Performance of 3D Graphic @ PS3GRID
Hi!
This is performance guide of nVidia graphic cards on PS3GRID:
1. GeForce 280GTX: 25000 sec/WU
2. GeForce 260GTX: 28000 sec/WU
3. GeForce 9800GTX+: 44000 sec/WU
4. GeForce 9800GTX: 47000 sec/WU
5. GeForce 8800GTS512: 50000 sec/WU
6. GeForce 8800GT: 58000 sec/WU
7. GeForce 9600GT: 70000 sec/WU
8. GeForce 8800GS: 74000 sec/WU
This is estimated time (+/-2000 seconds ) of what you should expected from this cards when they operate at normal values. This data was taken from statistic of users who crunch. Although this comparison is not 100% correct due to different CPU, and RAM clocks, but this give some lights on GeForce performance.
I will update and correct this when more WU will be completed using 6.43 application.

It seems that for all WU You can get the same points, but deferent’s are in how much time computer needs to completed WU. Overcloacking helps :)

Also different drivers = different performance.

A 8800GS/9600GSO is more powerfull than a 9600GT

Performance of 3D Graphic @ PS3GRID
Hi!
This is performance guide of nVidia graphic cards on PS3GRID:
1. GeForce 280GTX: 25000 sec/WU
2. GeForce 260GTX: 28000 sec/WU
3. GeForce 9800GTX: 47000 sec/WU
4. GeForce 8800GTS512: 50000 sec/WU
5. GeForce 8800GT: 58000 sec/WU
6. GeForce 9600GT: 70000 sec/WU
7. GeForce 8800GS: 74000 sec/WU
This is estimated time (+/-2000 seconds ) of what you should expected from this cards when they operate at normal values. This data was taken from statistic of users who crunch. Although this comparison is not 100% correct due to different CPU, and RAM clocks, but this give some lights on GeForce performance.
I will update and correct this when more WU will be completed using 6.43 application.

It seems that for all WU You can get the same points, but deferent’s are in how much time computer needs to completed WU. Overcloacking helps :)

the gtx+ is faster than a normal gtx so it's normal that it is between normal gts and gtx260 !

I have a GeForce 9800GTX+ and I have 3 WU with 36.230, 38.266 and 35.527. It seems I am out of your range?

hmmm what am I doing wrong I have 2 9600gt overclocked (factory) running on 2 Q6600 2.4 quads(Vista 32) and it takes them 19+ hours to complete?

____________

I have a GeForce 9800GTX+ and I have 3 WU with 36.230, 38.266 and 35.527. It seems I am out of your range?

What driver you use?

TO ADMIN ! i NEED ABILITY TO EDIT MY FIRST POST :)
THNX

I have a GeForce 9800GTX+ and I have 3 WU with 36.230, 38.266 and 35.527. It seems I am out of your range?

What driver you use?

TO ADMIN ! i NEED ABILITY TO EDIT MY FIRST POST :)
THNX

Are you able to do it? I am able to edit my own posts.

gdf

hmmm what am I doing wrong I have 2 9600gt overclocked (factory) running on 2 Q6600 2.4 quads(Vista 32) and it takes them 19+ hours to complete?

Are you able to do it? I am able to edit my own posts.

gdf

Are you able to do it? I am able to edit my own posts.

gdf

Hi G!

Normal users only can edit their posts in a 60 minutes time frame.
Only admins/moderators have the ability to always edit their own posts.

Do you know if this can be changed?

gdf

hmmm what am I doing wrong I have 2 9600gt overclocked (factory) running on 2 Q6600 2.4 quads(Vista 32) and it takes them 19+ hours to complete?

hmmm what am I doing wrong I have 2 9600gt overclocked (factory) running on 2 Q6600 2.4 quads(Vista 32) and it takes them 19+ hours to complete?

You are not doing anything wrong, it's your card that has only 64 shader units at a clock speed of 1700 MHz.

But amazing to see that the 9600GT from [AF>XTC] ZeuZ which is clocked just 200MHz higher is 2hours faster and only 40min slower that my 9800GT with 112 shaders at 1512Mhz
I think my times are still to slow, but I have no clue why...

I have a GeForce 9800GTX+ and I have 3 WU with 36.230, 38.266 and 35.527. > What driver you use?
I have the 6.43 and the nvidia 177.92

Is that on Vista / Vista 64? Because the current Nv driver seems to be faster there. I also run a 9800GTX+ with 6.43 and 177.92 on XP32 and I average about 44.000s with none faster than 44130s (including 6.41).

