Ballpark excluding CPU, am I doing ok, or room to improve. Note Thanks to all Bruce, Foldy, & many others, things are much more stable now, from your guidance.
3 machines one with two gpu's, other two one gpu:
All 3 machines total 'shaders' = 3,712 <GTX's 960, 1060, 1050ti, 750ti>
AVG <no interruptions, stalled gpus etc> 750k ppd & 36 wu, in 24hr time span:
750,000ppd / 3712 = 202 ppd/shader
Does this make sense & is it good, bad, or ugly
Thanks
ppd Wu's/shaders
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
-
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hardware configuration: Asus Z8NA D6C, 2 x5670@3.2 Ghz, , 12gb Ram, GTX 980ti, AX650 PSU, win 10 (daily use)
Asus Z87 WS, Xeon E3-1230L v3, 8gb ram, KFA GTX 1080, EVGA 750ti , AX760 PSU, Mint 18.2 OS
Not currently folding
Asus Z9PE- D8 WS, 2 E5-2665@2.3 Ghz, 16Gb 1.35v Ram, Ubuntu (Fold only)
Asus Z9PA, 2 Ivy 12 core, 16gb Ram, H folding appliance (fold only) - Location: Jersey, Channel islands
Re: ppd Wu's/shaders
I've never worked it out based on PPD per shader, the usual metric is PPD/watt or PPD/$. The maths is right though.
As a baseline comparison my 1070 and 1080 are currently producing 1,500,000/4480 = 335 ppd/shader. My 980ti and 750ti are currently offline but would drag that down
All I would say is this, a pair of 1060's or 1070 will produce more points for less watts
As a baseline comparison my 1070 and 1080 are currently producing 1,500,000/4480 = 335 ppd/shader. My 980ti and 750ti are currently offline but would drag that down
All I would say is this, a pair of 1060's or 1070 will produce more points for less watts
-
- Posts: 2061
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:43 pm
- Hardware configuration: Folding@Home Client 7.6.13 (1 GPU slots)
Windows 7 64bit
Intel Core i5 2500k@4Ghz
Nvidia gtx 1080ti driver 441
Re: ppd Wu's/shaders
Looks good! The shaders of latest nvidia generation pascal are faster than previous one.
Re: ppd Wu's/shaders
Great! As noted, previously I'd have stalled GPU's routinely, sometimes multiple time per day. With your help it's very stable, rare GPU stall. So looking at the newer averages prompted the OP. PPD/watt or PPD/$ would also include the CPU's contribution, therefore better.
When I get my next machine (trade or freebie) I'll retire the 32 bit/750ti machine, & go 1070. I'll insure 'pascal on the new one
Thanks Guys
When I get my next machine (trade or freebie) I'll retire the 32 bit/750ti machine, & go 1070. I'll insure 'pascal on the new one
Thanks Guys
-
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hardware configuration: Asus Z8NA D6C, 2 x5670@3.2 Ghz, , 12gb Ram, GTX 980ti, AX650 PSU, win 10 (daily use)
Asus Z87 WS, Xeon E3-1230L v3, 8gb ram, KFA GTX 1080, EVGA 750ti , AX760 PSU, Mint 18.2 OS
Not currently folding
Asus Z9PE- D8 WS, 2 E5-2665@2.3 Ghz, 16Gb 1.35v Ram, Ubuntu (Fold only)
Asus Z9PA, 2 Ivy 12 core, 16gb Ram, H folding appliance (fold only) - Location: Jersey, Channel islands
Re: ppd Wu's/shaders
Not quite PPD/$or PPD watt is calculated one each platform separately, the calcs on GPU and CPU will lead to different results. I haven't run a cpu WU in several months due to the end of the "Bigadv" WU but both will be less than a gpu based on the current projects. Core A7 may change this but not while its stuck at 27 threads or less
Re: ppd Wu's/shaders
When I compare GPUs, I've always multiplied the shader count by the frequency to create a number directly related to GFLOPS. It's still simple and it's a better approximation.foldy wrote:Looks good! The shaders of latest nvidia generation pascal are faster than previous one.