Forum > GPU crunching
Latest drivers (NVidia and ATI)
Ghost0210:
--- Quote from: M_M on 07 Sep 2010, 02:14:19 pm ---Can someone compare how fast is GTX460 comparing to GTX275 and GTS250 for SETI crunching? Is it worth upgrading?
--- End quote ---
Can't speak for the 275 or 250, but compared to my 260, the 465 crunches 2 VHARs at a time in around 5mins 30. Compared to my 260 crunching 1 at a time in around 3mins 30
--- Quote from: M_M on 07 Sep 2010, 02:14:19 pm ---I'm thinking of upgrading GTX275 (power hungry monster, over 220W) to faster and more power efficient GTX460 (around 160W), which I also expect to be faster (in games, it should be around 50% faster, but how much is it in SETI does anyone know?)
As I understand, SETI application is currently poorly optimized for Fermi architecture, am I right?
Thanks.
--- End quote ---
It's not just Seti that is poorly optimised for Fermi, it's brand new so all developers need time to get used to what the cards can do and where their limits are.
The new v0.37 installer contains the latest fermi compatible build from the Lunatics. It's cut out a lot of the -12 errors (almost non-existent now ;D) and has some minor optimisations included.
Jason has already posted that it is going to to take time to make full use of the new cards, but given that time it should just get better and better.
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: M_M on 07 Sep 2010, 02:14:19 pm ---Can someone compare how fast is GTX460 comparing to GTX275 and GTS250 for SETI crunching? Is it worth upgrading?
I'm thinking of upgrading GTX275 (power hungry monster, over 220W) to faster and more power efficient GTX460 (around 160W), which I also expect to be faster (in games, it should be around 50% faster, but how much is it in SETI does anyone know?)
As I understand, SETI application is currently poorly optimized for Fermi architecture, am I right?
Thanks.
--- End quote ---
At SETI Beta, the Application details are now showing values for "Average processing rate" which are GFLOPS derived from actual MB task times, with the definition of a flop being based on the rsc_fpops_est values produced by the splitters. I was looking through the top hosts list there last week and gathered some of those values for a similar comparison, but not GTX275. Both GTX260 and GTX285 averaged about 170 running 6.09 cuda23, GTX460 about 250 runnning 6.10 cuda_fermi. I only found 5 of the 460s, 12 260s, and 13 285s so those numbers aren't very reliable. I also didn't make any attempt to judge whether some of the cards were overclocked.
There are some 275s there if you want to check when Beta's data-driven web pages are next available.
Joe
Ghost0210:
Here's a link to how nVidia rate their current cards
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html
Not sure how accurate it is but may give you an idea
Jason G:
--- Quote from: Ghost on 08 Sep 2010, 08:33:37 am ---Here's a link to how nVidia rate their current cards
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html
Not sure how accurate it is but may give you an idea
--- End quote ---
I'd say going from the cards on that list that I've used (more than a few), that it's a pretty reasonable ranking in terms of usage/gaming performance. The newer cards at this stage are penalised a bit for crunching due to immature software, so come out roughly equal IMO to the best of the prior gen, bit will slowly pull ahead.
Brodo:
--- Quote from: Ghost on 08 Sep 2010, 08:33:37 am ---Here's a link to how nVidia rate their current cards
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html
Not sure how accurate it is but may give you an idea
--- End quote ---
Interesting, I'm running a GTX285 and a GTX470 in the same box using V0.37. with no overclock I'm finding that the 285 is quicker by roughly a minute on a "standard" 0.4AR unit.
~11 mins for the 470 as against ~10m for the 285
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version