Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : nvida 560TI vs GTX680 performance questions
Author | Message |
---|---|
I have a pair of EVGA Superclocked 560 TI cards that have 384 cuda cores in them. I already rma'd one of them (too much dust impacted the fan) and the 2nd one is now hitting 85c with the fan at 78% when doing a long gpugrid task. | |
ID: 29614 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
running crunching tasks, you really have to make sure you keep your cards clean. There are a few tutorials around you should probably look into. | |
ID: 29615 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Simba123, | |
ID: 29620 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I don't have hard result numbers at hand, but you're right: the upgrade from a 500 to a 600 series card in itself isn't that much. I'd only do it if I could sell the 560Ti for a good price. If you do so, GPU-Grid is one of the better projects to run on the Keplers. Performance will improve and power consumption will go down, making it a double-win. | |
ID: 29636 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Are you using a utility to setup fan profiles? I had the same 560 in the past and was able to manually set the fan at 100% and it never went over 68*C. Maybe try EVGA's precision X, MSI's Afterburner, Zotac's Firestorm. They'll all work with their competitors cards as long as there NVidia. | |
ID: 29640 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Are you using a utility to setup fan profiles? I had the same 560 in the past and was able to manually set the fan at 100% and it never went over 68*C. Maybe try EVGA's precision X, MSI's Afterburner, Zotac's Firestorm. They'll all work with their competitors cards as long as there NVidia. MSI Afterburner works for everything in my experience, maybe with the exception of some ASUS cards with proprietary fan control chips. Have never had to set any fan to 100% though, but all my cases have adequate cooling. | |
ID: 29642 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I have two EVGA FTW+ 680 4GB running on this project. They tend to finish the long Nathan units in 5 - 6 hours at around 80% GPU usage and usually running around 60 - 63 degrees with the fan at 60%. The cards run at 1163Mhz and 1176Mhz when on this project. | |
ID: 29663 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
5 - 6 hours is also what a GTX660Ti needs for the current long-run Nathans, depending on clock speeds an system. Even the GTX660 is not far behind at approximately 6h. | |
ID: 29667 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Just as reference, my EVGA GTX 660Ti SC in Linux (no idea of actual speed, anyone knows?) finish current Nathan units a little below 5 hours, between 17200 and 17900 seconds, most commonly around 17400 sec. They certainly run hot 75-80°C. | |
ID: 29672 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Also interested in 650 Ti and turbo models crunching times I have 3 650 TI GPUs running GPUGrid. On long run Nathans they consistently do 8:15 - 8:20. They're OCed at +110 core and +350 memory, run at around 46-50C and sip power compared to my other cards. | |
ID: 29674 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Just as reference, my EVGA GTX 660Ti SC in Linux (no idea of actual speed, anyone knows?) finish current Nathan units a little below 5 hours, between 17200 and 17900 seconds, most commonly around 17400 sec. They certainly run hot 75-80°C. The GTX660Ti's will auto-adjust the clocks towards a power usage target. I noted that when I let my card keep it's own temperature, it did it very badly; it went up to 80°C. When I increased fan speed to 74% the temps fell to arount 55°C and as a result the clocks rose and the GPU utilization rose slightly too. When I increased the fan rate I noticed the power target fall from ~91% to ~87% while the clocks remained the same (indicating a 4.5% power saving). The clocks then rose several times, in increments of 13MHz. Your time of just under 5h would have been while the GPU was around 50MHz lower than my cards (if they are both clocked the same and perform the same). This ties in fairly accurately with the well established idea that Linux is around 11% faster than W7. Good to see this reaffirmed. Matt, your GPU utilization is quite low and most of your NATHAN_dhfr36_ runtimes are about the same as my GTX660Ti (18000sec or more), but I did see one that was ~10% faster (16,781.24) than my fastest. I've seen times of ~15,000sec by a GTX690 on W7, and 13,700sec on a GTX680 on XP. These things suggest that your setup is restricting your GPU performance some how. My guess is that if you free up the CPU a bit you could see 10% or more of an improvement in the run times of your GPU's. ____________ FAQ's HOW TO: - Opt out of Beta Tests - Ask for Help | |
ID: 29695 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Just averaged out my 12 most recent long tasks on my two GTX 680s. Came out with 20599 seconds. How does that compare with everyone else? Of those 12, the shortest was 16781 and the longest was 24861. | |
ID: 29700 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I'm running 2 GTX680's on this computer | |
ID: 29701 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
flashawk, I'm using EVGA's Precision X and yes I can crank up the fans but since I'm not OC'ing what EVGA is doing, then I'm assuming the default fan settings should be fine. | |
