I've been perusing the forums lately and haven't come across any posts relating different GPU's performance.

My main interest being WU's per $$$ (no offense to our Euro-spending brethren). Obviously the prices for cards fluctuate, but having a chart to see how different GPU's perform (at stock speeds as a minimum) would be useful for those looking at building/upgrading their box. One could use real-time cost data to calculate the most efficient use of their money.

Just a thought.
____________

Well, I just built a new i7 and I put into it a NVidia 9800 GT from PNY with 1G VRAM and it takes about 6 hours to 9 hours to run one task, The difficulty is that the time reported (now) is the CPU time and not the GPU time it takes to process a task.

So, not sure how to answer the question for sure ... maybe someone else has several different GPU cards runing and would be able to say. I will say that the PNY card was on special and it was just over $100 in Frys ... I have not been able to find the like on the web with most cards there only having 512M VRAM.

Also not sure if the extra VRAM helps or not ...

I may have more later as I do have another computer with a GPU card that I have not started processing because I was one of those having trouble getting work and I did not want to baby sit two computers until it was working better. I have had one cycle where the system seems to have worked as it should but I still need to wait a day or so to see if the trend continues or if I had a long streak of once ...

My *OWN* personal take on this (at the moment) is that buy what you would normally buy to populate the system for normal usage.

If you want the maximize processing power, then by all means get the meanest most expensive card going.

If you only have one slot, get a better card with most memory and speed you can afford.

If you have several slots (like I do, the MB can host up to 3 GPU cards) ... well, not at all sure what I am going to do... :)

For me, the project selection is still too poor to interest me that much in that I "like" projects that are in the realm of physics (MWay, Cosmology, Einstein, LHC, etc.) and none of them are GPU capable yet. HOWEVER, I may be watching the ads and getting new GPU cards even if they are not the absolute best and for the moment putting them on GPU Grid. I can run up my score here while filling out my dance card (as it were) and when more GPU capable projects arrive I will be ready ... :)

And Frys puts some very nice cards on sale ... :)

I won't be able to add much here for a month or two because I only have the two cards to run on and one of them is still idle ... though it is looking like I am able to fetch and run work normally ... just got another task while taking a nap and I did not do a thing!

But I would imagine I would be able to afford a couple cards in the not too distant future and then maybe I could run a small example, but it would be a very limited test.

Though maybe the post-christmas sales???

Hey Paul,

there's no need for you to buy several cards just for test purposes. That would mean you'd have to get some with non-ideal price/performance ratio ;)
I think the data which we have is clear enough (GT200 rules).

MrS

Hmmm, GT200 rules ... well I can find GTX280, GTX260 ... but no GT200 ... unless you mean the GT200 series ...

It is always a question of price, performance, availablity, what I have already, what the machines can take for installs, etc.

So, The i7 box can hold 3 cards, but, I did not anticipate this so only bought a 680 W power supply. Not sure it won't get sucked out of the wall with a suite of 3 GT280s installed. Besides, may generate too much heat for the box.

For the moment I was just thinking to buy one new card and drop it into the box and to let it rip and keep the slower/older 9800 GT running as a bonus...

At the moment the question is moot in that I am waiting to see what the Frys ad has to offer (if anything). And sadly, I am not sure that if at this moment I want to spend $500 to support basically one project that I am not really all that interested in ...

And if I buy cards over time, I am still going to get a cross-section of power. For example if I get mid-high end for now, the same price point 6 months from now is likely to be higher capability even if only a little. For the nonce, assume one per quarter and my last new system (for awhile) in 6 months, well, by then I will have 4 GPU cards and a new system with a GPU card making 5. With slots for 7 ... so, not wanting to waste anything ... I will be using the two cards, and what ever I buy for some time ... it will only be the end of next year when I start to fill all slots and a buy will bump off the slowest card.

And if I buy them on sale, well, who can say what I will get. :)

That`s easy:

Got `more` money - buy 260GTX core 216
Got `less` money - buy 9800GTX+

And I absolutely agree with ExtraTerrestrial Apes.
____________

I have 1 GTX280 on Vista 64 running. The card is to fast for 4+1 on Windows, I have to work with 3+1 or I lost over 30% of the performance. Only good for gaming. This card would better run in a Linux machine for crunching, but it's in my gaming box.