@Thomasz: how many samples of 260GTX did you see? Because Stefan said his was about as fast as a super clocked 9800GTX here. This could have changed with the new CUDA 2.0 compilers though, as they may make better use of the tweaks in the GT200 architecture.

MrS

Oh boy, this Vista speed advantage is massive! That's ~1300 credits/day more for you, with the same hardware.
(edit: I also have a Q6600 @ 3 GHz - the main difference is the XP/Vista driver)

And it's about 20% faster. That's just the amount of speed which we lost due to the current drivers + CUDA 2.0 compiler, according to GDF. Remember the initial problems nVidia had with their Vista drivers? They arose because they had to write the driver again to fit the new driver model, almost from scratch. Seems like that's finally good for something :p

But buying Vista 64 just because of this driver advantage would be a bit rush right now.
GDF, can you tell us anything more about this? Is NV aware of the issue and are they working on a fix?

MrS

GDF, can you tell us anything more about this? Is NV aware of the issue and are they working on a fix?

Wolfram1

So you have 9800GTX+, and q6600@3Ghz, and Vista x64. - 38000sec.

What driver you use? Are you crunching something on onther cores?

What FSB you have set?

ExtraTerrestrial Apes

So you have 9800GTX+, and q6600@3Ghz, and XPSP2. - 44000sec.

What driver you use? Are you crunching something on onther cores?

What FSB you have set?

Performance of 3D Graphic @ PS3GRID
Hi!
This is performance guide of nVidia graphic cards on PS3GRID:
1. GeForce 280GTX: 25000 sec/WU
2. GeForce 260GTX: 28000 sec/WU
3. GeForce 9800GTX+: 44000 sec/WU
4. GeForce 9800GTX: 47000 sec/WU
5. GeForce 8800GTS512: 50000 sec/WU
6. GeForce 8800GT: 58000 sec/WU
7. GeForce 9600GT: 70000 sec/WU
8. GeForce 8800GS: 74000 sec/WU
This is estimated time (+/-2000 seconds ) of what you should expected from this cards when they operate at normal values. This data was taken from statistic of users who crunch. Although this comparison is not 100% correct due to different CPU, and RAM clocks, but this give some lights on GeForce performance.
I will update and correct this when more WU will be completed using 6.43 application.

It seems that for all WU You can get the same points, but deferent’s are in how much time computer needs to completed WU. Overcloacking helps :)

Also different drivers = different performance.

I'm getting 26,000 seconds, 7 hours 20 minutes per task!

It's a GTX280, according to the information in stderr out...

@Thamir

So it looks like as if the ratio here is also ~1:3 when you compare your GTX280 to the times that Tomasz collected for a 8800GS, +/- some %...

I'm getting 26,000 seconds, 7 hours 20 minutes per task!

On which card?

My 8800 GTS 512 takes 10.76h with server 2008 x64 4GB RAM and a q9450 @ 3.05GHz

It's a GTX280, according to the information in stderr out...

@Thamir

So it looks like as if the ratio here is also ~1:3 when you compare your GTX280 to the times that Tomasz collected for a 8800GS, +/- some %...

[quote]It's a GTX280, according to the information in stderr out...
@Thamir
+/- a few bucks, if you buy 3 8800 GS the price is close to 1 280 GTX!

how many wu's can i cruch simultanously? always 1 or can i crunch more on better cards? can i crunch 4x more wus in quad sli or only one faster?
____________

You should be able to crunch as many units in parallel as you have GPU cores. As every GPU core consumes one whole CPU core at the moment, you also need the same or bigger amount of CPUs.

So if you have a normal SLI config on a Quad core processor, you can crunch two units in parallel, leaving two CPU cores free for traditional projects.

If you can afford 3 or even 4 way SLI, maybe via 2 * 9800GTX2 you will need all 4 cores of your Quad processor to utilize the 4 GPU cores, but you are crunching 4 units in parallel then :)

If you can afford 3 or even 4 way SLI, maybe via 2 * 9800GTX2 you will need all 4 cores of your Quad processor to utilize the 4 GPU cores, but you are crunching 4 units in parallel then :)

If you can afford 3 or even 4 way SLI, maybe via 2 * 9800GTX2 you will need all 4 cores of your Quad processor to utilize the 4 GPU cores, but you are crunching 4 units in parallel then :)

Hmmm, Is someone crunching on 9800GX2????

