Post your PPD rates !!

Printable View

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

02-09-2009, 03:46 PM
skycrane

Post your PPD rates !!

Guys,

I think it would help ppl out tremendously, if a few of us who have some farms, would just type a few details about each GPU and CPU out there that folds for ya, so we can get a picture of what would be the best.

or something like that so that others can figure out for themselfes what would be a better buy.

And i will reedit this OP to reflect the differences in the cards.

i figure just a few things would be needed,
just the type; 9600GSO,
the shaders;1700,
the PPD 3500,
and lastly the WU

hope this helps everybody out just a bit :)
02-09-2009, 04:02 PM
ThunderDuck

Good info here
http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=3193
Charts get updated by legoman666
02-09-2009, 04:14 PM
OldChap

9800 gx2
1891 shaders
180.60 drivers

353 pts wu's = 6630 ppd
384 pts wu's = 5623/5720 ppd
511 pts wu's = 4204/4245 ppd

the reason I include driver is
480 pts wu's = 5760
or on 178.24 = 5841/5924

that is the amount lost but now running 2*smp @ 3k6ppd total for 1920's 4kppd for 1760's (Both dropped a bit on adding 2nd gx2)

This is all the useful info I have...... just dump what you don't need :up:

Edit : the last chart by legoman 666 seems to be this one: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...d_then_PPD.gif
02-09-2009, 06:29 PM
WFO

All my GPU shaders are between 1750 and 1836. Drivers 181.22s.

This is just what’s running now…

9600GSOs running on a quad @ 3360mhz
9450-1 gpu 0 2904 ppd
9450-1 gpu2 3857 ppd
9450-1 smp-1 2025 ppd
9450-1 smp-2 2468 ppd (smps are linux in Vmware)

X2-4000 with 4 8800GTS

AMD gpu-0 4050 ppd
AMD gpu-1 6224 ppd
AMD gpu-2 6224 ppd
AMD gpu-3 6224 ppd
As you can clearly see 3 clients have the good WUs!

G04 is a Q6600 stock with 2 X 9800 GX2s. Right now I have the 2 smp client off.

G0-4 gpu-0 3741 ppd
G0-4 gpu-1 5350 ppd
G0-4 gpu-2 3839 ppd
G0-4 gpu-3 3839 ppd

I-7 920 stock with 2 X 9800 GX2s. SMPs are Linux in Vmware
I-7 gpu-0 3977 ppd
I-7 gpu-1 3907 ppd
I-7 gpu-2 6224 ppd
I-7 gpu-3 3589 ppd
I-7 smp 1 1156 ppd
I-7 smp 2 1184 pps
I-7 smp 3 1738 ppd
I-7 smp 4 1746 ppd

Kinda sad how the cheapie AMD is beating the I-7 in ppd with the 8800GTS’ at the moment. It just goes to show the WUs you get make a huge difference. The 9800 GX2s used to be goot for 12K per card. :mad:
02-10-2009, 03:26 PM
[XC] riptide

I might just sticky this. It'll be called the #2 Thead as there was another before...

EDIT: Nah I'll just leave the title. All good! :up:

Also maybe a format that also includes OS??

-Your CPU
-Your GPU
-Your OS
-Your Drivers (Nvidia FW Version, Or just say Ati)
-If Overclocked, Your Core/Shader/Memory
-Your PPD etc etc. or whatever.
02-11-2009, 03:42 AM
Kondik

I'm using 2x eVGA GTX 285 OC'd to 713/1600/2600
both are able to do 9200 ~ 9400 PPD [ but i never fold 24/7 :p: ] eventhrough from time to time it falls down to 8500 ~ 8800
They can go higher but until I don't have an aftermarket cooler it's a no go.

180.22 Drivers
x64 Vista

CPU is in the SIG but the OCed nehalem draws too much from the outlet ... it's not worth it.
02-11-2009, 04:12 AM
coo-coo-clocker

Skycrane, excellent thread. I would like to see the power consumption along with the output. The FF thread that Thunderduck linked is very informative... just would like to know what is the best PPD/watt performer...
02-11-2009, 10:17 AM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by coo-coo-clocker

Skycrane, excellent thread. I would like to see the power consumption along with the output. The FF thread that Thunderduck linked is very informative... just would like to know what is the best PPD/watt performer...

