GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality

Message boards : Number crunching : GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 9193
Credit: 118,814,238
RAC: 49,334
Australia
Message 1905508 - Posted: 8 Dec 2017, 7:19:02 UTC

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
ID: 1905508 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 12949
Credit: 173,898,731
RAC: 60,306
Australia
Message 1905513 - Posted: 8 Dec 2017, 7:32:15 UTC

It must be time for another update. ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 1905513 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Shaggie76
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 09
Posts: 248
Credit: 100,051,933
RAC: 201,021
Canada
Message 1905934 - Posted: 9 Dec 2017, 14:46:44 UTC

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.
ID: 1905934 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Shaggie76
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 09
Posts: 248
Credit: 100,051,933
RAC: 201,021
Canada
Message 1909613 - Posted: 30 Dec 2017, 17:15:15 UTC

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.

ID: 1909613 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Keith MyersSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 3179
Credit: 204,358,903
RAC: 290,136
United States
Message 1909624 - Posted: 30 Dec 2017, 18:03:25 UTC

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
ID: 1909624 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Shaggie76
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 09
Posts: 248
Credit: 100,051,933
RAC: 201,021
Canada
Message 1909711 - Posted: 31 Dec 2017, 0:22:42 UTC

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?
ID: 1909711 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Brent NormanSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1963
Credit: 131,795,377
RAC: 343,686
Canada
Message 1909717 - Posted: 31 Dec 2017, 1:07:51 UTC - in response to Message 1909711.  

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.
ID: 1909717 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Keith MyersSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 3179
Credit: 204,358,903
RAC: 290,136
United States
Message 1909739 - Posted: 31 Dec 2017, 2:38:34 UTC - in response to Message 1909711.  

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?

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
ID: 1909739 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Shaggie76
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 09
Posts: 248
Credit: 100,051,933
RAC: 201,021
Canada
Message 1909892 - Posted: 31 Dec 2017, 21:09:10 UTC - in response to Message 1909717.  

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.

The script omits all multi-GPU systems for exactly this reason.
ID: 1909892 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Stephen "Heretic"Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 2871
Credit: 55,245,542
RAC: 88,396
Australia
Message 1909995 - Posted: 1 Jan 2018, 9:31:21 UTC - in response to Message 1905513.  

It must be time for another update. ;-)

Cheers.


. . Does that mean you are going to replace the 1060/3 cards? :)

Stephen

??
ID: 1909995 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Number crunching : GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality


 
©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.