Hi,
I am in search of possible answers. I have just started GPU Crunching.
I have 2 GTX 1050 Ti 3Gb on a Gigabyte AB350MHD3 Motherbaord with an AMD Ryzen 5 1400 CPU on Windows 10.
I have noticed that when processing WU.( one core / WU, Core working on GPU is ranging 70-80 % core usage).

The first GPU card gets hot and GPU processor is at 90% most of the time.
This GPU is connected to the first PCI-e which works at PCI-e 3.0 16X.
With bus interface load averaging 30%.
The second card does not seem to get as hot as the first and the GPU processor is at 90% most of the time also.
This GPU is connected to the second PCI-e 16x Slot which works at PCI-e 2.0 4x.
With bus interface load averaging 30%.

Now, since both the first and second have their GPU processor usage ranging in the 90% and since the bus interface load is averaging 30% should both cards not heat up the same? For info, the second card takes a few additional hours to complete a WU than the first.

Also, Since it is evident that there is no bottleneck on the bus interface , does this mean the cards perform the same for this type of WU even though the bandwidth between GPU / CPU is narrower?

Now, the big question, since both cards are having the same processor usage, and there is no bottle neck, should the WU not finish at the same time also?

I might not be looking at the right information from GPU-Z.

If there is anyone out there who can guide me, I would much appreciate.
Thanks.

I have 2 GTX 1050 Ti 3Gb on a Gigabyte AB350MHD3 Motherbaord with an AMD Ryzen 5 1400 CPU on Windows 10.

I have noticed that when processing WU.( one core / WU, Core working on GPU is ranging 70-80 % core usage).

The first GPU card gets hot and GPU processor is at 90% most of the time.

This GPU is connected to the first PCI-e which works at PCI-e 3.0 16X.
With bus interface load averaging 30%.
The second card does not seem to get as hot as the first and the GPU processor is at 90% most of the time also.
This GPU is connected to the second PCI-e 16x Slot which works at PCI-e 2.0 4x.
With bus interface load averaging 30%.

Now, since both the first and second have their GPU processor usage ranging in the 90% and since the bus interface load is averaging 30% should both cards not heat up the same?

For info, the second card takes a few additional hours to complete a WU than the first.

Also, Since it is evident that there is no bottleneck on the bus interface , does this mean the cards perform the same for this type of WU even though the bandwidth between GPU / CPU is narrower?

Now, the big question, since both cards are having the same processor usage, and there is no bottle neck, should the WU not finish at the same time also?

I might not be looking at the right information from GPU-Z.

I run three dedicated machines. One of them has 5 GPUs. Only one of them is in a full length (16X) slot. One of them is in an 8X slot. The rest are in 1X slots with riser ribbons.

BOINC apps do not need to fully utilize all lanes. The card does all the work and only needs 1X for communicating. The other 15 lanes are for processing video during videogame play which BOINc does not use.

I run a GeForce GT 710, two 620s, a 520 and a 420. The 710 has the fastest chip (954 Mhz) but only 1Gb Vram/64-bit memory interface. Also has no processor clock, just a graphics clock.

The 420 has 2Gb Vram/128-bit memory interface. This card I use to run the display because it has the most memory/memory bandwidth/speed. It also has an 80mm fan. It also uses the most power. The other cards fall somewhere in between having 1-2Gb Vram but only 64-bit memory.

That being said, the only card that will accept and run GPUGrid tasks is the GT 710.

Thanks for all Info.

@ Retvian , yes I removed the card because I had to move the rigs to their final resting place. I have ordered PCI-e extension cables and will reinstlal them shortly. Sorry I missed the Ti and it sure is the difference. But when the 1050 is installed alone it produces more heat then on the second slot...

@Engagex , I am in the process of building another rig using the 6 x PCI-e 1x riser cable on 1060 GPUs. I'll report back on another thread. I myself could not locate any 'reference' info of people crunching on PCI-e 1x riser cables.

I run three dedicated machines. One of them has 5 GPUs. Only one of them is in a full length (16X) slot. One of them is in an 8X slot. The rest are in 1X slots with riser ribbons.

BOINC apps do not need to fully utilize all lanes.

The card does all the work...

...and only needs 1X for communicating. The other 15 lanes are for processing video during videogame play which BOINc does not use.

I run a GeForce GT 710, two 620s, a 520 and a 420. The 710 has the fastest chip (954 Mhz) but only 1Gb Vram/64-bit memory interface. Also has no processor clock, just a graphics clock.

The 420 has 2Gb Vram/128-bit memory interface. This card I use to run the display because it has the most memory/memory bandwidth/speed. It also has an 80mm fan. It also uses the most power. The other cards fall somewhere in between having 1-2Gb Vram but only 64-bit memory.

That being said, the only card that will accept and run GPUGrid tasks is the GT 710.

But when the 1050 is installed alone it produces more heat then on the second slot...

I am in the process of building another rig using the 6 x PCI-e 1x riser cable on 1060 GPUs. I'll report back on another thread. I myself could not locate any 'reference' info of people crunching on PCI-e 1x riser cables.

Here is the xserver output of the GPU that's currently running GPUGrid:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By69FNpSrHHOTmpPUnZ6ZGV1UHc/view?usp=sharing

This is the first time I've seen any other card but the GT 710 running it.

Anyway, at 95% GPU use the PCIe bandwidth is only at 1%. The most I've EVER seen it at for ANY project was 15% regardless of 16X or 1X.

The most I've EVER seen it at for ANY project was 15% regardless of 16X or 1X.

Anyway, at 95% GPU use the PCIe bandwidth is only at 1%. The most I've EVER seen it at for ANY project was 15% regardless of 16X or 1X.

Where's the proof?
Those numbers make sense though. Being about twice as fast they use about twice the bandwidth...