Low power crunchin'?

Message boards : Number crunching : Low power crunchin'?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 987363 - Posted: 7 Apr 2010, 22:47:07 UTC - in response to Message 987346.  
Last modified: 7 Apr 2010, 22:49:52 UTC

Ok, I have a question, it came to me while playing around with the idea of building one of these just for fun, to see how it performs. I see that the Atom 330 boards list an external power supply, something like 65 watts or such. It says it has a 16x PCI-E slot, and the question I had was isn't there some spec about how much power a 16x PCI-E slot is supposed to put out, because if one was thinking (just for fun) of putting in, let's say, a Nvidia GTX 285, obviously you would need an external PS to power the 6/8 pin connectors, but isn't there a certain minimum amount of power needed to power the PCI-E slot, and is a 60 some watt external PS enough to do it? Or hadn't they thought that someone like me would be crazy enough to attempt to put the 2 together? ;)

AFAIK, the PCIe 2.0 is classificated for max. 300 W.

Over the PCIe slot: 75 W
The 6 pin PCIe connector from PSU: 75 W
The 8 pin PCIe connector from PSU: 150 W

= 300 W


Depends on the Atom board. Most take fairly normal ATX supplies.

Warning: if you get a 750w power supply and try to run a 15 watt computer, it may not work. Switching power supplies need a load.

Warning #2: most of the boards that use an external "brick" take 12v or 19v and have the equivalent of a normal ATX supply on-board (complete with power for a hard drive and DVD/CD drive). A bigger brick doesn't make the on-board supply any more powerful.

Trying to put a 300w video card on a board that uses 10w is a bit crazy.


A few people are crazy.. ;-)

So you mean, if I have an Atom 330 board with ION chipset.. hmm.. maybe 30 W idle, 40 W full load.. and an OCed GTX260-216 which use ~ 40 W idle, ~ 140 W if CUDA crunching my 520 W PSU wouldn't work?

Idle use: ~ 70 W
Only CUDA: ~ 170 W.


If someone would like to build this crazy machine, he must buy a PSU which have 2x PCIe connectors, I guess the min. is a 400 W PSU.

IIRC, a GTX260-216 need min. a 500 W PSU (or something like 36 or 40 A) (nVIDIA).
GIGABYTE say 550 W PSU for his SOC edition.


____________
[Optimized project applications, for to increase your PC performance (double RAC)!][Overview of abbreviations, which are used often in forum and their meaning.]
ID: 987363 · Report as offensive
Profile Joseph Stateson Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 99
Posts: 309
Credit: 70,759,933
RAC: 3
United States
Message 987378 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 0:16:25 UTC - in response to Message 987343.  
Last modified: 8 Apr 2010, 0:30:47 UTC

Ok, I have a question, it came to me while playing around with the idea of building one of these just for fun, to see how it performs. I see that the Atom 330 boards list an external power supply, something like 65 watts or such. It says it has a 16x PCI-E slot, and the question I had was isn't there some spec about how much power a 16x PCI-E slot is supposed to put out, because if one was thinking (just for fun) of putting in, let's say, a Nvidia GTX 285, obviously you would need an external PS to power the 6/8 pin connectors, but isn't there a certain minimum amount of power needed to power the PCI-E slot, and is a 60 some watt external PS enough to do it? Or hadn't they thought that someone like me would be crazy enough to attempt to put the 2 together? ;)


You could rig a powersupply like this one. I added a 12 volt relay that switched the power supply on when the primary powersupply was turned on. This saved me a few bucks as I had a nice 400 watt supply and didnt want to get a 750 watt for my two gts250s. I bought two 8 pin molex extension cables, cut the female ends off and connected them to the output of the power supply.

NOTE: If you do something like that, be sure not to connect any pci-e cables from the primary supply to the same card(s) that have that aux power or you can get reverse current flow transients. The remote control relay is also a must or the reverse current flow will not just be a transient.
ID: 987378 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 987380 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 0:20:35 UTC - in response to Message 987363.  



