Going from GTX 470 to 500/600 series what model is best?

Message boards : Number crunching : Going from GTX 470 to 500/600 series what model is best?

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Snowmain
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 75
Credit: 21,120,033
RAC: 9,165
United States
Message 1316643 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 0:42:09 UTC
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 0:43:15 UTC

It's probably higher than that...whats your total bill divided by your total KWH? If 5 cents is your cost...WOW I wish we had your power company...I would buy another GTX570.
ID: 1316643 · Report as offensive
zoom314
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 56775
Credit: 40,756,573
RAC: 5,083
United States
Message 1316652 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 1:06:12 UTC - in response to Message 1316643.  

It's probably higher than that...whats your total bill divided by your total KWH? If 5 cents is your cost...WOW I wish we had your power company...I would buy another GTX570.

Ok You asked $40.44 / 434Kwh = 0.0932(that's rounded up as the original is about 3 times longer), Ok so I did something wrong, oopsie, My bad, but its still lower than 0.1596. My bill is in 3 pieces for computational porpoises(pun intended), D-Care, DWR Gen Basic Care & SCE(Southern California Edison). Now I need to get My dinner, later.
Pluto is still a planet

Beep! Beep!
ID: 1316652 · Report as offensive
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 10194
Credit: 30,546,256
RAC: 3,349
United Kingdom
Message 1316725 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 6:59:11 UTC - in response to Message 1316652.  

It's probably higher than that...whats your total bill divided by your total KWH? If 5 cents is your cost...WOW I wish we had your power company...I would buy another GTX570.

Ok You asked $40.44 / 434Kwh = 0.0932(that's rounded up as the original is about 3 times longer), Ok so I did something wrong, oopsie, My bad, but its still lower than 0.1596. My bill is in 3 pieces for computational porpoises(pun intended), D-Care, DWR Gen Basic Care & SCE(Southern California Edison). Now I need to get My dinner, later.


Vic, you have extremely low rates, these are the figures from my last bill, and they have risen 6% since then.

First nnn kWh x 23.623p
Next xxx kWh x 10.501p

and with the exchange rate at £1 = $1.62

Then UK rates are

First nnn kWh x 23.623p * 1.62 = $0.38
Next xxx kWh x 10.501p * 1.62 = $0.17
ID: 1316725 · Report as offensive
zoom314
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 56775
Credit: 40,756,573
RAC: 5,083
United States
Message 1316742 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 7:50:37 UTC - in response to Message 1316725.  

It's probably higher than that...whats your total bill divided by your total KWH? If 5 cents is your cost...WOW I wish we had your power company...I would buy another GTX570.

Ok You asked $40.44 / 434Kwh = 0.0932(that's rounded up as the original is about 3 times longer), Ok so I did something wrong, oopsie, My bad, but its still lower than 0.1596. My bill is in 3 pieces for computational porpoises(pun intended), D-Care, DWR Gen Basic Care & SCE(Southern California Edison). Now I need to get My dinner, later.


Vic, you have extremely low rates, these are the figures from my last bill, and they have risen 6% since then.

First nnn kWh x 23.623p
Next xxx kWh x 10.501p

and with the exchange rate at £1 = $1.62

Then UK rates are

First nnn kWh x 23.623p * 1.62 = $0.38
Next xxx kWh x 10.501p * 1.62 = $0.17

Yeah I do, but then My income is also very low to boot, nuff said on that.
Pluto is still a planet

Beep! Beep!
ID: 1316742 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 7495
Credit: 91,194,742
RAC: 46,167
Australia
Message 1316750 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 8:20:21 UTC - in response to Message 1316725.  
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 8:22:24 UTC

Vic, you have extremely low rates, these are the figures from my last bill, and they have risen 6% since then.

Come Jan 1 the power here is going up 30%, Water 40% & Sewerage 25%.
I think my pay's gone up by about 4% over the last 5 years.
>:-/
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1316750 · Report as offensive
zoom314
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 56775
Credit: 40,756,573
RAC: 5,083
United States
Message 1316762 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 9:02:44 UTC - in response to Message 1316750.  

