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


log in

Advanced search

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

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 678
Credit: 5,922,634
RAC: 3,922
New Zealand
Message 1315899 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 6:30:28 UTC
Last modified: 16 Dec 2012, 6:47:08 UTC

OK thanks for details. I guess the question should be asked: What card gives the most RAC for the least power output? Rig runs round 12 hours a day

With a Core 2 Duo over clocked to 4.2GHz

That is an impressive over clock you have. Is the core 2 duo bring called by air and what is the temperature of the room that your computer is in?
____________

Live in NZ y not join Smile City?

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2860
Credit: 215,281,982
RAC: 181,094
United States
Message 1315975 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 12:11:20 UTC - in response to Message 1315874.


From the reading I have done a GTX570 is slightly(5% maybe 10% but not much) fast than a GTX660. However it uses WAY more power like nearly duoble. Particularly a card like mine.


I like the classified Nvidia card(obvioulsy I bought one) but if you go 500 series I would get a MSI570 and overclock it to around 900MHZ.(Depending on your cooling setup.

My vote....GTX 660.



I don't know where you got the idea that a GTX 660 is anywhere close to the speed of your GTX 570, but that's not even close to being right.

THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS ARE FLAWED, BUT THEY AREN'T WRONG.

Not every card is "competing" under the same conditions. I just did a fast, down-and-dirty, run of Fred's Optimization Tool at 3 work units per card at once. I couldn't get it to run on my triple 560 machine, a problem I'll look into when I have time.


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)




In the above example the 670 is a reference clocked card in a x4 PCIe slot, probably held-back a little by that.


Below:
Device 0 = EVGA 012-P3-2078-KR EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores Classified Ultra

Starting test: (x41g)
16 December 2012 - 03:29:46 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 353, average time on device: 117 Seconds (1 Minutes, 57 Seconds)



Your GTX 570 is faster than my 560Ti-448.

My 560Ti-448 is more than 35% faster than my GTX 660Ti which in turn will be faster than a GTX 660.



Just for additional comparison:

Below:
Device 0 & 1 NVIDIA reference 560Ti

Starting test: (x41g)
16 December 2012 - 04:47:33 Start, devices: 2, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 403, average time on device: 134 Seconds (2 Minutes, 14 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 407, average time on device: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds)




My reference 560Tis are faster than my reference 660Ti by almost 18%.


The 600-Series cards are closest to crunching SETI like their "one step down" model in the 500-series.

The GTX 660Ti is "close" to a GTX 560 (no Ti)
The GTX 670 is "close" to a GTX 560Ti (although the 670 does seem faster than these numbers are showing)


One more thing as a "sanity check":

Below:
Devices 0 & 1 EVGA 012-P3-1470-RX EVGA GeForce GTX 470

Starting test: (x41g)
16 December 2012 - 03:31:36 Start, devices: 2, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 442, average time on device: 147 Seconds (2 Minutes, 27 Seconds)
Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 448, average time on device: 149 Seconds (2 Minutes, 29 Seconds)



A GTX 470 is FASTER than a GTX 660Ti which is faster than a GTX 660.

THIS is an example of a comparison that will tighten-up, if not flip-flop, due to the updated x41z application. Maybe. But under no conditions (that are possible today) will a GTX 660Ti meaningfully beat (if equal) a GTX 470's output.

I'm going to be doing some testing of all of these cards under a single set of test conditions in the very near future. I ordered the motherboard and RAM Saturday. You won't get exactly the same times I will, but all of the cards will be operating with the same limitations (like a PCIe 2.0 bus, I went AMD again).

I think everyone is over-estimating the crunching power of the 600-series based on game benchmarks which do not translate well to crunching.

YES, the 600-series show more increase in performance using the x41z applications than the 500-series (and 400-series) do. The improvement does not leapfrog the 600-series ahead of the 500-series, however, and certainly not for the price.

A 660Ti, even a SC model, is no match for a 560Ti, and is barely a match for a GTX 560 (no Ti)...