ID: 29702 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Matt, W7 is ~11% slower than XP, so all else being equal you should be getting run times of ~15,263sec. At present your average speed is ~30% slower than it should be - that's an alarmingly poor performance! I suggest you begin by reducing your CPU usage to <75% (say 70% of the CPU's); each GPUGrid WU will use a full CPU core when running on your Kepler's. | |
ID: 29703 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
One issue that springs to mind is that I can't control the fan speeds of my MSI 5850 using MSI Afterburner when I have the GTX660Ti in the same system. Last time I had two NVidia's in the same system this wasn't an issue. What happens? I'm running 7 machines with mixed ATI/AMD & NVidia, and Afterburner controls them all with no problems (including fan speeds). In fact one of them has an MSI HD 5850 along with an EVGA GTX 460. The only issues I've ever run into with controlling fan speeds is on some ASUS (grrrrrrr) cards with their brain-dead proprietary fan controller which can only be seen by their infantile smartdoctor utility. | |
ID: 29704 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I don't know why it doesn't work. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling Afterburner. Although it lists the ATI card as being there it doesn't list the ATI's clocks, fan speed or temps. The fan control is also greyed out. | |
ID: 29710 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I don't know why it doesn't work. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling Afterburner. Although it lists the ATI card as being there it doesn't list the ATI's clocks, fan speed or temps. The fan control is also greyed out. Is the ATI in the primary or secondary PCIe slot? | |
ID: 29713 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
The 660Ti is in the top slot and the ATI is in the lower PCIE3 slot, however MSI Afterburner reports the GTX660Ti as being GPU2. Device manager reports that the 660Ti uses PCI device 1 and the ATI uses PCI device 2. DXDIAG just lists the 660Ti (as it's used for the display). From testing I'm sure that the top slot is the main slot; it's the one that operates at PCIE3 x16, the lower slot operates at PCIE3 x8 (and forces the top slot to drop to PCIE3x8 when the lower slot is occupied). I think the lower slot is presently operating at PCIE2 x16 and again forcing the top slot to perform at PCIE2 rates. Perhaps Afterburner is struggling with PCIE3/2. | |
ID: 29718 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
skgiven, My understanding is that Run Time and CPU time should be identical under optimal conditions for GPU crunching here. If they are not you are running sub-optimally. My times are identical (because I prefer to run using <100% CPU usage). This way the CPU is never saturated and always available to service the GPU. The fact that some of your tasks have a Run Time to CPU Time delta of 25% is key to your problems. I know my CPUs are busy but? 6836895 4430213 106041 6 May 2013 | 8:11:12 UTC 6 May 2013 | 17:00:28 UTC Completed and validated 31,134.25 4,468.79 70,800.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.18 (cuda42) My machine is an Intel 980 6core with hyperthreading running at 3.33GHz and my boinc preferences are to let it use everything. If I'm really that far off then would you suggest backing off this machine by using http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Client_configuration - <ncpus>N</ncpus> As for the mixing of the 2 video cards, I'd probably run with a 560ti and 680. Thank you for the insight. William | |
ID: 29768 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I guess where I'm getting confused - sort of - is this is what my boinc manager looks like. I understand the hyperthreading is just cramming more stuff into the same pipe. | |
ID: 29769 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
William, your system is working normally. | |
ID: 29772 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
skgiven et al. | |
ID: 29786 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
skgiven, thanks for the advice. I didn't realize this as the tasks report using 0.721 cores each and together the two 680s would only remove 1 of my cores from crunching CPU tasks (I knew the math didn't make sense). I've now lowered my CPU usage. Hopefully this will improve my contributions. Looking into other sources of slowdown as well. | |
ID: 30074 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
This may be a silly question, but in BOINC preferences, do I need to set the number of processors used to a certain ratio of the total processors? For example, if I set it to 75% of my 8 cores, that will enable 6 cores. If I set it to 62.5% that will enable 5 of 8 cores. If I were to set it to 70%, this would be 5.6 cores. Is this possible? How does this work, or should I stick to percentages that give whole numbers of cores? | |
ID: 30362 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
It can't do fractions of a core/thread. So 75% up to 86% is still 6/8 threads. 87.5% is 7/8 threads, as is 89% and 94% and 99%. 100% is all CPU threads, 8/8. | |
ID: 30363 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Alright, that's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Thank you. | |
ID: 30374 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : nvida 560TI vs GTX680 performance questions