I had actually acquired one of EVGA's hybrid coolers with the intention of water cooling my 1080, but I really don't see the need at this point, from all indications it looks like the ACX 3.0 cooler they have on it is doing a pretty darn good job, running right now clocked at 2050 mhz it is running at 35C with the fan still at 100%, and is running at stock voltages.

I think I will instead put it on the 980Ti, that is running in the mid 50's to high 60's when it's crunching hard, and could use it a lot more than this one could. Just need to find a stock blower type cooler on Fleabay, and then break out the scalpels, Dr. Al has entered the room! lol

---

Hey Shaggie76!

I'm trying to collect data to make the best computation/power-usage choices possible for upgrading my modest farm.

From what I have heard, the GTX 750 Ti is in the sweet zone wrt best computation/power consumption and price, plus it only requires power from the PCIe bus!
My 2 primary rigs are identical HP Z400 Xeon W3550 with 1 GTX 750 Ti (except for RAM & Windows version) ( 7996377 & 8010413 ) but I've been doing much tweaking on them lately including swapping tasks between CPU & GPU in order to maximize throughput (based on time).
[edit1] Right now, 7996377 is processing 2 WU/GPU with Cuda50, and
the other one: 1 WU/GPU with SoG_r3472.exe [/edit]
The reason the RAC is so different is because I had the 2 GPUs in 1 rig until a week ago.
I looked in my import of host.gz from the end of May and there are ~2000 PCs with at least 1 GTX 750 Ti in them.
Here are the host_IDs of those with a RAC >10k with only 1 GTX 750 Ti:

id	RAC	p_model
5501972	19,710.27	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7436798	18,246.78	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
6309460	16,394.15	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
6748333	16,149.52	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
7923604	15,738.89	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2687W v3 @ 3.10GHz [Family 6 Model 63 Stepping 2]
5974961	15,330.76	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7953544	15,269.04	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 62 Stepping 4]
7028448	15,026.19	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
7978786	14,831.74	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
7379595	14,313.28	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           X5690  @ 3.47GHz [Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2]
7908428	14,209.08	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
6825981	13,925.73	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
7416916	13,700.43	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz [Family 6 Model 63 Stepping 2]
7612658	13,566.00	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7258237	13,548.33	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
7319278	13,416.58	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7913336	13,364.99	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7454279	13,231.54	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460S CPU @ 2.90GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7284006	13,203.66	AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor            [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
6709467	12,961.88	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz [Family 6 Model 63 Stepping 2]
7901799	12,955.97	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5960X CPU @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 63 Stepping 2]
7851657	12,868.96	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7904960	12,791.95	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2320 CPU @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
7986324	12,749.98	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7]
7262806	12,730.06	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7310710	12,680.98	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7377680	12,611.13	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790S CPU @ 3.20GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7227246	12,519.56	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7573103	12,408.44	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
7865587	12,353.76	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5620  @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2]
7354663	12,344.53	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
5760259	12,331.10	AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
7909699	12,231.40	AMD FX(tm)-8300 Eight-Core Processor            [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
6637790	12,220.64	AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
7538403	12,087.77	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7]
7645887	12,057.22	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7359113	11,969.71	AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor            [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
7476673	11,909.16	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
6340434	11,902.15	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       X 990  @ 3.47GHz [Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2]
7414744	11,646.36	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7942637	11,606.73	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
7833959	11,551.70	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4440 CPU @ 3.10GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7599512	11,474.69	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460  CPU @ 3.20GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7770856	11,324.23	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7167010	11,122.04	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
7928301	11,114.64	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7919916	11,083.28	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6500 CPU @ 3.20GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
6792171	10,978.81	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1620 0 @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7]
7854550	10,900.42	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4670K CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7907798	10,698.89	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7600313	10,599.64	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7917835	10,597.81	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6600 CPU @ 3.30GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
7859134	10,551.84	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
7336487	10,539.69	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
7971571	10,395.83	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6500 CPU @ 3.20GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
7337570	10,387.94	Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
3678155	10,376.33	Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11]
7517543	10,371.19	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7323951	10,328.15	Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11]
5503553	10,288.52	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         860  @ 2.80GHz [Family 6 Model 30 Stepping 5]
7855653	10,198.51	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7147692	10,154.19	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
7842573	10,134.67	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
7447166	10,125.54	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
6732079	10,122.73	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770S CPU @ 3.10GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
7924712	10,120.94	AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor            [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
7956967	10,043.47	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7]
5541574	10,038.80	Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E8400  @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
5403642	10,036.27	Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E8400  @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
7997014	10,022.78	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 94 Stepping 3]
8006285	10,011.96	AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor            [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]