...with the understanding that my reference is "AT CRUNCHING FOR SETI WITH THE APPLICATIONS WE HAVE AT THIS TIME."

For all I know, a GTX 660 might be "just the ticket" at some other project, or it might even be a better choice for SETI this time next year. Who knows? I certainly don't.

But these gaming benchmarks are really not translating well to crunching-power.


____________

Profile Cliff HardingProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 99
Posts: 1005
Credit: 52,963,115
RAC: 42,931
United States
Message 1316027 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 14:39:48 UTC - in response to Message 1315016.


MSI N680GTX-PM2D2GD5 2GB & the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB. Also can these cards run on PCIE 2.0?


I'd not get the one with the bigger fans, as it looks like it would be better for heat to exhaust outside of the case.

Thanks for this information. What card would you go for?

Provided this card has screws on the side of the casing like the GTX590 does, I'd get the MSI N680GTX-PM2D2GD5 2GB, the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB would better in an open test stand in My opinion.

Now the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB could be put in a HAF-932 or a HAF-X case with a HAF-932 side panel with 4 108cfm fans to help exhaust any excess heat, then it might be possible to house more than one card of that type.


The MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB might be a bad idea even in a (full tower) HAF-932 case. From what I've seen the card has 2 fans, which means that the card does not have an external exhaust. The heat stays inside the case until it reaches the top exhaust fan. Unless you are liquid cooling the CPU, that heat will come in contact with the fins of the CPU air cooler.

The 240mm side panel fan on the HAF-32 works extremely well for cooling graphics cards. Both of my machines are in the HAF-32, both have dual external exhaust cards with temps below 65c. The HAF-32 comes with 2 x 240mm incoming fans (front & side) and 1 x 240mm at the top for exhaust. I think that changing the air flow direction (to exhaust) of the side panel fan will disrupt the front fan airflow thus having higher internal case temps.

____________


I don't buy computers, I build them!!

Team kizb
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 01
Posts: 219
Credit: 3,709,162
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1316085 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:19:40 UTC - in response to Message 1315975.

Great information tbret, thanks for the data on the GTX 470. Looks like based on your data running my 3 470's @ 0.33 from a RAC/cost standpoint they would still put up some strong numbers compared to selling them and buy 600 series cards.
____________
My Computers:
Blue Offline
Green Offline
Red Offline

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8685
Credit: 24,975,321
RAC: 29,310
United Kingdom
Message 1316099 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:49:21 UTC - in response to Message 1316085.

Great information tbret, thanks for the data on the GTX 470. Looks like based on your data running my 3 470's @ 0.33 from a RAC/cost standpoint they would still put up some strong numbers compared to selling them and buy 600 series cards.

But you need to factor in the power consumption, the GTX470 uses about 100W more than the GTX670 at full load.

No idea what your energy costs/kWh, but at 20 cents(US) per hour that would be approaching $200/year/card running 24/7.

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2860
Credit: 215,281,982
RAC: 181,094
United States
Message 1316177 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 19:18:14 UTC - in response to Message 1316099.
Last modified: 16 Dec 2012, 19:36:40 UTC



But you need to factor in the power consumption, the GTX470 uses about 100W more than the GTX670 at full load.



There's all kinds of things you need to factor-in when you are choosing a card or cards.

For instance, I don't play games. These are strictly crunchers. If I were worried about playing games, I would probably not have bought the 470s.

In my case I bought the 470s as refurb units from EVGA and paid $119 for them. The 660Tis were (at the time) $350 each. I can run the 470s 24/7 for a long time before I chew-up the $460 difference in cost.

But if I had needed a new $200 power supply to run the 470s, but I could have run the 660Tis with the one I already owned, I probably wouldn't have bought the 470s (they wouldn't have been as cheap to put to work).

The 560Ti-448 was $149.00 after rebate. I could buy two for less than the price of one 660Ti.

