti than the 560Ti...

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1288939 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 17:48:00 UTC - in response to Message 1288762.
Last modified: 28 Sep 2012, 18:01:17 UTC

As you can see, my 560Tis beat the times of my 660Tis....


Heh? WHAT? Why?

Is this the case in real-world crunching too? I totally expected the 660Ti to be around 30% better @seti than the 560Ti...



I don't know. I haven't been able to keep work on the 660Ti cards since I got them.

But the test results using Fred's Performance tool are consistent from one test to the next, even when I moved the cards from one machine to another, so I suspect it's true.

There may be exceptions and "gotchas," but like I said, I haven't been able to develop a stable "RAC" on the 660Tis because I can't keep work on them.

ChrisSibbald
Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 11
Posts: 18
Credit: 23,582,502
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1288991 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 19:34:53 UTC - in response to Message 1288939.
Last modified: 28 Sep 2012, 19:36:13 UTC

Everything I read indicated that the Fermi cards (5xx series) are better at number crunching than Kepler cards (6xx series). But that may be just for Floating Point calcs? I am also interested in some real test results.

Btw. My GPUs have been starving for four days. How about you?

Cheers
Chris

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 944
Credit: 25,164,816
RAC: 2,408
Australia
Message 1289083 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 23:17:05 UTC
Last modified: 28 Sep 2012, 23:31:04 UTC

And freds performace tool v1.4 run on one of them. More info on my blog. This is a Palit factory OC'ed one (Base clock 1006Mhz, Boost 1072Mhz). Details posted in the other thread as well.


Starting automatic test: (x41g)
29 September 2012 - 08:56:38 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 (1.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 234, average time on device: 234 Seconds (3 Minutes, 54 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:00:34 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 319, average time on device: 159 Seconds (2 Minutes, 39 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:05:56 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 465, average time on device: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:13:45 Start, devices: 1, device count: 4 (0.25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 619, average time on device: 154 Seconds (2 Minutes, 34 Seconds)
>> The best average time found: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3)
____________
BOINC blog

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5917
Credit: 61,698,428
RAC: 26,894
Australia
Message 1289102 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 0:31:59 UTC - in response to Message 1288991.

Everything I read indicated that the Fermi cards (5xx series) are better at number crunching than Kepler cards (6xx series). But that may be just for Floating Point calcs?


The GTX*** Kepler boards all have limited double precision support. As it's not used for Seti crunching, it doesn't hinder them in any way.
The beefed up double precision support will be coming out in the Kepler Tesla cards.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2897
Credit: 218,381,374
RAC: 62,793
United States
Message 1289150 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 5:06:30 UTC - in response to Message 1289083.



And freds performace tool v1.4 run on one of them. More info on my blog.




Thank you.

Profile Vipin Palazhi
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 08
Posts: 250
Credit: 109,075,831
RAC: 45,537
India
Message 1289620 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 7:24:44 UTC

I have been planning to get a GTX680 for one of my rigs, but after reading this post, I am having doubts. Does this mean that the 5xx series perform better than the higher priced 6xx ones? I havent come across any comparisons for the 680 or 690 cards. Would anyone have details?

Message boards : Number crunching : Does anyone have a 660 (non-Ti) yet?

Copyright © 2014 University of California