Only thing about that is, it would be very dependent on the system as a whole. Hard drive(s), opticals, how many fans, the PSU used, etc...
02-11-2009, 01:09 PM
initialised

Our 'farm' is constantly changing, we basically use F@H as a stress test for GPUs in our systems and it runs along side other tests. As such I don't keep track of PPD per card more how long a typical work unit takes to complete. However, I do have a broad selection of current GPUs folding at any given time, from 9400 and 4670 up to dual 295s.

Custom PC recently did a Graphics Labs Test (Issue 65, Feb 2009, Page 76):

GPU_____________PPD
9800 GX2________9217
GTX 280_________7029
GTX 260_________5760
GTX 260b________5760
9800 GTX+_______5529
8800 Ultra______5386
8800 GTS 512____4997
9800 GTX________4997
8800 GTX________4767
9600 GSO________4508
8800 GT 512_____4459
8800 GTS 640____3840
8800 GTS 320____3575
4870 1GB________3481
4870 512________3468
4850 1GB________3456
9600 GT_________3427
4870x2__________3276
4850 512________2959
4850x2__________2869
4830____________2587
3870____________2152
3870x2__________2142
3850____________2032

I'm not sure I trust their data for the 9600 GSO and GT I think it should be the other way around and they don't define their folding test method clearly. However, for performance/price the 9800 GT, 8800 GT, 9600 GT/GSO are way ahead.

For absolute performance the GTX 2xx series or 9800 GX2 take the lead and this can by pushed further be overclocking the shaders alone.
02-11-2009, 02:27 PM
OldChap

Power usages for me look like this:

Max formula with q6600 g0 @3.6 folding 2*smp (2665's = 3600ppd approx) gpu fans @100%
watts = 440

add 1* GPU = 500watts (+60watts 380pts wu)
add 1* GPU = 560watts (+60watts 380pts wu)
add 1* GPU = 615watts (+55watts 353pts wu)
add 1* GPU = 680watts (+65watts 511pts wu)

changing the shaderclocks changes the power consumption some too (adding 54Mhz adds maybe 3 watts and up to 2 degrees C) but this should give a fairly clear picture.

My Kill-a-Watt clone is not the most precise tool
02-11-2009, 04:57 PM
DAK1640

Any PhD's avail to simplify this data?

My experiences show that Vista X64 is better for F@H because...
1- Can run more GPU's & CPU's than XP
2- Slightly more efficient with GPU only

Newer divers consume less CPU Power than older drivers

And most important, Shader freq increases yield most ppd improvement, and The more shaders, the better...e.g.) 240>216>128, etc.

I am about to explore Win Ver 7 abilities.
02-11-2009, 06:18 PM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAK1640

Any PhD's avail to simplify this data?

My experiences show that Vista X64 is better for F@H because...
1- Can run more GPU's & CPU's than XP
2- Slightly more efficient with GPU only

Newer divers consume less CPU Power than older drivers

And most important, Shader freq increases yield most ppd improvement, and The more shaders, the better...e.g.) 240>216>128, etc.

I am about to explore Win Ver 7 abilities.

I have an XP-32 rig now running 4-GPU clients on two GTX295s right now.

Folding@Home runs just fine on both 32 and 64 bit Windows 7 (Build 7000) on both ATi and nVidia GPUs but I haven't compared PPD rates beyond noting that a GTX285 on Windows 7 64 with on i7 920 will do a work unit in a little over an hour, Vista 64 is more like one hour twenty minutes.