So you mean, if I have an Atom 330 board with ION chipset.. hmm.. maybe 30 W idle, 40 W full load.. and an OCed GTX260-216 which use ~ 40 W idle, ~ 140 W if CUDA crunching my 520 W PSU wouldn't work?

Idle use: ~ 70 W
Only CUDA: ~ 170 W.

Personally, I like a power supply to be running at about half of the rated capacity, so I'd think really hard about something around 350 watts (twice 170 watts). Anything from 200w to 600w ought to do, but the 200w supply is working hard at 170w, and the 600w supply would be a shade over 1/4 load while crunching.

That'd be fine.

Where you run into trouble is when you get to very low loads, and there are Atom boards that are under 8 watts (total system around 10 watts).

A 1000w power supply can't deliver 10w efficiently, and may not be able to regulate well without an additional load.
ID: 987380 · Report as offensive
Al Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1682
Credit: 477,343,364
RAC: 482
United States
Message 987414 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 4:05:24 UTC

Well, I was doing some looking and found this one http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5325317&csid=ITD&body=MAIN#detailspecs cheap price, looks like it takes an ATX PS, and has a PCI-E 16x 1.0a (is 1.0a not the most current spec, 2.0 I believe is now current, though 3.0 supposedly will be out released sometime this year). Not sure of the brand, never heard of them before, but hey, $75 is pretty cheap to try it.

Earlier today I came across this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500036 which is substantially more expensive, but appearently is overclockable, and has had generally good reviews. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131396&cm_re=ASUS_ATOM_330-_-13-131-396-_-Product also appears to be a solid performer, priced just a little above the ECS board, and is from someone I've heard of, so bonus there.

Most mention While Supplies Last, so it looks like they will soon stop carrying them, must be a new generation coming out soon to replace it. I might just have to try one, for fun, and see what it could do :)

ID: 987414 · Report as offensive
Profile S@NL - Eesger - www.knoop.nl
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Oct 01
Posts: 385
Credit: 50,200,038
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 987455 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 8:16:46 UTC - in response to Message 987067.  
Last modified: 8 Apr 2010, 8:18:21 UTC

I guess I have also 'low power cruncher'.

It depend how you interpret this.

My PCs..
1) AMD Athlon 600 - ~ 60 W - RAC of maybe ~ 40.
2) AMD Athlon XP-M 1400+ - ~ 80 W - RAC of maybe ~ 80.
3) AMD Athlon64 3200+ - ~ 160 W - RAC of maybe ~ 400.
4) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz - ~ 215 W - RAC of ~ 5,500.
5) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 (only GPU calculation) - ~ 260 W - RAC of ~ 15,000.
6) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 - ~ 385 W - RAC of ~ 20,500.
7) AMD PhenomII X4 940 BE with 4x OCed GTX260-216 use ~ 700 W and have a RAC of ~ 65,000.

Which machine have the best RAC/wattage? ;-)

In RAC / Watt (~ credits per day per Watt)
1) ___40/ 60 = _0.667 RAC/W
2) ___80/ 80 = _1.000 RAC/W
3) __400/160 = _2.500 RAC/W
4) _5500/215 = 25.582 RAC/W
5) 15000/260 = 57.692 RAC/W
6) 20500/385 = 53.247 RAC/W
7) 65000/700 = 92.857 RAC/W <= winner! ;)


For a good RAC/W machine that doesn't consume a lot of power, a GT240 might be a good idea. I am going buying one.. it consumes about 70 Watts, a GT250 takes more then twice that but does it produce more then twice as much results?

A small calculation on your top machine:
I also have a X4 940, it produces a RAC of about 3,600. Asuming GPU feeding will cost CPU production, I'll asume that your GPU's do (65,000 - 3,000) / 4 = 15,500.
That one has a TDP of 182 Watts, asuming your system takes about 125 Watts, it leaves 145 Watts for each card. Resulting in 15,500 / 145 = 107 RAC/W for each card. I have red that the GT240 on full SETI crunching takes about 50 Watts, I have heard that it should do a RAC of about 3,500 - 4,000, that'll be 3,750 / 50 = 75 RAC/W.