One GTX260² is running on LINUX 64, it's running fine with 4+1.

One GTX260² is running on XP 32, it's running fine with 4+1 (Account Cebion, my wife).

One GTX260² is running on Vista 64, it's running fine with 4+1.

One 8800GT is running on Vista 64, it's running fine with 4+1.

One 8800GT is running on XP 32, it's running fine with 4+1.

The 8800GT is similar to the 9800GT.

The best choice was to buy the GTX260² cards. I never will buy a GTX280 again, too dear and not really any advantage here.
____________

Hi Paul,

sorry, by "GT200" I mean the chip which is used for GTX 260 / 260² / 280.. maybe should have made that more clear.

And sadly, I am not sure that if at this moment I want to spend $500 to support basically one project that I am not really all that interested in ...

Hey, that's absolutely fine! Everyone contributes as much as he / she wants to. And the original idea of DC is to use spare ressources and not to buy hardware for DC. So nobody is going to get mad at you for only buying 1 new card instead of 3 ;)

And generally, what you're talking about (in your last post) is how to best use your systems. That's fine for you, but what this thread is about is "if I want to spend money on GPU-power, what's the best way to do it now?" It's clear that in 6 months cards will be better and/or cheaper.. that's always the case and doesn't help much if I want to buy now.

BTW, your current plan of buying 1 fast card and keeping the 9800GT makes a lot of sense. I guess I'll take that route as well shortly.. GTX 260², I'm watching you!

Regards,
MrS

Paul I think he means 216 shaders vs 190 shaders ....2 different types of GTX260.

I believe the 260-216 is the best bang for the "Buck" atm hehe

Paul I think he means 216 shaders vs 190 shaders ....2 different types of GTX260.

I believe the 260-216 is the best bang for the "Buck" atm hehe

Well, about EVGA GeForce GTX 280 Video Card - Superclocked Edition I can say just 1 thing; You have `overpaid`. You should choose as everybody suggested 260GTX core 216. Twice cheaper and just 10% slower.
____________

Well, about EVGA GeForce GTX 280 Video Card - Superclocked Edition I can say just 1 thing; You have `overpaid`. You should choose as everybody suggested 260GTX core 216. Twice cheaper and just 10% slower.

And I don't think you overpaid that much, if any. The style of Tigerdirect is horrible and for me it looks like you either pay 380$ or 350$ for the card and this 450$ number is just there to make people feel better when buying it.. without any connection to the price of the product in the last few months.
I suppose you won't get a 260² for 175$? Otherwise I'd have to start crying now, because ours are still at 250+€..MrS

What the heck is a 260²?

->

the GTX 260² is an unofficial synonym for GTX 260 Core 216

So it's a GTX 260 with an additional shader cluster: 216 shaders instead of 192 at the same clocks and with similar memory configuration. That's 1/8th more raw horse power, that's why we prefer it over the regular GTX 260.

MrS

I'm not totally sure how GTX 280 fits in here. It should have a worse price/performance ratio, the entry price is a bit steep and power consumption is higher. Still wouldn't be a bad buy, though.

MrS

I'm not totally sure how GTX 280 fits in here. It should have a worse price/performance ratio, the entry price is a bit steep and power consumption is higher. Still wouldn't be a bad buy, though.

MrS

Wait for 1st quarter 2009 and the GTX 295should hit the stores.

Its 2 280s sandwiched together and should sell for 500$.

Naturally, the 280 should drop in price by then?!



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2107.html

I've also read it's two 260's but also two 280's. Here's the quote:

"As we briefly mentioned, the GPUs strapped on to this beast aren't your stock GTX 260 or GTX 280 parts. These chips are something like a GTX 280 with one memory channel disabled running at GTX 260 clock speeds. I suppose you could also look at them as GTX 260 ICs with all 10 TPCs enabled. Either way, you end up with something that has higher shader performance than a GTX 260 and lower memory bandwidth and fillrate (remember that ROPs are tied to memory channels, so this new part only has 28 rops instead of 32) than a GTX 280. This is a hybrid part."