But you must disqualify my findings since I didn't make it to the end of my PhD on Strained Si/SiGe CMOS ;)
02-12-2009, 03:31 AM
DAK1640

initialised you are disqualified as requested.
TY MikeB12...
02-12-2009, 04:07 AM
MikeB12

if fahmon had a export benchmarks function, we could produce spreadsheets and charts of this info very easily... all you'd need to do is label each client by card and shader oc. but I have no idea how to export data from the benchmarks.dat file in the fahmon config folder... if you open in a text editor it's all coder goobledy gok...
anyone clued in on this?
02-12-2009, 06:27 AM
WFO

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeB12

if fahmon had a export benchmarks function, we could produce spreadsheets and charts of this info very easily... all you'd need to do is label each client by card and shader oc. but I have no idea how to export data from the benchmarks.dat file in the fahmon config folder... if you open in a text editor it's all coder goobledy gok...
anyone clued in on this?

LOL... originally I started to highlight copy and paste. Then I realized I would have to do it for a gazillion WUs. I wasn't that industrious. Perhaps if we requested the feature on the next build? :shrug:
02-12-2009, 06:34 AM
[XC] riptide

Quote:

Originally Posted by initialised

I have an XP-32 rig now running 4-GPU clients on two GTX295s right now.

Folding@Home runs just fine on both 32 and 64 bit Windows 7 (Build 7000) on both ATi and nVidia GPUs but I haven't compared PPD rates beyond noting that a GTX285 on Windows 7 64 with on i7 920 will do a work unit in a little over an hour, Vista 64 is more like one hour twenty minutes.

But you must disqualify my findings since I didn't make it to the end of my PhD on Strained Si/SiGe CMOS ;)

Srsly? We need more results like this to build a consensus. do you have Wu for WU like comparison? (same WU's).

We need same cards clocks, same GPU2 WU's on diff OS, Vista and Windows 7.
02-12-2009, 06:51 AM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Srsly? We need more results like this to build a consensus. do you have Wu for WU like comparison? (same WU's).

We need same cards clocks, same GPU2 WU's on diff OS, Vista and Windows 7.

Yo're in luck, I did a couple of screen grabs (will upload later) but the jist is that xp 32, Vista 64 and 7-64 running 295s all complete a work unit in approximately 1hr 10minutes so F@H appears to be OS agnositc.
02-12-2009, 03:12 PM
DAK1640

TY initialised, you are hereby re-qualified as PhD level. Thanks for the info. Most interesting...So it's 100% GPU & Shader dependent. Unless of course you are running SMP.:up:
02-12-2009, 04:10 PM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAK1640

TY initialised, you are hereby re-qualified as PhD level. Thanks for the info. Most interesting...So it's 100% GPU & Shader dependent. Unless of course you are running SMP.:up:

Not quite right, the ATi client is far more CPU bound than nVidia. I just fired up F@H on my home PC (sig) and am getting 20-30% CPU usage and 94% GPU usage (on one GPU). With the non multicore drivers (pre hotfix/9.1) I would get 50% (100% on one core) CPU usage. On the XP-32 machine I mentioned above with 4-GT200bs CPU usage was <5% with each process locked to a different CPU core. So for nVidia yes, performance is not dependent on CPU speed and I would guess that while games suffer in systems with more GPU cores than CPU cores I'm not sure that F@H would. What did surprise me is that the 32-bit memory limit didn't make a diference on the XP machine.
02-12-2009, 05:12 PM
[XC] riptide

Quote:

Originally Posted by initialised

Yo're in luck, I did a couple of screen grabs (will upload later) but the jist is that xp 32, Vista 64 and 7-64 running 295s all complete a work unit in approximately 1hr 10minutes so F@H appears to be OS agnositc.

All right then.... I can leave off of Win7 for a while then.
02-12-2009, 06:12 PM
skycrane

thanks guys, i should be finished with the database tomorrow at work, hopefully its what everyone is looking for, if not just let me know and ill see what i can do about it
02-13-2009, 01:41 PM
initialised

Here are the screen shots I promised:

295 Folding performance is pretty much independent of OS, CPU & RAM, also in the XP shot the CPU is so bored it has speed stepped to 6x. Note project 5770 take ~1hr 10min on both Q6600/4GB/XP32 and i7-920/12GB/Vista64
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/...30769079_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/...758d98a2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/...956f3139_o.jpg

A GTX285 on Windows 7 Again performance is equivalent to Vista & XP
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/...f7334e7c_o.png

A 4870 performs similarly on both a Q8300 with 4GB on XP32 and an i7 940 @ 3.96GHz with 6GB
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/...5b67ec7f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/...ec4b9b98_o.jpg
02-16-2009, 01:05 AM
MikeB12

UPDATE with about a week's worth of wu's in fahmon benchmark.dat... this is about all the copy/pasting I can handle ( a weeks worth of Nvidia WU variety hell).

update:

List Sorted by WU.
**********************************************

***************

SMP's-all Vista64
3 Q 6600's labeled X4, X5, X6.

