I am currently looking to replace my GTX 465 with one of the newer ones.
For those that own them, what can be expected for their average RAC.?

Thanks for popping this question Dave. I too am planning to add a GPU to one of my rigs and not sure which one I should get. According to many messages that I have read here, the 5xx series are at par, if not better, than the 6xx series, while costing much less. And I can most probably get hold of a used 570 for even lesser through the local market.

I am also interested in knowing the performance of high end ATI cards, if anyone could shed some light on it. What is the highest expected RAC from the 5xxx, 6xxx and 7xxx cards (I am not trying to compare them with nVidia)?
______________

After looking here I can only guess that you might be right:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?userid=8606388
I thought I had read a post here somewhere that the 670's RAC was near 100,000 a day.

After looking here I can only guess that you might be right:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?userid=8606388
I thought I had read a post here somewhere that the 670's RAC was near 100,000 a day.

It might have a RAC of 100k on another project, but I would doubt that much for Seti@Home. If you look at the Top Computers you will see one of the top machines with 8 690's is only about 130k.

There are a number of machines with 2 GTX 670's that run 40-60k. The highest single 670 machine I see is running a bit over 30k.

So ballpark I would guesstimate one card is good for a RAC of about 15-20k.

EDIT: I haven't run it enough to get solid numbers, buy my HD6870 seems to be somewhere between 8-15K.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

The Nvidia website suggests it should be about 50% more than your 465, assuming you are processing the same number of tasks at once, probably a bit more than that if you push to three tasks.


http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-670/performance

(The second chart down gives a good rough guide to the comparative performances of the various current Nvidia cards)

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

My 670 has run between 26.2 and 28.2k when running 100% SETI and averaging 23 hours / day. It is factory overclocked, but I don't add any additional overclocking. CPU is a 3.2 Ghz hexcore, O/S is Win XP 32 bit, and I run the optimized apps running 3 or 4 at a time on the GPU.

---

Another Fred
Support SETI@home when you search the Web with GoodSearch or shop online with GoodShop.

I am currently looking to replace my GTX 465 with one of the newer ones.
For those that own them, what can be expected for their average RAC.?

I cannot answer about a 680, but I own three 670s.

Due to the recent trouble we've had with getting and maintaining work, I can't just look at my computers and tell you what the RAC is. If you look at my computers, and look at the last 40 days, you will be mislead. They spent some time crunching for another project and the RAC hasn't recovered.

However --- when things were "normal" around here:

My dual 670 system, both EVGA cards, one factory overclocked / one not, did once upon a time have a 65,000 RAC +/- 2,000. That includes 3 cores of a 6 core AMD 1100T Phenom II crunching also.

My factory overclocked 560Ti (950 processor clock) on an Athlon II with 2 cores of 4 cores crunching, would give me a RAC in the neighborhood of 29,000.

My other factory overclocked 560Ti (900 clock) on an old Athlon 64 x2 that does not crunch, was in the neighborhood of 24,000 RAC.

My pair of 560 (no Ti), one overclocked, one not, and a Phenom II, do about 50,000 RAC.

All of those numbers come from Lunatics' optimized applications.

AND ----

Because the various statistics sites keep losing my computers and I get "Host ID doesn't exist in BOINC combined or doesn't have any credit" more than I get numbers, I can't point you to it. You'll just have to take my word for it.

ALSO ----

Using Fred's Performance Tool, I absolutely agree that **in SETI@Home** my 660Tis are not as fast as my 560Tis and a 670 is not as fast as a 570. As far as I can tell anyone who doesn't accept that is engaged in wishful thinking or some other sort of rationalization.

SO ----

I REALLY like my 600-series cards because they produce less heat. Of course they produce less heat; they draw less power and do less work, too.

My conclusion is ----

Of the currently $200-300 cards, the best bet for **current** SETI@Home crunching is probably the GTX 570. I really want my 670s to be better than the 570, but they aren't. After that, probably a SSC or SOC 560Ti. My 560s *non-Ti* are probably in the neighborhood of 15% slower than the 560Ti, but are pretty cheap right now when you can find them.

I would not buy a $230 660 non-Ti when I can get a 560Ti for $209 ***IF*** my concern was RAC/$ **today**. There is speculation that the 600-series architecture **may** **someday** be further optimized (the applications) to improve their relative performance.

Clear?

670 about 27-30k
overclocked 560Ti about 24-27k
I can't tell about the 660Tis because of project problems.

The 570 ($230) will be better than the 670 ($400).
The 560Ti ($215) will be better than the 660Ti ($300).
Since a 660 (non-Ti) is not faster than a 660Ti, then obviously a 660 non-Ti is not faster than a 560Ti.