Vic, you have extremely low rates, these are the figures from my last bill, and they have risen 6% since then.

Come Jan 1 the power here is going up 30%, Water 40% & Sewerage 25%.
I think my pay's gone up by about 4% over the last 5 years.
>:-/

Here the water is so far a flat $15.00 a month(pumping charge, water is from 2 wells), sewer(septic system) is free and the rates are controlled by the CPUC.
Pluto is still a planet

Beep! Beep!
ID: 1316762 · Report as offensive
tbret
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 3373
Credit: 248,541,583
RAC: 21,485
United States
Message 1318069 - Posted: 21 Dec 2012, 10:21:04 UTC
Last modified: 21 Dec 2012, 10:26:22 UTC

I know everyone doesn't have the Kepler cards, but I edited Fred's Performance Tool and ran the latest x41zc on the 310.70 drivers.

The numbers are dramatically different on this computer (this is the dual 660Ti and 670). I have not and may never run x41zc and 310.70 on my Fermis (or I may, eventually). The point is that I do not know if I would have equivalent "bumps" in the numbers like this from the Fermi cards. What I do know is that this combination of application and driver made a rather large difference (see way above):

Starting test: (x41zc)
21 December 2012 - 03:40:31 Start, devices: 3, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 358, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 357, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 2, device count: 3, average time / count: 306, average time on device: 102 Seconds (1 Minutes, 42 Seconds)



EDIT: Please resist the urge to make a new comparison between these new numbers and the old numbers on a different card / computer. These can only me legitimately compared to the same computer. The comparison to draw is between the x41g version of the applications and the x41zc version.

Double-EDIT:

To make the comparison easier:

Below:
Device 0 = NVIDIA reference GTX 660Ti
Device 1 = NVIDIA reference GTX 660Ti
Device 2 = 02G-P4-2670-KR EVGA GeForce GTX 670

Starting test: (x41g)
16 December 2012 - 03:26:36 Start, devices: 3, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 475, average time on device: 158 Seconds (2 Minutes, 38 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 477, average time on device: 159 Seconds (2 Minutes, 39 Seconds)
Device: 2, device count: 3, average time / count: 401, average time on device: 133 Seconds (2 Minutes, 13 Seconds)

ID: 1318069 · Report as offensive
tbret
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 3373
Credit: 248,541,583
RAC: 21,485
United States
Message 1318315 - Posted: 21 Dec 2012, 18:57:12 UTC

The EVGA Classified Ultra (factory overclock) 560Ti-448 under x41zc with driver 310.70 that reported 1:57 on x41g reported 1:45 on x41zc.

That makes the stock clocked 670 two or so seconds faster than the 560Ti-448 with the new apps and driver running 3 WU at a time.
ID: 1318315 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 902
Credit: 7,867,806
RAC: 1,976
New Zealand
Message 1318734 - Posted: 22 Dec 2012, 9:23:22 UTC - in response to Message 1318069.  


Starting test: (x41zc)
21 December 2012 - 03:40:31 Start, devices: 3, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 358, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 357, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 2, device count: 3, average time / count: 306, average time on device: 102 Seconds (1 Minutes, 42 Seconds)


Very nice times. I'd be very interested to see times from a 680. If anyone can post times with the x41zc application I'd appreciate it.
ID: 1318734 · Report as offensive
ShootY
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 5,432,811
RAC: 11,581
Germany
Message 1324735 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 23:49:52 UTC

Hello,

i just wondered about the GPU list: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/gpu_list.php

For example: The GTX 570 is better than an GTX 580. But WHY??
The GTX 570 got 480 CUDA Cores. The GTX 580 got 512?
Can somebody explain on which detail i have to look for?
Which constellation on a GPU is needed that it will work fast?
Cuda Cores / Graphics Clock / Processor Clock ... etc.

For your info: especially I'm looking for a GTX 650 TI

Hope to get an answer soon!
Thanks for helping me so far!
ID: 1324735 · Report as offensive
Profile ivan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 01
Posts: 780
Credit: 232,800,038
RAC: 81,259
United Kingdom
Message 1324737 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 23:57:15 UTC - in response to Message 1324735.  