Here's the URL:GTX295

Pat

I kinda learned early on, buy a computer and then don't look at prices for at least 6 months (after you leave the price challenge period)... otherwise you will find you can never buy anything because there is NEVEER the right time ... something better, faster, cheaper is always just around the corner. Oh, and I have waited for the next release only to find it delayed for months ... not saying that will happen here ... just too easy to never get anything because of waiting for ....

I kinda learned early on, buy a computer and then don't look at prices for at least 6 months (after you leave the price challenge period)... otherwise you will find you can never buy anything because there is NEVEER the right time ... something better, faster, cheaper is always just around the corner. Oh, and I have waited for the next release only to find it delayed for months ... not saying that will happen here ... just too easy to never get anything because of waiting for ....

Tell me about it! :)

I've figured this out almost 2 decades ago and lived through xts, 286s, 386s, etc, various peripherals, and Moore's law still hold true to some extent today!

But I guess I keep my budget under control, I always try to sell my current hardware and stay ahead of the curve and jump to the next gen before my current gen obsoletes. And I just might do that with my 6 month old 280 to grab the 295...

Stop!! Stop!! You guy are doing two things:

Dating yourselves (age not orientation)

and bringing back old memories. ;P

Pat

Stop!! Stop!! You guy are doing two things:

Dating yourselves (age not orientation)

and bringing back old memories. ;P

Pat

While the debate here is focused on the 'bang-for-the-buck' in general, it is also important to note that many systems require some significant upgrades to run the GT200 series...especially since no stock power supply can handle any of them (not to mention the various 9800 cards can also overload stock PS's). For those stuck with stock equipment, I would suggest that the older 9600 GSO (with 96 shaders - 384mb or 768mb) might be the best at about 84 watts. If one's system is really under-powered, a significantly factory OC'd 9500GT (at only 50 watts) might be the best. Of course, this assumes a single card install (since SLI increase PS requirements considerably).

My main interest being WU's per $$$ (no offense to our Euro-spending brethren).

Well, my card is in Oakland now (according to the UPS site) so it is looking good for Tuesday still (sadly) ... though it is still possible that Oakland will have it up so Sacrodemented in time for Monday (not holding my breath) ...

For the dual GTX, well, I will just wait to see if it is on the shelf when I build my next system. I suspect that I will top that one out as I likely will not replace my first newest one (W1) a quad (Q9300) ...

So I will suffer with that and the i7, Mac Pro and the two Dell Dual Xeons I have now ...

When the new card arrives I am not sure how I will arrange things ... at the moment I am leaning towards putting it into the i7 and leaving the 9800 GT there too ... the 8500 (or 8800 I forget) is too wimpy for GPU Grid so I may use it for SaH or the next GPU project that comes along and see how it fares there ...

I have 79 hours on the clock on the one task I have on it with 16 hours to go ... unless it is a "hanger" like the one I just finished on the i7 that took more than the expected amount of time to finish. It looks like I am going to blow the deadline, sadly, I guess I will have to look to see if it gets issued to someone else and send them a warning if so ...

Fractal,

Compared to Germany all cards except 9600GSO and GTX 260/280 look too expensive, whereas GTX 260 is cheaper. Guess they know we like to buy the good stuff.. ;)

MrS

Well, the card is her, plugged in ... and processing ... pull is now 450 some watts from the wall ... up from 290 with just the 9800 GPU ...

Now to see how it performs doing work ...

I may still move the 9800 to another machine, but, for the moment I will see how it goes ...

I'm still wondering about this 450 Watt. My self build AMD Phenom 9950 BE (2.6 GHz stock frequency) takes 185 Watt in idle mode, crunching on 3 cores without GPU 250 Watt and with GPU 330 Watt. So the GTX280 (stock frequency 602/1296/1107) takes only 80 Watt more for GPUGrid crunching, a lot less than the data sheet makes believe. I have build in a efficient PSU and 2 HDs inside (2 x Samsung HD403LJ). In the case also a 25cm fan in the left cover, 2 12 cm fans in the case in front and rear and a 12 cm fan for the CPU cooler (Noctua). With my 8800GT the same systems has used 310 Watt. SO the GTX280 use only 40 Watt more.
____________

My rig runs a QX9650 and 2xXFX GTX280 XXX's as well as a WD Raptor and 4x1Tb Seagates in RAID5. The PSU is a PC Power and cooling 1200 ESA. With both GPU's and 3 cores crunching my draw is around 520Watts. The GPU's run at about 82°C and the CPU at 56°C. I can complete a WU in about 4-6hrs on each GPU.