[edit2] I'm guessing the GTX 750 Ti does a max of ~7.5K/day[/edit]

Let me know if you'd like similar stats for other card,

Cheers,
Rob :-}

---

My single EVGA GTX 750 Ti FTW had a RAC in 9-10k with two tasks running at once. Power consumption was in the 40-45W range.
At the moment I'm planning on sticking it in my Celeron J1900 system to see how well that CPU can run the GPU.

---

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

Shaggie, just for complete accuracy, in your chart, you may want to add FTW to the 1080, it isn't a massive difference, but it should probably be noted, as it is a factory overclocked version, which I have then bumped up even higher. I am still amazed at how cool it is running compared to my 980Ti, night and day. I wonder if I have a bit more headroom on it to OC it some more? I thought that heat was the limiting factor when overclocking, and if so, it appears there is more room to run. But, I don't feel the need to go nuts with it, I would like it to do long term, reliable crunching service for me. Now that these are starting to appear out in the real world, I'll have to do a little looking around to see what others experiences are and compare notes.

I think if you look at some of the review sites, they say the 1080 the restriction for overclocking is a lack of power on the standard model with 6pin connector. Photo's of the cards showed that one of the power regulator positions were not populated. They were hoping that the OEMs might change the connector to an 8pin and populate this position.


Shows bottom, out of 7 positions, power regulator components missing.

I scanned a few dozen from that list of 750Ti hosts Stubbles69 posted and pulled out the top half-dozen: the average is just over 300 CR/h which is pretty impressive for a 60W part!

I just got confirmation from Kent Harald Rasmussen that his RX 480 is running 2 GPU tasks at once which seems to suggest about 420CR/hr for it. This is surprisingly low -- under half of what the R9 Nano was doing so I'd really like to see more RX 480 data!

I think if you look at some of the review sites, they say the 1080 the restriction for overclocking is a lack of power on the standard model with 6pin connector. Photo's of the cards showed that one of the power regulator positions were not populated. They were hoping that the OEMs might change the connector to an 8pin and populate this position.


Shows bottom, out of 7 positions, power regulator components missing.

I'll do some research soon, prob tomorrow afternoon when it's raining and I can't work outside. As for mine and power, looks like I am more than good to go, as it has two 8 pin connectors, so it has power coming out of its ying yang! lol

---

I scanned a few dozen from that list of 750Ti hosts Stubbles69 posted and pulled out the top half-dozen: the average is just over 300 CR/h which is pretty impressive for a 60W part!

And keep in mind that's generally with the GPU not fully loaded, the power load is often less than 75% (less than 45W) if the maximum 60W.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I scanned the host export and found about a dozen hosts with Ellesmere cards (the RX 480 is the only released Ellesmere card I think). I can't tell if they're doing unusual things like running multiple tasks but the numbers aren't that far apart so I doubt it.

Host Id: Credits/Hr

7492259	420.6506388
7431180	647.7853343
8034949	367.8899388
8037810	498.1638136

Average 483.6224314

I also scanned for Fiji parts; there's quite a few in the db and I can't tell what version they are (Nano, Fury, Fury X, etc)

Host Id: Credits/Hr

8001648	341.4652324
8001994	557.7983477
8003231	661.4473237
8003833	413.5674201
8013353	551.747657
8014347	385.3597423
8029489	336.9615636

Average 464.0496124

Note that RueiKe's R9 Nano's do a lot better than these do on average -- my guess is his water-cooling setup helps a lot because the Nanos are reputed to throttle when they get hot as I'm sure they do when left crunching for hours.

Note that RueiKe's R9 Nano's do a lot better than these do on average -- my guess is his water-cooling setup helps a lot because the Nanos are reputed to throttle when they get hot as I'm sure they do when left crunching for hours.

