Folding Forum

I have a GTX 970 and a core i7 3750. The GPU seems to finish tasks tens of times faster than the CPU. I also remember reading a while ago on this forum that GPU folding far outclasses CPU folding since it's vastly more power efficient and effective. Does CPU folding even make a dent in the overall folding scenario anymore, or should I spare the electrical energy? Anyone got actual data on this?

Until there are GPUs that can fold without a CPU, CPU folding is never going away. It will always be productive.

Once you figure out the actual difference in cost Folding on the CPU, or not, then you can make an informed decision.

What are the watts used when folding, and not folding, on that system?

7im wrote:Until there are GPUs that can fold without a CPU, CPU folding is never going away. It will always be productive.

Once you figure out the actual difference in cost Folding on the CPU, or not, then you can make an informed decision.

What are the watts used when folding, and not folding, on that system?

But that the GPU will use some CPU is inevitable. The matter is whether it's worth it to run a CPU + GPU folding slot vs. only a GPU one.

Around 30 watts when only GPU folding, 60 watts when full throttle. Given that my rig runs through a no-break with 60% power efficiency, the actual wattage difference between these modes is 50+ watts.

Worth it to the project? The answer is still yes, or they would no longer send out CPU work units.

Worth it to you? That is a question you will have to answer.

You could always off-set that 50 watts, and still fold for no additional cost. Replace 1 regular light bulb with a CFL or LED, and you are money ahead.

I am the former IT department for a local (to me) mental health organization. A decade and a half ago a Director decided that SETI@home should run on all their PCs, this latter transitioned to Folding@home.
Being nontechnical users, the PC do not have discrete graphics card unless the user needs two screens. However 55 PCs do 170,000 PPD of work. This is more than a GTX 1050 ti, which I would never have gotten a budget for. (Most of their PCs are $99 specials off lease)

JimboPalmer wrote:... However 55 PCs do 170,000 PPD of work. This is more than a GTX 1050 ti, which I would never have gotten a budget for. (Most of their PCs are $99 specials off lease)

And the power cost trade-off wouldn't be enough of a selling point?

An organization spending money on something not needed? I suspect right there that would be a non-selling point. A GPU wouldn't do anything for the organization he described. On the other hand, all of those PC's would get used at least part of the day, and the power usage is already an expense item.

Joe_H wrote:... and the power usage is already an expense item.

I need to get me one of those rigs that costs no more to max out the CPU for most of the day than it costs for normal usage for part of a day.

No, you need to get somebody to pay the electric bill for you. It's not that it costs no more, but that there's a company account that can treat it as a business expense.

Equipment, like computer components, are a depreciable expense.

ComputerGenie wrote:

JimboPalmer wrote:... However 55 PCs do 170,000 PPD of work. This is more than a GTX 1050 ti, which I would never have gotten a budget for. (Most of their PCs are $99 specials off lease)

And the power cost trade-off wouldn't be enough of a selling point?

1) I did say they were non technical users. I did warn them the PC would use more electricity, but thankfully, that is not out of the IT budget, and in some buildings, not out of Mental Health's budget. (Modern $500 PCs would use less electricity than 5 year old, off lease, core duos. But we don't buy the modern ones)

2) They too, have to justify how much they spend on PCs, my $99 ebay PCs make their budget process easier. The electric bill gets a much less through examination. Justifying the 500 page phone bill is a longer process.