Page 1 of 3
Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:26 pm
by Ichbin3
Hi there,
I run a RTX 2060 Super with undervolting at normaly 170W the whole system.
I get normly 1.4 Mill PPD in the good projects.
But there are also some with significant decresed PPD and also less usage of power without me changing anything.
Code: Select all
Projects PPD Watt
16905 844000 140W
13302 1051713 150W
11760 1095624 150W
11759 1174800 150W
13408 1183000 150W
11764 1194000 150W
13408 1090347 150W
16441 1335313
16442 1366975
14457 1368112
14465 1374485 170W
14456 1402600 170W
14457 1450442 170W
14450 1470000 170W
14448 1481000 170W
I'm not at beta.
Does anyone know about that and may have some hints?
Thanks!
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:29 pm
by foldy
Project 16905 has low atom count which cannot use all shaders of RTX 2060. That is why it only got 844k PPD.
But other projects like 11759 have high atom count so that is not the problem.
RTX 2060 will get 1.2 Mill PPD average so the other projects ranging from 1.0 Mill PPD to 1.4 Mill PPD look good.
Be sure you have one CPU core exclusive to feed the GPU. Nothing else to do. Happy folding!
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:51 pm
by Ichbin3
Thanks for explanation.
Of course the CPU core which feeds the GPU is running separatly.
How comes that some projects use the full power (170W system = 100W GPU) and some with lower PPD only 80% of GPU-power and Afterburner still shows 96% of GPU-usage?
And even if I change Afterburner into the reset mode (full power, GPU runs with 180W,System with 250W) it does not change so much in PPD, only goes up to 1.2 Mill
I'm confused ...
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 8:47 pm
by PantherX
Welcome to the F@H Forum Ichbin3,
Project 16905 has 28,000 atoms
Project 11760 has 62,227 atoms
Project 14448 has 216,769 atoms
You can see that there's a pattern where the usage of Wattage is increasing as the atom count increases.
A project with low atom count can use less shaders than a project with high atom count. Thus, even though your GPU is being used 100% the amount of power used will be dictated by the amount of shaders being used.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:29 pm
by MeeLee
Which is what makes successfully overclocking pretty difficult on these GPUs.
A setting that might work for a slower WU (lower power draw), will definitely slow down the larger atom count WUs.
A setting that's great for a higher atom count, will only use more power, and potentially running the GPU frequency too high on low atom count WUs.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:19 am
by foldy
I would recommend to stay with power optimized settings. Highest boost clocks take much more power usage for only small speed benefit. 1.2 Million PPD average seems good enough for me.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:05 am
by markdotgooley
I have an RTX 2060 and an RTX 2060 KO on the same motherboard and depending on projects I can get PPD displayed as anything from 1.4 million to nearly 2.2 million. Lots of sensitivity to those projects...
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:49 pm
by Ichbin3
I'm with a RTX 2080S now and there is not always this dependency - lower atom count means lower PPD.
Anyway and btw ...
here is my recommendation for this 2080S
I have it running with 125W, this seems to be the best balance between power and PPD and also the most economical setting.
nvidia-smi -i 0 -pl 125
I'm earning nearly 2Mill PPD.
All increased power higher than this brings only lower increasing of PPD.
Means, if I increase power for 3.3% it brings only 1.3% higher PPD.
Increasing power from 165W to 230W (est 39%) brings only 8% more PPD.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:40 pm
by MeeLee
125W for a 2080 seems a bit low. Your GPU would be running at 1500Mhz or so.
Remember that on top of the '125W', you also have to take account for the TDP of the CPU, and PSU efficiencies.
So a 125W may translate to 200-225W at the wall.
Then 1500Mhz may not seem very interesting.
I found the optimal value for the 2080 around 145W, and the 2080 Super, should be around 150-155W.
It'll also depend on temperatures.
Another thing to remember is, that when you run those high costing RTX GPUs, your PPD will be lower, your WUs will be lower.
And in a year or two, it would have been much better to have folded at a slightly higher PPD count and wattage, because the 2080 won't be fast enough anymore in 2 to 4 years.
It'll be like a 1080 or 1080Ti. It's still ok, but nothing compared to a 2080Ti.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:15 pm
by Ichbin3
'Should be' is a huge difference to 'it is'
Look by yourself.
It is running at 1680 MHz.