Cpu cores will soon be not necessary.

g

Performance of 3D Graphic @ PS3GRID
Hi!
This is performance guide of nVidia graphic cards on PS3GRID:
1. GeForce 280GTX: 25000 sec/WU
2. GeForce 260GTX: 28000 sec/WU
3. GeForce 9800GTX+: 44000 sec/WU
4. GeForce 9800GTX: 47000 sec/WU
5. GeForce 8800GTS512: 50000 sec/WU
6. GeForce 8800GT: 58000 sec/WU
7. GeForce 9600GT: 70000 sec/WU
8. GeForce 8800GS: 74000 sec/WU
This is estimated time (+/-2000 seconds ) of what you should expected from this cards when they operate at normal values. This data was taken from statistic of users who crunch. Although this comparison is not 100% correct due to different CPU, and RAM clocks, but this give some lights on GeForce performance.
I will update and correct this when more WU will be completed using 6.43 application.

It seems that for all WU You can get the same points, but deferent’s are in how much time computer needs to completed WU. Overcloacking helps :)

Also different drivers = different performance.

of the 6 WUs I have completed so far, my average time is 37819.59333 seconds (min 37k, max 40k)

I have:
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS 512 OC (675/972) with 177.84 drivers
Server 2008 x64
4GB RAM
BOINC 6.3.10 x64

The card is too slow,
with only 16 shaders the times are as expected...
The card itself is not recommended for this project, as it has only few shaders and hence it is way to slow to crunch a work unit within deadline time.

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=316

It looks, like I have one more that works but it seems to be to slow:

Quattro GVS 290 will take 175 hours :-((
____________


Supporting BOINC, a great concept !

Quattro GVS 290 will take 175 hours :-((

It's actually difficult to find out what this piece of hardware is, but wiki says it uses a NVG86, which is basically the same as the slow 16-shader Geforce 8400. Crunching is not what these are made for.

MrS

Cpu cores will soon be not necessary.

g

Ah ok, thank you :D

Well, I just finished my first task on a GPU, and am concerned with the result. It took 58437.03 seconds, or 16.23 hours, which is about twice as long as I expected. Am I doing something wrong?

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=56210


stderr out : <core_client_version>6.3.10</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> # Using CUDA device 0 # Device 0: "GeForce GTX 280" # Clock rate: 1404000 kilohertz MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor" called boinc_finish </stderr_txt> ]]>


Machine: Q6600 (@2.7ghz), 6gb RAM, running XP64; BFG GTX 280 BFGEGTX2801024OC2E; BOINC 6.3.10; Driver is 177.41_geforce_winxp_64bit_english_whql, freshly downloaded yesterday. I ran this task with no other tasks running. It is a dedcated cruncher, so nothing but BOINC is running on it.


____________
Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Over 16 hours is a little bit slow for that card...
You could try newer drivers (177.84), from the CUDA download site - Direct link to Win64 177.84 driver -http://www.nvidia.com/object/thankyou.html?url=/compute/cuda/2_0/windows/driver/NVIDIADisplayWin2KAMD64(177_84)Int.exe.
____________

pixelicious.at - my little photoblog

I have looked at it. The new windows application coming up will report the time per step which should tells us what's wrong with your system.

I'd also say give the new drivers a shot. Either 177.84 or 177.92.

MrS

Where did you get the 177.98? I still only see 177.92 when I select beta drivers from nvidia's site for vista x64.

Where did you get the 177.98? I still only see 177.92 when I select beta drivers from nvidia's site for vista x64.

Any performance changes?

MrS

I'd also say give the new drivers a shot. Either 177.84 or 177.92.

I'd also say give the new drivers a shot. Either 177.84 or 177.92.

Good call. Looks like I will be down to a bit over 6 hours when my current task finishes.

The speed is almost the same. One member of our team has a 9800GTX+ (XP64) which is only little better clocked than my 8800GTS OC (Linux) and we have nearly the same time at around 44000 seconds.

The speed is almost the same. One member of our team has a 9800GTX+ (XP64) which is only little better clocked than my 8800GTS OC (Linux) and we have nearly the same time at around 44000 seconds.