My point being: Everyone needs to figure-in their own set of circumstances and decide for themselves what is best for them to do. But to be able to do that they have to have at least a ballpark idea of what the crunching power of one card compared to another card really is.

To calculate "pay-back" or "break-even" or "total cost of ownership" you have to know all kinds of things that a test of crunching-power can't tell you.

1) Will my existing hardware support it?
2) Can I cool it?
3) What is the purchase price?
4) What is my cost of electricity?
5) How long to I plan to own it?
6) Do I play games and if-so, what games?
7) Will I overclock the card? (changes power consumption assumptions)
...etc.

We can't even start the calculation if we don't know the crunching speed of the cards.
____________

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46507
Credit: 36,855,240
RAC: 5,167
United States
Message 1316186 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 19:28:33 UTC - in response to Message 1316027.


MSI N680GTX-PM2D2GD5 2GB & the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB. Also can these cards run on PCIE 2.0?


I'd not get the one with the bigger fans, as it looks like it would be better for heat to exhaust outside of the case.

Thanks for this information. What card would you go for?

Provided this card has screws on the side of the casing like the GTX590 does, I'd get the MSI N680GTX-PM2D2GD5 2GB, the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB would better in an open test stand in My opinion.

Now the MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB could be put in a HAF-932 or a HAF-X case with a HAF-932 side panel with 4 108cfm fans to help exhaust any excess heat, then it might be possible to house more than one card of that type.


The MSI N680GTX Lightning GeForce GTX 680 2GB might be a bad idea even in a (full tower) HAF-932 case. From what I've seen the card has 2 fans, which means that the card does not have an external exhaust. The heat stays inside the case until it reaches the top exhaust fan. Unless you are liquid cooling the CPU, that heat will come in contact with the fins of the CPU air cooler.

The 240mm side panel fan on the HAF-32 works extremely well for cooling graphics cards. Both of my machines are in the HAF-32, both have dual external exhaust cards with temps below 65c. The HAF-32 comes with 2 x 240mm incoming fans (front & side) and 1 x 240mm at the top for exhaust. I think that changing the air flow direction (to exhaust) of the side panel fan will disrupt the front fan airflow thus having higher internal case temps.

I have 4 120mm Koolance 108cfm fans in the panel, instead of the 230mm fan, in the top I have 2 of the same 120mm fans with a place for a 3rd, I just don't have the Y cable yet. My GTX590 is at 72C right now as it's crunching and this is on air, I'm not sure how 2 or 3 would do temp wise, I just know they'd be warmer, but I have plans that deal in water, so 2 on air will be for 1 month only, as I want to see how much an extra card will cost Me per month on My bill.
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 678
Credit: 5,922,634
RAC: 3,922
New Zealand
Message 1316217 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 21:23:16 UTC - in response to Message 1316177.


1) Will my existing hardware support it? Yes on PC-IE 2.0
2) Can I cool it?
3) What is the purchase price? $600-850 NZD $499.98-708 @0.8333 USD
4) What is my cost of electricity? 1/4 unit 5-10c per hour incl GST @ 15% price as of 2011
5) How long to I plan to own it? 2+ years
6) Other thing I will be using the card for? GPU GRID racing games/ Flight sim X.
7) Will I overclock the card? (changes power consumption assumptions) May be but not that likely in the 1st year

Please find answers to the above questions of above and the quoted text. I ran breeds optimisation application version 1.7 it said the optimal number of tasks for my 470 was three units at a time. At present I'm going to run my card at one new unit at a time because I will not be here throughout the day to monitor the temperature. I ran a card with three units for about three minutes or so and the card temperature was around 85° and fan speed was on automatic it was over 3000 rpm the fan sounded like a jet engine I could hear it over the top of the CPU fan.
Please see the results from Fred's optimised application below.

