Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

A forum for discussing FAH-related hardware choices and info on actual products (not speculation).

Moderator: Site Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules before posting.
Post Reply
Blasko9
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:51 pm

Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by Blasko9 »

Maybe a dumb question but....

I have two GF110s in a single box, a GTX580 @797mhz and a GTX560ti 448 @797mhz. The 560ti has 12.5% fewer cores so if I can get a stable overclock @910mhz, should I expect to get the same folding performance from both cards?

It does not appear that way because @ stock freqs the GTX580 is about 30-40% faster on the same WU. Do more cores running slower out pace fewer cores running faster?
7im
Posts: 10189
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by 7im »

More cores is always better. Fire hose vs garden hose. Even on low power the fire hose will knock you over.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
uncle fuzzy
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by uncle fuzzy »

In general, yes.

More cores- good.
More cores running faster- more good.
Proud to crash my machines as a Beta Tester!

Image
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by bruce »

What I normally do is multiply the two numbers together to create a figure of merit, provided they're the same architecture. (Twice as many cores can run a about half the speed to get the same amount of work done.) It's not a perfect measurement by any means, but it's closer than only looking at either of the numbers in isolation.

Comparing the two at stock speeds:
GTX560ti: 448 @ 732 ---> 328
GTX580: 512 @ 772 ---> 395
Ratio: 1.20

Comparing the theoretical GFLOPS:
GTX560ti: 1263.4
GTX580: 1581.1
Ratio: 1.25

I'll let you figure it out for your clock rates. (and by the way, theoretical GFLOPS is not an especially accurate prediction of FAH throughput either, but it's better than nothing.)
Do your own benchmarking.
EXT64
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by EXT64 »

Is that 30-40% faster TPF, or 30-40% more PPD (if you are doing WU with QRB, Core 17 WU, then this matters).
Blasko9
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by Blasko9 »

As I recall, both cards were working on a core 15 (14,000 points). The 580 TPF was 6:50 and the 560ti 448 TPF was 11:10. I was a bigger difference than I expected for 512 cores vs 448.
artoar_11
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:42 pm
Hardware configuration: AMD R7 3700X @ 4.0 GHz; ASUS ROG STRIX X470-F GAMING; DDR4 2x8GB @ 3.0 GHz; GByte RTX 3060 Ti @ 1890 MHz; Fortron-550W 80+ bronze; Win10 Pro/64
Location: Bulgaria/Team #224497/artoar11_ALL_....

Re: Nvidia Fermi performance, frequency vs #cores

Post by artoar_11 »

Just for comparison. My GTX 460 @ 775 MHz (336 CUDA cores) on p7620-7627 (core_15), TPF ~ 00:09:12 - 00:09:30. NV driver - 327.23 or older.
Post Reply