A Super Overclocked 560 **non-Ti** is $140 after rebate.

THUS -

If you have the slots, a pair of SOC 560s will set you back $300, will produce a 45,000-50,000 RAC and will smoke a single 660Ti for the same money.

A pair of Zotac (I know nothing about Zotac) 950MHz SOC 560Tis will cost $400, have a RAC in the 55-60k range, and smoke a single GTX 670 (30k RAC range) for the same money.

---

The GTX 600-series, complete with "Precision X" software, seem to have been designed and built with "over-clocking" in mind as though everyone who buys one will overclock it. There seems to be a LOT of headroom "built-in", almost as if they did this on purpose.

The *problem* is that, as I'm sure you know, if you overclock the snot out of these cards they draw a lot more power; so you get a 15% improvement in RAC and suck down 50% more power.

So the whole idea of going with the 600-series card to save power only holds true if you don't overclock the card, and if you don't overclock the card it doesn't do as much work as a 500-series card of the same "model-number." It's six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

After all that explanation (which isn't rambling, BTW) I can only hope I communicated clearly.

LASTLY - If money is no object, get as many GTX 690s as you have slots for. If power is the problem, get low powered cards and don't worry about the RAC. But if RAC/$ is your concern, I hope I've shed some light.

My GTX-670 was running around 31-32k, that was before I started crunching with the HD-7750.

Now I just have a 650 Ti and 670 in that machine.

---

On the ATI cards, I just put in a 7870, which is going through works units 4-6 x faster than my 4870. Based on what I have seen so far (given the inconsistency of crunching time and credit) a RAC of 10K or better seems reasonable. It goes through many WU in 150-170 sec, with a credit of 30 or so. I'm hoping once it gets a few under its belt my total RAC should approach 30K.

---

Ok well I have a spare motherboard sitting around collecting dust.
It is a MSI 890FXA-GD70
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/890FXA-GD70.html
It has a AMD Phenom 2 x4 3.4Ghz BE mounted to it.
The motherboard will support 4 double-spaced GPU's.
So I will consider putting it back to work with 4 560's.
I will need a new tower case for all 4 to fit.
Only 3 will fit in a mid tower case, the power supply blocks the 4th 1.
I will need to get a new power supply for it too.
So what is the least power I would need to power them.?
I say least because I am un-employed and cannot afford a whole lot.

Hi there.

One of my machines have a single non OCed 670 so i'll post some numbers.
Running 2 WU's in parallell = 0.5

Lower AR shorties takes around 130 seconds / WU gives around 25 credits. (AR = 4.319562)
Higher AR shorties takes around 148 seconds / WU gives around 28 credits. (AR = 2.716736)
Upper MID AR takes around 272 seconds / WU, gives around 50 credits. (AR = 1.122237)
MID AR takes around 580 seconds / WU, gives around 118 credits. (AR = 0.420551)
Lower MID AR takes around 856 seconds / WU, gives around 165 credits. (AR = 0.238529)

So that equals to:
86400/130 * 2 * 25 = 33230 credits
86400/148 * 2 * 28 = 32691 credits
86400/272 * 2 * 50 = 31764 credits
86400/580 * 2 * 118 = 35155 credits
86400/856 * 2 * 165 = 33308 credits.

If you add them all 33230+32691+31764+35155+33308 and divides by 5 = Median of 33283 credits and if you take into consideration that main distribution is shorties then you need to slighly lower the RAC..

There you have it then.
A single GTX670 stock clock gives around 33100 in RAC by itself 24/7/365.
Running setiathome enhanced x41z, Cuda 4.20

Mbcuda.cfg =
processpriority = abovenormal
pfblockspersm = 15
pfperiodsperlaunch = 200

Running on a 2600K @ 4GHZ non HT.

Kind regards Vyper

---

_________________________________________________________________________
Addicted to SETI crunching!
Founder of GPU Users Group

So I will consider putting it back to work with 4 560's.

I'd suggest a 1.2kW PSU.
Each card is 150W, roughly 200W for the rest of the system so 800W total, minimum. Always good to have a 20% minimum buffer between what's needed & what the PSU is rated for. So that's 1kW bare minimum.
Make it 1.2kW & you won't have any problems.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

So what is the least power I would need to power them.?

It depends on which "them" you get. The SOC models eat more juice than the non-overclocked. With prices where they are, I'd be real tempted to use the SOCs.

I don't think I'd try it with less than 1kw.

I know *nothing* about multiple rail power supplies and wouldn't know how to plan the power distribution, but I'm betting that this is something you should learn because the multiple rail PSUs seem to be much less expensive than the single-rail designs.

A Rosewill Thor is a cheap airy case.