Starting automatic test: (x41g)
17 December 2012 - 09:10:08 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 (1.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 167, average time on device: 167 Seconds (2 Minutes, 47 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 December 2012 - 09:12:57 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 278, average time on device: 139 Seconds (2 Minutes, 19 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 December 2012 - 09:17:37 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 407, average time on device: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 December 2012 - 09:24:29 Start, devices: 1, device count: 4 (0.25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 543, average time on device: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds)
>> The best average time found: 135 Seconds (2 Minutes, 15 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3)
____________

Live in NZ y not join Smile City?

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,420,893
RAC: 14,604
United States
Message 1316307 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 3:51:53 UTC - in response to Message 1315899.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 4:13:55 UTC

I don't know where you got the idea that a GTX 660 is anywhere close to the speed of your GTX 570, but that's not even close to being right.


I pulled the number from memory, apparently I remeber wrong.
None the less the chart in my next post address's the $per crunch questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



OK thanks for details. I guess the question should be asked: What card gives the most RAC for the least power output? Rig runs round 12 hours a day
With a Core 2 Duo over clocked to 4.2GHz

That is an impressive over clock you have. Is the core 2 duo bring called by air and what is the temperature of the room that your computer is in?



I have removed this processor from my machine and replaced it with a quad core. It was an E8500 connected to a ZALMAN 9500led. Yup a 3.13GHz chip on air(ruffle 67 degree F ambient) running at 4.2GHz. 1.4v with the Zalman it would run around 60C.

The chip and cooler are for sale.

Unfortunately the quad wont go above 3.5GHz regardless of what I do to it. A little disappointing.

____________

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,420,893
RAC: 14,604
United States
Message 1316308 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 3:56:26 UTC - in response to Message 1316307.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 4:30:45 UTC


My OC GTX570classy pulled a 95 seconded on this test. It could easily be pushed another 150MHz with some volts. But I left the voltage stock. My OC is light.

I run 3 units at once 64% fan 67degree F ambiant card @ 59C 99% load.

I think this chart really gets down to the nitty grity on this subject.
990 vs 1028 thats not even a 4% increase in efficence.

Unfortunaly I didn't have the GTX 660 when I made this chart. Hmm I wonder if the standard 660 would be north or south of that 1000 Wu per watt #? It is interesting how close most of these cards are.

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2860
Credit: 215,281,982
RAC: 181,094
United States
Message 1316316 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 4:52:40 UTC - in response to Message 1316308.



I think this chart really gets down to the nitty grity on this subject.
990 vs 1028 thats not even a 4% increase in efficence.



Now you've put into a chart what I've been unhappy with NVIDIA about since I got my first 670. The numbering of the models is deceptive *because* we "tend" to compare a 670 with a 570 believing the "70"-part number is telling us something. With all of the pressure these companies face to make their products work on air, it is no wonder they try to make it look as though their new products are so much more efficient than their old.

And frankly, for game-playing, I think some of the new technology and features may be working to reduce power-consumption.

For us crunchers? Not-so-much.



Unfortunaly I didn't have the GTX 660 when I made this chart. Hmm I wonder if the standard 660 would be north or south of that 1000 Wu per watt #? It is interesting how close most of these cards are.



You should stick the "normal" (read: reference) 560Ti numbers in there from this thread.

The only number I doubt (I don't doubt your calculations, I doubt the comparison is valid) is the greater efficiency you're showing with the over-clocked GTX 670. If you pulled those from Fred's chart, I think Jason was using a CUDA version that was different than the one that tested the non-over-clocked 670. I suspect, strongly, that the efficiency gain we see there is due to the applications. I can't think of another example of anything, CPU or GPU, that gets more efficient as it is over-clocked and more energy goes to waste-heat.



____________

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,420,893
RAC: 14,604
United States
Message 1316318 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 5:00:17 UTC - in response to Message 1316316.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 5:08:17 UTC

The OC 670 drops 4 wu per $ of power... That is to say it's not as efficient according to the chart. No change needed.

But to the driver question look at the 2 680's......major increase in performance from 2 similar cards.
____________

tbretProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 2860
Credit: 215,281,982
RAC: 181,094
United States
Message 1316319 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 5:01:24 UTC - in response to Message 1316318.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 5:07:55 UTC

The OC 670 drops 4 wu per $ of power... That is to say it's not as efficient according to the chart. No change needed.


