ready for some Fermi numbers? GTX 480

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-25-2010, 07:14 AM
=[PULSAR]=

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal_fantasy

Anyone know how long it takes to get new work units after you error out 2 in a row? Been testing my memory overclock, with 2200Mhz I can run artifact free in games, but errors out with anything over 2050Mhz.

Check out the projects tab and should have a deffered time next to the project. Usually the wait time is 24 hours.
05-25-2010, 08:47 AM
Snow Crash

Overclocking memory does not help much for GPUGrid so unless you really need to push it for gaming I would not spend much time trying to find your card's limit for GPUGrid.
05-25-2010, 10:27 AM
eternal_fantasy

Quote:

Originally Posted by =[PULSAR]=

Check out the projects tab and should have a deffered time next to the project. Usually the wait time is 24 hours.

Didn't check that, but I got new WUs after around 2 hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Crash

Overclocking memory does not help much for GPUGrid so unless you really need to push it for gaming I would not spend much time trying to find your card's limit for GPUGrid.

I'm finding the highest stable memory clock for GPUGRID so I don't need to change the clocks every time I switch from playing games to crunching WUs. :)
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
snoro

Its not only memory overclock but also shader overclock, even if i just overclock it by 10 mhz it get me wu error.
05-25-2010, 01:35 PM
Snow Crash

It might just be the card will not handle an OC?
Have you tried going back to the 197.45 driver?
05-25-2010, 05:33 PM
eternal_fantasy

I've also gotten some strange behaviour with memory overclocking on my GTX480. The results are as follows:

1900Mhz Stable
2000Mhz Stable
2050Mhz Stable
2100Mhz Fail
2125Mhz Fail
2150Mhz Stable
2175Mhz Stable
2200Mhz Stable
2225Mhz Fail

It is now running 100% stable and error free with 850Mhz/1700Mhz/2175Mhz C/S/M. I would suggest you try jumping a few tens of Mhz with upped volts to see if you just have a bad range of clocks for your GPU.
05-28-2010, 03:46 PM
Snow Crash

Not overvolted yet ... (I'm posting this in an Xtreme forum??? what the he|| is wrong with me :shakes:)
but I just turned HT off on my WinXP box with a 480 (shaders@1632) and it looks to be turning the WUs VERY fast :sonic:
I'll post back when I get a result for a WU that was run entirely with the new set up.

<update1> It's going to be a little longer ... the first WU was one of the TONI_GA's which run shorter anyway and I don't have an old result for that type on this card to compare to.</update1>

<update2>OK ... There is almost no different under WinXP 32 between HT on and HT off when SWAN_SYNC=0. I am only seeing a minor benefit of 3-4 minutes per WU which I think may actually be because I cranked the CPU clocks from 3.8 to 4.0. While there was an almost 30 minute difference on the one _long task I ran, overall I think if you are using SWAN_SYNC then you can better crunch WCG by leaving HT ON.</update2>
05-28-2010, 10:44 PM
snoro

I am really starting to get annoyed by that. I can only complete workunit at 1250 shader, anything higher with 1.087 volt will not work and thats without any memory overclock. I am maybe looking to step up from my gtx 470 and get a gtx 480
06-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Danger30Q

I've been running my 2 480 GTX cards in XP wit SWAN_SYNC=0 and I've been averaging about 7,400 seconds to completion on v6.05 work units. Both cards are running at 1450mhz on the shader clock.

7,400 seconds per unit with a credit of 6,750 points per unit works out to be about 78,800 points per day per card. I've been trying to find other users with a GTX 295 under XP and running SWAN_SYNC but I haven't had any luck. I may try turning off SWAN_SYNC for a day to see how my points change more in line with everyone else.
06-09-2010, 06:03 PM
WhiteFireDragon

try the new 257.15 drivers, i've read good things about them for the 400 series cards.
06-09-2010, 06:05 PM
=[PULSAR]=

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

try the new 257.15 drivers, i've read good things about them for the 400 series cards.

I tried those beta drivers when my Fermi was still working, it actually dropped performance.
06-09-2010, 06:16 PM
WhiteFireDragon

ah really? i tried 3 different drivers: 197.44 OpenGL 4.0, one of the beta drivers (forgot which one exactly), and the official 197.75 driver. i got the best performance with the beta one. i really can't remember which beta driver it was though :(
06-09-2010, 06:18 PM
=[PULSAR]=

The 197.75 has been the best driver so far, at least on win7.
06-23-2010, 10:20 PM
INFRNL

is anyone getting better #'s yet? These should be getting well over 100k if not 120k.
06-24-2010, 12:36 AM
Snow Crash

Quote:

Originally Posted by INFRNL

is anyone getting better #'s yet? These should be getting well over 100k if not 120k.

How did you figure what it should get?