Multiple power rails?
How well they work depends paralleled up depends on how good the design and manufacturing have been. If both are done properly, taking due consideration of potential paralleling up then there will be no problem; if not, thye won't work properly - and properly is everything from just not giving the amps, or the volts you expect, being a bit unstable, to letting the smoke escape.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Ok well I have a spare motherboard sitting around collecting dust.
It is a MSI 890FXA-GD70
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/890FXA-GD70.html
It has a AMD Phenom 2 x4 3.4Ghz BE mounted to it.
The motherboard will support 4 double-spaced GPU's.
So I will consider putting it back to work with 4 560's.
I will need a new tower case for all 4 to fit.
Only 3 will fit in a mid tower case, the power supply blocks the 4th 1.
I will need to get a new power supply for it too.
So what is the least power I would need to power them.?
I say least because I am un-employed and cannot afford a whole lot.

If you have the 560 OK, if no follow the roule:
Bigger is better, if you plan to buy a GPU, buy the bigest you could buy, if you put 4 medium range (560) on a MB will take all the slots and a lot of trouble with heat flow and dissipation, and produces less than 2 x 690 for example. I´m not 100% sure, but a single 690 well configurated and running iptimized apps, could produce almost the same WU/hr than 4x560 (not the TI model) and use only one slot.

But remember 690 have both rear/front exausts, so you need a case that have front exaustion to.

And don´t forget the same roule aplies to the PSU. Use a single rail dessing, and don´t forget your PSU must have a spare power to keep it in the safe area (< 80% of full capacity) In the 2x690 example, nothing less than a gold 1250W PSU. I run a I7 with 690+2x670 with a 1350 gold PSU just to be safe...

From my bad experience, i blow a 900W PSU in less than 6 months with I7+3x560 host (not the TI model, only 150W by specs)

---

I´m not 100% sure, but a single 690 well configurated and running iptimized apps, could produce almost the same WU/hr than 4x560 (not the TI model) and use only one slot.

Juan,

I understand what you are thinking, but look at it a little differently:

ROUNDING for ease:

A GTX 560 does a workunit every 150 seconds. A GTX 690 does a work unit every 52 seconds. Four 560s will do a work unit every 38 seconds. (x41g)

That's 14 seconds faster.

That's 25% faster.

Four GTX 560s will cost, strangely, $560. A GTX 690 costs $1,000. That's 179% of the cost of four 560s.

I agree with you about the heat. Two 560s make things pretty warm. Four 560s are going to be hot.

I agree with you that they will burn twice as much power for only 25% more work.

But I don't see how a supercharged 690 can possibly keep-up with 4 overclocked 560s, and the 560s are 56% as expensive to buy (now).

I agree with you about buying a single rail, big, power supply. I was answering his question about how "little" could he possibly get-by with and he implied he needed to be frugal. He didn't ask "What would you do?"

I have never owned a multiple rail PSU and won't if I can help it. But... you know... $350 in PSU cost is a lot of money for a PSU.

Thanks for all the information posted here, I did learn some new stuff. I have cancelled my decision to buy a 6xx series GTX for now. I may go in for a 570 is my budget allows.

From my experience, my old 480 card (non over clocked/air cooled) running 24/7 along with 6 core 1055 Phenom II gave me a RAC of 33.5K, and I can safely assume that the contribution by the 480 was atleast around 25k. I managed to pick up a used 480 for $125 and it is now working alongside the older card. Waiting to see how high the RAC goes on that rig.

I too dont have much experience with PSU rails, but I am using a 1200W Gigabyte Odin to power the rig.

ROUNDING for ease:

A GTX 560 does a workunit every 150 seconds. A GTX 690 does a work unit every 52 seconds. Four 560s will do a work unit every 38 seconds. (x41g)

That's 14 seconds faster.

I misread the list. The 690 does it in 44 seconds, not 53. So, four 560s are only 6 seconds faster.

That's close enough that I'll call it even.

Everything except the heat and price. The 560s will be hotter, the 690 will be almost twice as expensive.

The 560s will be hotter, the 690 will be almost twice as expensive.

Maybe over there, here in Australia you can buy 5 GTX560Tis for the price of 1 GTX690, and have money left over. Or you could buy 4 * GTX660s and have even more money left over.
Or for the price of a single GTX690 you could almost buy 10 GTX 550Tis.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Just don´t forget the number of slots needed to run.

Most of the people simply does not have spare slots to power a lot of small GPUs.

I agree with you, 4x560 could be cheapper but uses all the avaible slots, then if you want more you simply have no way.

And rememeber the heat, 4x560 will produce a lot of more heat (allways a problem to computers) than a single 690.

---