If I was to believe the specs, just my GPU's alone at 100% should be 500Watts or over so I think the specs are high.

Pat

@Paul & Koko: these are interesting numbers, thanks!

I wouldn't say "of course". As we concluded somewhere here in this thread a 9800GT delivers almost 5k credits/day, with the recent drop due to the 1888 credit WUs maybe 4k. I don't know about your Q9300, but my Q6600@3GHz can certainly not make up for such an amount with just a half core

I guess I dropped out of seti a long time ago for similar reasons as you did. I also like to support other projects, preferrably from the realm of physics. And I also like to contribute as much as I can, without spending too much. That means I want to make good use of my hardware, i.e. only machines with a 64 Bit OS run ABC etc. And this means I'd always want to use that 400 GFlops Coprocessor, even if that means loosing 10 GFlops somewhere else. And about the babysitting.. well, if the GPU runs dry I wouldn't loose anything compared to not running GPU-Grid in the first place.

But that's just me (who, by the way, absolutely doesn't care about credit goals). So if what you're doing is what you want, by all means go for it :)

MrS

An OC'ed 9500GT is a really bad option, though! With 32 shaders even overclocking is not going to help it that much. 9600GT with 64 shaders at 1.7/1.8 GHz already needs one day per WU. I'd rather OC a 9600GSO than get a 9500GT. If the PS can't handle the additional 30 W it probably wouldn't last long with a 9500GT either.

MrS

Anyway, I just installed the OC'd 9500GT and will report back with some run times (I'd estimate around 2 days based on the few other 32 shader cards I've noticed running here).

11 hours into its first workunit with a bit over 27% done. That equates to about 40 - 41 hours for the full unit (I'd guess it is a 24xx one). It will be an interesting comparison to your card since the only difference between the two (assuming like me that you are not heavily gaming, etc.) is the memory clock (mine is 700 core, 1750 shader, 2000 memory...all factory OC).

Thanks for the reply MrS...these types of conversations are the ones that I really enjoy on the forum. :)

I can see your point, but still I wouldn't want to give up that much performance by going with 32 shaders instead of 96. I'd rather use the somewhat bigger card and would not run any CPU projects. That should get cpu power consumption below 30W and the PSU would be fine. Of course the PSU would have to be able to handle an occasional spike in CPU usage.

Oh, and don't forget: the cards draw less power in GPU-Grid than in games, so the 80 / 50W figures are too high.. which makes the difference between them smaller ;)

Just to update...the 9500GT completed the first workunit (an 18xx one) in about 40.72 hours.

Just to update...the 9500GT completed the first workunit (an 18xx one) in about 40.72 hours.

Since the run times are nearly identical, it also looks like memory clock is irrelevant for the GPUGRID apps...

Just to update...the 9500GT completed the first workunit (an 18xx one) in about 40.72 hours.

That sounds pretty much dead on with my experience. My OC'd 9500GT is about 3.3x slower than my 8800GT's (based on several WU's completed solely with the 9500). I've also seen about 40 hr runtimes on the 18xx credit WU's on the 9500GT, which equates to just over 12 hours on a 8800GT (just like I have experienced).

This is good because it shows you can process two of these (small) WU's in 48 hours. However, while the 24xx WU's only took me a couple hours longer, if you get a 29xx or 3232 size WU, both will not be able to finish in 96 hours (4-day deadline). I advise you keep an eye on this and abort any that are no where close to finishing on time. If it will be within 6-8 hours or so late based on your estimates, then you might as well let it finish because only a 260 or 280 card will receive it (after the 96 hour deadline passes) and be able to process / return that fast.

Since the run times are nearly identical, it also looks like memory clock is irrelevant for the GPUGRID apps...

Well after deciding a 260GTX Core 216 would be my best bet (price to performance wise), a recent post on sale prices (thx JAMC) led to a rather hasty purchase of an overclocked EVGA 280GTX (at only $211)...

I don't think I'll be able to beat that price to performance ratio in a while.