My ppd is 83+k and still climbing but likely will top out around 90k. It is the top performing 480 on GPU grid, I have it over volted and overclocked running on XP.
06-24-2010, 06:05 PM
WhiteFireDragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by INFRNL

is anyone getting better #'s yet? These should be getting well over 100k if not 120k.

not even close. i think they're more around 50k - 70k.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Crash

My ppd is 83+k and still climbing but likely will top out around 90k. It is the top performing 480 on GPU grid, I have it over volted and overclocked running on XP.

what are your clocks at? and you should unhide your computers so we can see what you're running :p:
06-24-2010, 07:12 PM
INFRNL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Crash

How did you figure what it should get?

My ppd is 83+k and still climbing but likely will top out around 90k. It is the top performing 480 on GPU grid, I have it over volted and overclocked running on XP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

not even close. i think they're more around 50k - 70k.

what are your clocks at? and you should unhide your computers so we can see what you're running :p:

I was going off of the initial claim of 2.5x gtx285. my gtx275 gets avg. 40kppdx3 would be 120kppd for gtx480. 2x is 80k avg.
you can get or could get a gtx275 for 175-200 for now 40k. 2 would be $400 at most for 80k. 480 getting a lucky 80k like you for the cost;; not sure its worth it and not as good as they initially claimed.
I am glad I held off, but hope that all the owners are enjoying them. Also hope they optimize for the cards better for you guys.
06-25-2010, 12:30 PM
WhiteFireDragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by INFRNL

I was going off of the initial claim of 2.5x gtx285. my gtx275 gets avg. 40kppdx3 would be 120kppd for gtx480. 2x is 80k avg.
you can get or could get a gtx275 for 175-200 for now 40k. 2 would be $400 at most for 80k. 480 getting a lucky 80k like you for the cost;; not sure its worth it and not as good as they initially claimed.
I am glad I held off, but hope that all the owners are enjoying them. Also hope they optimize for the cards better for you guys.

they're slowly getting optimized, but not near the cost/PPD ratio expectation yet (which is why i sold mine). but it's sure better than the 32k PPD when the fermi WU's just started working.
06-26-2010, 04:41 AM
Snow Crash

Been a frustrating day or so ... I decided to bring the monitor to the basement and do some maintenance
update the drivers
bump vCore to max with vNidia Inspector
get a little more from the shaders
bump my CPU up a bit.
Windows updates
JKDfreg
full AV scan
stopped a couple of services

... Yes I can see you all shaking your collectives heads ... way to many things at the same time. I know better but sometimes I get impatient. :rofl:After a few error runs I stepped everything back except the drivers but I continued to get errors.

I reversed the drivers, and bumped CPU back up again and I think I might be back into stable territory. :yepp:

1.125 for Voltage and shaders set to 1701, I'm keeping mem at stock because not only does it not help runtimes but it is also the place that fermi has the most problems with OC. :shakes:

:sofa:As for hiding my machines ... the truth is I get embarassed when I screw around and then you all get to see the errors I am throwing.

I'll go unhide them now but reseve the right to let my insecurities make me hide them again at some point in the future :D
06-27-2010, 10:07 AM
=[PULSAR]=

Okay so after receiving my RMA the other day I installed the 257.21 drivers and was really disappointed with my card's clocks. Then saw stasio posted the 258.19 drivers gave those a shot and still bad clocks so I went back to the older 197.75. Wow clocks are way better able to get an extra 35mhz on the core 24/7 and it seems the gpu runs 10C cooler also. Just thought I would post my findings and tell you guys :up:
06-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Jacka

Does the Folding@Home MemtestG80 program work with Fermi cards? When overclocking my cards I found this was a much easier way to detect instability than any other method.
06-27-2010, 10:52 AM
=[PULSAR]=

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacka

Does the Folding@Home MemtestG80 program work with Fermi cards? When overclocking my cards I found this was a much easier way to detect instability than any other method.

Yes it does run, but when I put in my mem/gpu clocks it only runs the @ 70% usage is that normal?
06-27-2010, 05:33 PM
Chumbucket843

CUDA 3.1 just released.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/c...downloads.html

Quote:

Support for 16-way concurrency allows up to 16 different kernels to run at the same time on Fermi architecture GPUs

:clap:
06-29-2010, 01:38 AM
Snow Crash

CUDA 3.1 coming to GPUGrid
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2209

Quote:

In the next few days we will update the Fermi applications to CUDA3.1. If you have a Fermi card, please update your drivers to at least 257.21 for Windows and 256.35 for Linux. No action is required from users with other cards.
06-29-2010, 01:46 AM
=[PULSAR]=

Thats great news I wonder how much we will see out of it. Hope win7 gets a huge bump as I rather not revert back to xp.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page