"Conclusion":
It looks like the best RAC/W will be obtained with the most masive rig. The basis of the rig (MB,PSU,CPU) take the RAC/W down, the GPU's have the best score, also the most powerfull GPU also seems to have the best RAC/W.
Therefore the best RAC/W seems to be with the rig with as much as possible of the most powerfull GPU's.

So how do you define "Low power crunchin"? The best RAC/W? or the least power consumtion.. (an Intel Atom?)
The SETI@Home Gauntlet 2012 april 16 - 30| info / chat | STATS
ID: 987455 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19014
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 987484 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 13:02:22 UTC - in response to Message 987067.  
Last modified: 8 Apr 2010, 13:04:11 UTC


I guess I have also 'low power cruncher'.

It depend how you interpret this.

My PCs..
AMD Athlon 600 - ~ 60 W - RAC of maybe ~ 40.
AMD Athlon XP-M 1400+ - ~ 80 W - RAC of maybe ~ 80.
AMD Athlon64 3200+ - ~ 160 W - RAC of maybe ~ 400.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz - ~ 215 W - RAC of ~ 5,500.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 (only GPU calculation) - ~ 260 W - RAC of ~ 15,000.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 - ~ 385 W - RAC of ~ 20,500.
AMD PhenomII X4 940 BE with 4x OCed GTX260-216 use ~ 700 W and have a RAC of ~ 65,000.

Which machine have the best RAC/wattage? ;-)


____________
[Optimized project applications, for to increase your PC performance (double RAC)!][Overview of abbreviations, which are used often in forum and their meaning.]

Your Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz seems to my eyes have a low RAC and high power consumption.
My Q6600 at stock 2.4GHz, under-voltaged and fitted with laptop HDD, runs on ~120W, has same RAC ~5500.
I also have Pent M 750 @ 1.8GHz, ~45W, RAC 600 if running 24/7.

No CUDA graphics cards, I don't need them, and I don't buy specifically for BOINC/Seti crunching.
ID: 987484 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 987510 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 16:08:00 UTC - in response to Message 987414.  

Most mention While Supplies Last, so it looks like they will soon stop carrying them, must be a new generation coming out soon to replace it. I might just have to try one, for fun, and see what it could do :)

The "Pine View" Atoms are coming out now.

http://www.logicsupply.com/products/d510mo

(I have no affiliation with Logic Supply, but they're a great source of small, low power stuff)

Frankly, among consumer motherboards (for all processors), I'm surprised they aren't marked "While Supplies Last" the day they're released -- product lifetimes are very short.

On the earlier generation (Diamondville) Atoms, the 945GC chipset is a really poor choice -- the motherboard chipset draws substantially more power than the CPU. If you see a fan on one of these, it isn't there to cool the CPU.
ID: 987510 · Report as offensive
Al Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1682
Credit: 477,343,364
RAC: 482
United States
Message 987821 - Posted: 9 Apr 2010, 22:12:50 UTC - in response to Message 987510.  

The "Pine View" Atoms are coming out now.

http://www.logicsupply.com/products/d510mo

(I have no affiliation with Logic Supply, but they're a great source of small, low power stuff)

Took a quick look at it, it's pretty stripped down, but then, it's based upon Intel's chipset not the Ion, so there lies the difference. It's also missing a few important (to me) connectors, as well as having 'just' a PCI slot. I ended up ordering a couple cheaper Atom boards, just for fun, to see what they can do. I like this hobby, have to say it's a nice diversion from the real world sometimes :)


ID: 987821 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 987830 - Posted: 9 Apr 2010, 22:53:33 UTC - in response to Message 987821.  

The "Pine View" Atoms are coming out now.

http://www.logicsupply.com/products/d510mo

(I have no affiliation with Logic Supply, but they're a great source of small, low power stuff)

Took a quick look at it, it's pretty stripped down, but then, it's based upon Intel's chipset not the Ion, so there lies the difference. It's also missing a few important (to me) connectors, as well as having 'just' a PCI slot. I ended up ordering a couple cheaper Atom boards, just for fun, to see what they can do. I like this hobby, have to say it's a nice diversion from the real world sometimes :)

The comment was that other Atom boards were all marked "While Supplies Last" and that maybe something new was coming.