Yes, watercooling makes a big difference on the Nanos, as they will definitely thermally throttle running BOINC. I did a video on it. Also, I have optimized SBS and period iterations based on the DOE on published in another thread. I am also overclocking them, achieving same GPU clock as the Fury X.

---

GitHub: Ricks-Lab
Instagram: ricks_labs

I scanned the host export and found about a dozen hosts with Ellesmere cards (the RX 480 is the only released Ellesmere card I think). I can't tell if they're doing unusual things like running multiple tasks but the numbers aren't that far apart so I doubt it.

Host Id: Credits/Hr

7492259	420.6506388
7431180	647.7853343
8034949	367.8899388
8037810	498.1638136

Average 483.6224314

I also scanned for Fiji parts; there's quite a few in the db and I can't tell what version they are (Nano, Fury, Fury X, etc)

Host Id: Credits/Hr

8001648	341.4652324
8001994	557.7983477
8003231	661.4473237
8003833	413.5674201
8013353	551.747657
8014347	385.3597423
8029489	336.9615636

Average 464.0496124

Note that RueiKe's R9 Nano's do a lot better than these do on average -- my guess is his water-cooling setup helps a lot because the Nanos are reputed to throttle when they get hot as I'm sure they do when left crunching for hours.

Personally I've been disappointed in the performance of the Fury cards compared to my R9 390X. With less than 70% of the shaders of a Fury Nano or Fury X it still manages to churn through MB tasks in ~6 minutes. With the fans set to auto it does run up to 68ºC but they are still silent at ~40%. THe only config settings I use are -hp -cpu_lock & I think that -cpu_lock might be depreciated in the current version app. So it might not be doing anything.

---

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

It's been a crazy few weeks of work for me but I've resumed my puttering.

I grabbed a recent host export from SETI and scanned it for hosts that have updated in the last few weeks and have submitted enough credit; I grouped them by installed GPU and started harassing the task PHP interface to pull down tasks stats to identify down hosts that had completed enough tasks with their GPU to provide a good sample. After getting enough sample hosts I then sorted to take the top 10 for each GPU to try to rule out people running more than one task concurrently on the same GPU.

The results weren't too crazy:



Error-bars are standard-deviation of the data. Source for my hacks are on GitHub

Next I need to some tedious data-entry for the final leg of my study: I want to get TDP and theoretical FLOPS out of Wikipedia so that I can augment my results further.

All I have to say for now is: WOW!
Great work :-D

---

Ok one more picture for tonight:



Remarkably this confirms what was probably common knowledge: the GeForce 750 series is exceptionally good performance per watt!

I just need more data for some of the newer cards.

Shaggie76, this is real good stuff you are trying to do.The only real question I have ATM is the validity of your data sample as I am sure you do.

---

Remarkably this confirms what was probably common knowledge: the GeForce 750 series is exceptionally good performance per watt!

I just need more data for some of the newer cards.

It would be interesting to see where Fury/Nano falls within this distribution. HBM is supposed to give a power advantage...

---

GitHub: Ricks-Lab
Instagram: ricks_labs

Shaggie76, this is real good stuff you are trying to do.The only real question I have ATM is the validity of your data sample as I am sure you do.

The only thing that's keeping me from casting a wider net to build confidence in my results is my respect for the health of the SETI PHP server. If there was a 'task/workunit' database dump I'd download that and be even more thorough.

If you're curious you can see the thresholds I used in the scripts -- I think it was at least 25 valid work units per host and at least 10 hosts per GPU. Sadly this sets the bar too high for some of the newer cards that I was hoping to get data for.

Remarkably this confirms what was probably common knowledge: the GeForce 750 series is exceptionally good performance per watt!

I just need more data for some of the newer cards.

It would be interesting to see where Fury/Nano falls within this distribution. HBM is supposed to give a power advantage...

I'll definitely get those stats -- I'm curious too! I'll probably have to do it by hand because there aren't enough in circulation out there to qualify with thresholds I set.

Say Shaggie, if you're interested, I have a _ton_ more data that has been logged since I installed emfers program, just let me know and I'll send it to you to review.

---

Hey Shaggie,
How much knowledge would be needed to adapt your script to find out how many of the top 10,000 top computers/hosts have an "anonymous platform" on the PC's "apps" page (at the bottom)?
Cheers,
Rob

---