You're right, I read it backwards for some weird reason.


EDIT:

In fact, I'll go so far as to say, "Hey! That was stupid of me! I apologize!"

____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8685
Credit: 24,975,321
RAC: 29,310
United Kingdom
Message 1316320 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 5:09:58 UTC - in response to Message 1316316.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 5:12:24 UTC

I think some of the new technology and features may be working to reduce power-consumption.

That is exactly what all the new technology is about. Whether it be GPU's or CPU's the speeds have reached limits that cannot go any faster unless the heat, read power is reduced.

Stock CPU frequencies have no risen since the days of the P4 so to do more wore they have reduced power and then increased the number of cores.

And without a major, major redesign of the motherboard and case then the stock cooling of GPU's restricts the max performance of the GPU, so again they are going for heat reduction. This includes removing parts in the GPU that don't affect the games players. i.e. remove some of the physics processing that Seti likes.

I am happy with my GTX 670's, fitted to three different computers, two on my account, one on youngest sons, they perform as expected and didn't require any other changes, like bigger power supplies.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,420,893
RAC: 14,604
United States
Message 1316321 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 5:11:09 UTC

No biggie.

I wonder if the results of these test bare out in the real world. The 590 and 690 own! To bad they cost so much.
____________

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46507
Credit: 36,855,240
RAC: 5,167
United States
Message 1316328 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 6:02:08 UTC - in response to Message 1316308.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 6:20:01 UTC


My OC GTX570classy pulled a 95 seconded on this test. It could easily be pushed another 150MHz with some volts. But I left the voltage stock. My OC is light.

I run 3 units at once 64% fan 67degree F ambient card @ 59C 99% load.

I think this chart really gets down to the nitty gritty on this subject.
990 vs 1028 that's not even a 4% increase in efficiency.

Unfortunately I didn't have the GTX 660 when I made this chart. Hmm I wonder if the standard 660 would be north or south of that 1000 Wu per watt #? It is interesting how close most of these cards are.

Snowmain, um what's involved in the cost per year? Is cooling for the house in there? And what rate is electricity calculated at? I think the chart is a nice idea, but My last bill for the whole house minus any real cooling, was $40.44 and I have one GTX590, cooling the house would add another $20.00 for My current setup, if I had to add a 12000btu energy star room air conditioner(good enough for 700sqft, where I live is 840, but 1 bedroom is not cooled now anyway, so 700 is good enough), I don't know what it would cost Me really, the one I looked at said $88.80 a year, but like the pic says that will vary with ones electric rates that one pays.

____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 678
Credit: 5,922,634
RAC: 3,922
New Zealand
Message 1316340 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 6:57:35 UTC
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 7:28:47 UTC

Snowmain, thank you for the chart very interesting indeed. For your 600 series cards were they running them in a PCIE 3 or 2 slot?
____________

Live in NZ y not join Smile City?

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5864
Credit: 60,520,502
RAC: 47,612
Australia
Message 1316349 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 7:38:12 UTC - in response to Message 1316340.

For your 600 series cards were they running them in a PCIE 3 or 2 slot?

It wouldn't make any difference.

____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,420,893
RAC: 14,604
United States
Message 1316632 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 0:20:09 UTC - in response to Message 1316328.
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 1:18:33 UTC

And what rate is electricity calculated at?

Says it right there on te chart $.1596 per kilowatt hour. Which it my entire power bill divided by the KW/H.
____________

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46507
Credit: 36,855,240
RAC: 5,167
United States
Message 1316638 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 0:32:51 UTC - in response to Message 1316632.
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 0:34:54 UTC

Snowmain, please don't get Me wrong, I was just asking and since You did answer My question, I Thank You.

Oh and My rate per Kwh is roughly $0.0533, as that's a composite of the sources the park pulls electricity from.
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California