This are my measured data:
Code: Select all
Proj 14467
GPU W Syst W TPF PPD power incr PPD incr.
105 150 00:02:37 1342760 100,00% 100,00%
110 155 00:02:26 1624006 103,33% 120,95%
115 160 00:02:15 1678281 106,67% 124,99%
120 165 00:02:06 1844994 110,00% 137,40%
125 170 00:02:00 1981595 113,33% 147,58%
130 175 00:01:57 2042271 116,67% 152,10%
135 180 00:01:56 2064308 120,00% 153,74%
140 185 00:01:54 2098526 123,33% 156,28%
165 210 00:01:50 2177989 140,00% 162,20%
200 245 00:01:47 2243710 163,33% 167,10%
230 275 00:01:45 2289595 183,33% 170,51%
Code: Select all
Power Readings
Power Management : Supported
Power Draw : 122.34 W
Power Limit : 125.00 W
Default Power Limit : 250.00 W
Enforced Power Limit : 125.00 W
Min Power Limit : 105.00 W
Max Power Limit : 300.00 W
Code: Select all
Clocks
Graphics : 1680 MHz
SM : 1680 MHz
Memory : 7500 MHz
Video : 1560 MHz
Code: Select all
Temperature
GPU Current Temp : 61 C
GPU Shutdown Temp : 100 C
GPU Slowdown Temp : 97 C
GPU Max Operating Temp : 89 C
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:47 am
by uyaem
How long did you all measure to get to the PPD?
I feel like for something reliable you'd need a week per setting to be on the safe side - for me the variance in projects on Core22 is +/- 15% depending on the project.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:18 am
by Ichbin3
For sure it depends on the projects.
I used only ONE project with a bigger TPF (14467) and let it run with the different settings for at least 5 min.
Every setting could run so at least two or more frames.
For every frame I took the best shown vallue in this row which appears at least for two cycles and stayed stable.
I changed from 105 to 140 to 110 to 165 and so on to get a better view to the changings.
I did this twice with this project to get better reliable data.
My system is Linux mint, so there are not so much interferences like in Windows.
I did this with 3 other projects too and the result was nearly the same - 125W seems to be the most economicaly setting and the best balance between power usage and PPD-output.
We are paying 30 Eurocent here in Germany for power, for me it is most important to have a look at this.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:51 am
by PantherX
Ichbin3 wrote:...I used only ONE project with a bigger TPF (14467) and let it run with the different settings for at least 5 min.
Every setting could run so at least two or more frames.
For every frame I took the best shown vallue in this row which appears at least for two cycles and stayed stable...
Please note that the time is meaningless... it is the Time Per Frame (Time taken to complete 1%) which is very important for this comparison. You mentioned that you waited for 2% so I am assuming that you calculated the actual time from the log file instead of using FAHControl, right? FAHControl is accurate after 3% to 5% of the WU has folded since is started. If you paused and unpaused, then you need to wait another 3% to 5% hence, the suggestion to use the actual log file to ensure that you're getting the accurate results.
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:31 am
by Ichbin3
PantherX wrote:I am assuming that you calculated the actual time from the log file instead of using FAHControl, right?
No. I used the shown TPF in FAHControl.
PantherX wrote: If you paused and unpaused,
I did not. I simply changed the setting of the GPU.
PantherX wrote:Please note that the time is meaningless... it is the Time Per Frame (Time taken to complete 1%) which is very important for this comparison.
This I do know.
You can see, that it is called TPF in my table, no? Time Per Frame ...
PanterX wrote:you need to wait another 3% to 5% hence,
I did.
Ichbin3 wrote:Every setting could run so at least two or more frames
Guys, I don't want and I don't need to defend my position, If you don't like my results, just ignore them or do your own measurements.
After that you are welcome to come back and than let's
(argue) discuss
Re: Lower PPD with several projects
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:42 am
by PantherX
Ichbin3 wrote:...I don't want and I don't need to defend my position, If you don't like my results, just ignore them or do your own measurements.
After that you are welcome to come back and than lets argue
Apologies if my post came cross as terse or "argumentative", that wasn't my intention at all
I just wanted to ensure that you were aware of some of the limitations of FAHControl so you can work around them. Given your post above, it seems that you did but that wasn't a clear-cut case in the original post, hence my comments.
I personally don't like to argue, instead having a healthy and logical discussion supported by facts and data is more my thing