I pointed out the D510MO board because the something new (the next generation Atoms) was actually here.

I'd expect the other manufacturers to have offerings shortly.

Also, along with the Mount Olive Atoms there is a new motherboard chipset, so it may or may not be compatible with the ION.

Among the last-generation Atoms, you see the "no-letter" processors with the 945GC chipset, the "N" Atoms with the lower-power 945GSE, and the "Z" Atoms with the US15W (hard to find).

A 945GC motherboard will be over 30 watts (almost all in the motherboard chipset), a GSE board around 16 watts, and the US15W boards in the 5 or 6 watt range.

I think the ION chipset matches the "no letter" Atoms. Will an ION work with Mount Olive or Packton Atoms? Don't know.

Again, though, if anyone is wondering why a lot of Atom boards are "while supplies last" it is because the new parts are here.
ID: 987830 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 987845 - Posted: 9 Apr 2010, 23:54:32 UTC - in response to Message 987455.  
Last modified: 9 Apr 2010, 23:58:26 UTC

I guess I have also 'low power cruncher'.

It depend how you interpret this.

My PCs..
1) AMD Athlon 600 - ~ 60 W - RAC of maybe ~ 40.
2) AMD Athlon XP-M 1400+ - ~ 80 W - RAC of maybe ~ 80.
3) AMD Athlon64 3200+ - ~ 160 W - RAC of maybe ~ 400.
4) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz - ~ 215 W - RAC of ~ 5,500.
5) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 (only GPU calculation) - ~ 260 W - RAC of ~ 15,000.
6) Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 - ~ 385 W - RAC of ~ 20,500.
7) AMD PhenomII X4 940 BE with 4x OCed GTX260-216 use ~ 700 W and have a RAC of ~ 65,000.

Which machine have the best RAC/wattage? ;-)

In RAC / Watt (~ credits per day per Watt)
1) ___40/ 60 = _0.667 RAC/W
2) ___80/ 80 = _1.000 RAC/W
3) __400/160 = _2.500 RAC/W
4) _5500/215 = 25.582 RAC/W
5) 15000/260 = 57.692 RAC/W
6) 20500/385 = 53.247 RAC/W
7) 65000/700 = 92.857 RAC/W <= winner! ;)


For a good RAC/W machine that doesn't consume a lot of power, a GT240 might be a good idea. I am going buying one.. it consumes about 70 Watts, a GT250 takes more then twice that but does it produce more then twice as much results?

A small calculation on your top machine:
I also have a X4 940, it produces a RAC of about 3,600. Asuming GPU feeding will cost CPU production, I'll asume that your GPU's do (65,000 - 3,000) / 4 = 15,500.
That one has a TDP of 182 Watts, asuming your system takes about 125 Watts, it leaves 145 Watts for each card. Resulting in 15,500 / 145 = 107 RAC/W for each card. I have red that the GT240 on full SETI crunching takes about 50 Watts, I have heard that it should do a RAC of about 3,500 - 4,000, that'll be 3,750 / 50 = 75 RAC/W.

"Conclusion":
It looks like the best RAC/W will be obtained with the most masive rig. The basis of the rig (MB,PSU,CPU) take the RAC/W down, the GPU's have the best score, also the most powerfull GPU also seems to have the best RAC/W.
Therefore the best RAC/W seems to be with the rig with as much as possible of the most powerfull GPU's.

So how do you define "Low power crunchin"? The best RAC/W? or the least power consumtion.. (an Intel Atom?)


From my experiences my OCed GTX260-216 use 3/4 of the max. power consumption if CUDA.
~ 190 W = ~ 142.5 W

They have a RAC of ~ 15,000.


A GTS250 use ~ 150 W max. So then ~ 112.5 W if CUDA. Maybe RAC of ~ 7,000.

A GT240 use ~ 70 W max. So then ~ 52.5 W if CUDA. Maybe RAC of ~ 5,000.


So one of my OCed GTX260-216 and the new GT240 are ~ same RAC/wattage.


