| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
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.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
BSG Anthem
My Facebook page
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
BSG Anthem
My Facebook page
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
BSG Anthem
My Facebook page
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
Live in NZ y not join Smile City? |
|
|
|
|
|
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!
____________
|
|
|
ivanVolunteer tester
 Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 01 Posts: 381 Credit: 93,130,309 RAC: 118,292

|
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.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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.
.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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".
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
Live in NZ y not join Smile City? |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
Live in NZ y not join Smile City? |
|
|
|
|
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!
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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?
____________
Live in NZ y not join Smile City? |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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
____________
|
|
|
|
|
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
____________
Live in NZ y not join Smile City? |
|
|