Hello,

i just wondered about the GPU list: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/gpu_list.php

For example: The GTX 570 is better than an GTX 580. But WHY??
The GTX 570 got 480 CUDA Cores. The GTX 580 got 512?
Can somebody explain on which detail i have to look for?
Which constellation on a GPU is needed that it will work fast?
Cuda Cores / Graphics Clock / Processor Clock ... etc.

For your info: especially I'm looking for a GTX 650 TI

Hope to get an answer soon!
Thanks for helping me so far!

I believe those timings are for the "standard" SETI-released app only; the optimised apps perform rather better.
ID: 1324737 · Report as offensive
tbret
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 3373
Credit: 248,541,583
RAC: 21,485
United States
Message 1324802 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 5:13:41 UTC - in response to Message 1324735.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2013, 5:14:25 UTC

Hello,

i just wondered about the GPU list: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/gpu_list.php

For example: The GTX 570 is better than an GTX 580. But WHY??
The GTX 570 got 480 CUDA Cores. The GTX 580 got 512?
Can somebody explain on which detail i have to look for?
Which constellation on a GPU is needed that it will work fast?
Cuda Cores / Graphics Clock / Processor Clock ... etc.

For your info: especially I'm looking for a GTX 650 TI

Hope to get an answer soon!
Thanks for helping me so far!


Ignore that list.

It's been wrong since the day it was started and it is still wrong. It's wrong no matter what it pretends to report.

Ignore that list.

.
ID: 1324802 · Report as offensive
Profile evilspoons
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 99
Posts: 50
Credit: 7,389,224
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1326379 - Posted: 10 Jan 2013, 16:16:36 UTC - in response to Message 1318734.  
Last modified: 10 Jan 2013, 16:19:05 UTC


Starting test: (x41zc)
21 December 2012 - 03:40:31 Start, devices: 3, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 358, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 357, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds)
Device: 2, device count: 3, average time / count: 306, average time on device: 102 Seconds (1 Minutes, 42 Seconds)


Very nice times. I'd be very interested to see times from a 680. If anyone can post times with the x41zc application I'd appreciate it.


I have a GTX 680 at home and I'm running x41zc, but I'm not sure how to run this benchmark. Anyone?

--

By the way, PCIe 3.0 vs 2.0 is completely trivial. PCIe 3 doubles bandwidth from PCIe 2 (i.e. a version 3.0 x16 slot has 16 GB/sec bandwidth while a version 2.0 x16 slot has 8 GB/sec bandwidth, meaning a 3.0 x8 slot matches a 2.0 x16 slot). This Anandtech review goes over various games on an AMD 7970 with different link bandwidths. The difference between 2 GB/sec and 16 GB/sec is like 8% at most (with the exception of Dirt 3's minimum frame rate. This is probably a situation where textures are being swapped into VRAM from system RAM... SETI units shouldn't be swapping in and out of VRAM, if I understand correctly.) The difference between 8 GB/sec and 16 GB/sec will be virtually unnoticeable.

Basically the whole point of 3.0 is not "more maximum bandwidth" but "same bandwidth using fewer lanes so you can have more devices on an average mainboard".
ID: 1326379 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 902
Credit: 7,867,806
RAC: 1,976
New Zealand
Message 1326459 - Posted: 10 Jan 2013, 20:41:37 UTC - in response to Message 1326379.  



I have a GTX 680 at home and I'm running x41zc, but I'm not sure how to run this benchmark. Anyone?

--

By the way, PCIe 3.0 vs 2.0 is completely trivial. PCIe 3 doubles bandwidth from PCIe 2 (i.e. a version 3.0 x16 slot has 16 GB/sec bandwidth while a version 2.0 x16 slot has 8 GB/sec bandwidth, meaning a 3.0 x8 slot matches a 2.0 x16 slot). This Anandtech review goes over various games on an AMD 7970 with different link bandwidths. The difference between 2 GB/sec and 16 GB/sec is like 8% at most (with the exception of Dirt 3's minimum frame rate. This is probably a situation where textures are being swapped into VRAM from system RAM... SETI units shouldn't be swapping in and out of VRAM, if I understand correctly.) The difference between 8 GB/sec and 16 GB/sec will be virtually unnoticeable.

