Message boards :
Number crunching :
GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3
Author | Message |
---|---|
Grant (SSSF) Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 9618 Credit: 123,892,284 RAC: 83,206 ![]() ![]() |
I wonder what sort of performance this sucker would give? GTX 1080Ti CUDA Cores 3584 Titan Xp CUDA Cores 3840 Titan V CUDA Cores 5120 For $3,000US you'd want it to kiss you good night & tuck you in as well as crunch like nothing else... Grant Darwin NT |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 13749 Credit: 180,269,108 RAC: 81,713 ![]() ![]() |
It must be time for another update. ;-) Cheers. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 259 Credit: 122,293,516 RAC: 254,394 ![]() ![]() |
After all the server problems last week I didn't want to put strain on them running my script to crawl through the database. Maybe if they stay up this week I'll try again. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 259 Credit: 122,293,516 RAC: 254,394 ![]() ![]() |
New scan shows the 1070 Ti's doing a tiny bit more work than regular 1070's but probably use more power than it's worth. ![]() |
![]() ![]() Volunteer tester ![]() Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 4196 Credit: 243,947,320 RAC: 582,846 ![]() ![]() |
I would say that the 1070 Ti isn't any more power hungry than the 1070. Running both at full BOINC load and these are the nvidia-smi outputs. GTX 1070Ti keith@Darksider:~$ nvidia-smi Sat Dec 30 09:53:01 2017 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NVIDIA-SMI 384.98 Driver Version: 384.98 | |-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | GPU Name Persistence-M| Bus-Id Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC | | Fan Temp Perf Pwr:Usage/Cap| Memory-Usage | GPU-Util Compute M. | |===============================+======================+======================| | 0 GeForce GTX 107... On | 00000000:03:00.0 Off | N/A | |100% 48C P2 119W / 180W | 2578MiB / 8114MiB | 95% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | 1 GeForce GTX 107... On | 00000000:06:00.0 On | N/A | |100% 62C P2 110W / 180W | 2897MiB / 8110MiB | 99% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | 2 GeForce GTX 107... On | 00000000:07:00.0 Off | N/A | |100% 66C P2 124W / 180W | 2580MiB / 8114MiB | 98% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ And this the GTX 1070 C:\Program Files\NVIDIA Corporation\NVSMI>nvidia-smi Sat Dec 30 09:54:36 2017 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NVIDIA-SMI 384.94 Driver Version: 384.94 | |-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | GPU Name TCC/WDDM | Bus-Id Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC | | Fan Temp Perf Pwr:Usage/Cap| Memory-Usage | GPU-Util Compute M. | |===============================+======================+======================| | 0 GeForce GTX 1070 WDDM | 00000000:01:00.0 On | N/A | |100% 70C P2 115W / 166W | 2449MiB / 8192MiB | 92% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | 1 GeForce GTX 1070 WDDM | 00000000:06:00.0 Off | N/A | | 84% 64C P2 108W / 166W | 2366MiB / 8192MiB | 94% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | 2 GeForce GTX 970 WDDM | 00000000:07:00.0 Off | N/A | |100% 82C P2 138W / 187W | 1281MiB / 4096MiB | 88% Default | +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ As you can see on the Windows machine, the old GTX 970 is more power hungry than the GTX 1070. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 259 Credit: 122,293,516 RAC: 254,394 ![]() ![]() |
Average of Median 60% Credit/Hour from my last run: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070: 908.8006478 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti: 941.2174884 So approximately 3.6% more credit from a wide sampling of computers and tasks. From your data below, average power: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070: 111.5 W NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti: 117.7 W So approximately 5.6% more power in this specific case. I noticed your 1070's were rated for 166W not the stock 150W -- so maybe clocked a bit higher and drawing a bit more power too? |
![]() ![]() Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 1 Dec 99 Posts: 2081 Credit: 174,260,436 RAC: 525,819 ![]() ![]() |
I wonder how badly you think mismatched cards in a system affect your numbers. For instance my 4x1070 computer is actually a 1070/980/1060/1060. |
![]() ![]() Volunteer tester ![]() Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 4196 Credit: 243,947,320 RAC: 582,846 ![]() ![]() |
Average of Median 60% Credit/Hour from my last run: No, not overclocked in the traditional sense. But use an offset in P2 state to get them back to where they should be running in P0 state which would be at their normal gaming mode P0 state spec. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 259 Credit: 122,293,516 RAC: 254,394 ![]() ![]() |
I wonder how badly you think mismatched cards in a system affect your numbers. The script omits all multi-GPU systems for exactly this reason. |
Stephen "Heretic" ![]() Volunteer tester ![]() Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 3198 Credit: 64,184,364 RAC: 108,950 ![]() ![]() |
It must be time for another update. ;-) . . Does that mean you are going to replace the 1060/3 cards? :) Stephen ?? |
©2018 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.