I would say..
The best RAC/W and the least power consumption.. ;-)


If an Atom mobo, it have 'only' a 1.6 GHz CPU (the 'old' 330), then the CUDA WU preparation start will be 'very long'.

On my 940 BE stock @ 3.0 GHz it's ~ 12 sec. with DDR2 1066/5-5-5-18 .
On my QX6700 OCed @ 3.14 GHz it's ~ 14 sec. with DDR2 944/5-5-5-18 .

I guess the CUDA WU preparation time would be the double on an Atom CPU.

This would mean the whole wall clock calculation time of the CUDA WU would be (the average ;-) ~ 13 sec. longer.

If I take a 0.448x AR WU -> 530 sec. on my GIGABYTE SOC.
~ 530 s. + ~ 13 s = ~ 543 sec -> + ~ 2.5 %

This would mean ~ 15,000 RAC - ~ 2.5 % = - ~ 375 RAC on an Atom mobo.


____________
[Optimized project applications, for to increase your PC performance (double RAC)!][Overview of abbreviations, which are used often in forum and their meaning.]
ID: 987845 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 987848 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 0:02:18 UTC - in response to Message 987845.  


Ahh maybe additional..

The speed of the sytem RAM is also important for the pure GPU calculation.

I changed the system RAM of my 940 BE from DDR2 800 to 1066 and got a ~ 1,5 % speed up in CUDA calculation.

This shouldn't be a prob with the Atom mobos, which have up to DDR3 1066 from what I read.


____________
[Optimized project applications, for to increase your PC performance (double RAC)!][Overview of abbreviations, which are used often in forum and their meaning.]
ID: 987848 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 987852 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 0:15:18 UTC - in response to Message 987484.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2010, 0:25:08 UTC


I guess I have also 'low power cruncher'.

It depend how you interpret this.

My PCs..
AMD Athlon 600 - ~ 60 W - RAC of maybe ~ 40.
AMD Athlon XP-M 1400+ - ~ 80 W - RAC of maybe ~ 80.
AMD Athlon64 3200+ - ~ 160 W - RAC of maybe ~ 400.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz - ~ 215 W - RAC of ~ 5,500.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 (only GPU calculation) - ~ 260 W - RAC of ~ 15,000.
Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with OCed GTX260-216 - ~ 385 W - RAC of ~ 20,500.
AMD PhenomII X4 940 BE with 4x OCed GTX260-216 use ~ 700 W and have a RAC of ~ 65,000.

Which machine have the best RAC/wattage? ;-)

Your Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz seems to my eyes have a low RAC and high power consumption.
My Q6600 at stock 2.4GHz, under-voltaged and fitted with laptop HDD, runs on ~120W, has same RAC ~5500.
I also have Pent M 750 @ 1.8GHz, ~45W, RAC 600 if running 24/7.

No CUDA graphics cards, I don't need them, and I don't buy specifically for BOINC/Seti crunching.


Not OCed @ 2.67 GHz the QX6700 machine took ~ 195 W out of the wall plug.
It's the first QUAD CPU of Intel and have a TDP of 130 W stock.

Sure, the TDP isn't the real power consumption, but from my experiences a well point for to calculate with.

After OC @ 3.14 GHz the machine take now ~ 215 W out of the wall plug.

The RAC of ~ 5,500 was guessing and little bit calculation.
I didn't let run this machine continuously 24/7 in near past.


If you undervoltage, sure this will reduce the power consumption.
I guess your Q6600 have a TDP of 95 W. The older stepping have 105 W.

So he should use ~ 35 W less than the QX6700.
This would mean 195 - 35 = ~ 160 W at stock speed/voltage.
With undervoltage and your equipment you reach now ~ 120 W. ;-)


After playing around with little higher Vcore, I reached ~ 260 and more W.
So very bad RAC/wattage.
3.14 GHz are with stock Vcore. ;-)


____________
[Optimized project applications, for to increase your PC performance (double RAC)!][Overview of abbreviations, which are used often in forum and their meaning.]
ID: 987852 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : Low power crunchin'?


 
©2024 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.