Basically the whole point of 3.0 is not "more maximum bandwidth" but "same bandwidth using fewer lanes so you can have more devices on an average mainboard".

To run a benchmark test you need to download the Seti performance v 1.7 application from efmer.eu unzip the contents to a folder of your choice. Then open their unzipped folder and run this Seti performance application if you have a 64-bit operating system you will obviously run Seti performance 64.

ID: 1326459 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 902
Credit: 7,867,806
RAC: 1,976
New Zealand
Message 1326463 - Posted: 10 Jan 2013, 20:58:03 UTC

I have purchased a ASUS GTX660TI-DC2-2GD5 GEFORCE OC GTX660 TI 2GB a friend well install my card tomorrow for me. Thank you for all your help.
ID: 1326463 · Report as offensive
ShootY
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 5,432,811
RAC: 11,581
Germany
Message 1327327 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 10:31:01 UTC - in response to Message 1326463.  

I have purchased a ASUS GTX660TI-DC2-2GD5 GEFORCE OC GTX660 TI 2GB a friend well install my card tomorrow for me. Thank you for all your help.


So why did you choose the GTX 660 TI while the GTX 560 Ti is better?
I just want to understand. Thanks!
ID: 1327327 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 902
Credit: 7,867,806
RAC: 1,976
New Zealand
Message 1327433 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 19:54:48 UTC - in response to Message 1327327.  

I have purchased a ASUS GTX660TI-DC2-2GD5 GEFORCE OC GTX660 TI 2GB a friend well install my card tomorrow for me. Thank you for all your help.


So why did you choose the GTX 660 TI while the GTX 560 Ti is better?
I just want to understand. Thanks!

Because the card I choose is a top performer at another project I like to help. Where do you get the idea that the GTX 560 Ti is better?
ID: 1327433 · Report as offensive
Chris

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 12
Posts: 9
Credit: 356,617
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1327504 - Posted: 14 Jan 2013, 0:13:29 UTC - in response to Message 1327433.  

I think the double precision performance is worse with the newer cards. They might be a little slower overall, but for me, the energy savings of the new cards helps out.

560s are also very good at making errors.
ID: 1327504 · Report as offensive
ShootY
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 5,432,811
RAC: 11,581
Germany
Message 1328084 - Posted: 16 Jan 2013, 21:38:29 UTC - in response to Message 1327433.  

I have purchased a ASUS GTX660TI-DC2-2GD5 GEFORCE OC GTX660 TI 2GB a friend well install my card tomorrow for me. Thank you for all your help.


So why did you choose the GTX 660 TI while the GTX 560 Ti is better?
I just want to understand. Thanks!

Because the card I choose is a top performer at another project I like to help. Where do you get the idea that the GTX 560 Ti is better?



because of this: http://www.efmer.eu/forum_tt/index.php?PHPSESSID=3oie9nu4vl5ejipmo388vjidh6&topic=981.0
ID: 1328084 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 902
Credit: 7,867,806
RAC: 1,976
New Zealand
Message 1328108 - Posted: 16 Jan 2013, 23:58:32 UTC - in response to Message 1328084.  

I have purchased a ASUS GTX660TI-DC2-2GD5 GEFORCE OC GTX660 TI 2GB a friend well install my card tomorrow for me. Thank you for all your help.


So why did you choose the GTX 660 TI while the GTX 560 Ti is better?
I just want to understand. Thanks!

Because the card I choose is a top performer at another project I like to help. Where do you get the idea that the GTX 560 Ti is better?



because of this: http://www.efmer.eu/forum_tt/index.php?PHPSESSID=3oie9nu4vl5ejipmo388vjidh6&topic=981.0

Thanks. I'm happy with my card choice
ID: 1328108 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Going from GTX 470 to 500/600 series what model is best?


 
©2016 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.