Project : 2665
-- X4-smp2-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 17mn 33s - 1575.38 ppd
-- X4-smp1-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 17mn 44s - 1559.10 ppd

-- X5-smp1-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 17mn 56s - 1541.71 ppd
-- X5-smp2-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 18mn 21s - 1506.70 ppd

-- X6-smp1-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 18mn 05s - 1528.92 ppd
-- X6-smp2-Vista64-Q6600-3330mhz-6.23 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 17mn 51s - 1548.91 ppd

**********************************************

***************

NVIDIA WU's-all vista64 - all driver 178.08
5 Video cards in 4 machines all labeled per machine X3, X4, X5, X6.

X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 is my main rig's primary card,
so it is not unusual to see it at lower ppd than my secondary 8800gt in that machines,
as the machine is being used by me all the time.

NOW TO THE ONLSLAUGHT OF GPU WU'S... 5 Video cards labeled by machine-card-shader.

Project : 5749
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 39s - 2776.75 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 48s - 4088.00 ppd

Project : 5750
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 3mn 02s - 2425.85 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 39s - 2776.75 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

Project : 5751
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 59s - 2466.50 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 39s - 2776.75 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 46s - 4165.13 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

Project : 5752
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 38s - 2794.33 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 50s - 4013.67 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 50s - 4013.67 ppd

Project : 5753
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 38s - 2794.33 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 07s - 3476.41 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 50s - 4013.67 ppd

Project : 5754
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 09s - 3422.51 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 38s - 2794.33 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 50s - 4013.67 ppd

Project : 5755
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 06s - 3504.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 50s - 4013.67 ppd

Project : 5756
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 17s - 3222.66 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 10s - 3396.18 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 39s - 2776.75 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 08s - 3449.25 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 51s - 3977.51 ppd

Project : 5757
-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

Project : 5758
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 15s - 4423.68 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 16s - 4365.47 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 14s - 4483.46 ppd

Project : 5759
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 32s - 3606.26 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

Project : 5760
-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 14s - 4483.46 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 01s - 5438.95 ppd

Project : 5761
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 31s - 3645.89 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 00s - 5529.60 ppd

Project : 5762
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 31s - 3645.89 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 14s - 4483.46 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

Project : 5764
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 15s - 4423.68 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 14s - 4483.46 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 02s - 5351.23 ppd

Project : 5765
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 06s - 4621.09 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 54s - 5648.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

Project : 5766
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 55s - 5545.31 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 13s - 4177.97 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

Project : 5767
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 13s - 4177.97 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

Project : 5768
-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 54s - 5648.00 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 13s - 4177.97 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 47s - 6489.19 ppd

Project : 5769
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 12s - 4236.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 47s - 6489.19 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

Project : 5770
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 15s - 4066.56 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 54s - 5648.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

Project : 5771
-- X4-GPU1-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 08s - 4485.18 ppd

-- X4-GPU2-8800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 54s - 5648.00 ppd

-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 12s - 4236.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 47s - 6489.19 ppd

Project : 5772
-- X3-GPU1-9600GSO-1728 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 12s - 4236.00 ppd

-- X6-GPU1-9800GT-1782 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 53s - 5754.57 ppd

-- X5-GPU1-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd

-- X5-GPU2-9800GX2-1783 --
Avg. Time / Frame : 48s - 6354.00 ppd
02-16-2009, 05:38 AM
skycrane

card project/shader ppd
5749 5750 5751 5752 5753 5754 5755 5766 5757 5758 5759 5760 5761 5762 5764 5765 5766 5767 5768 5769 5770 5771 5772

8800GT 1782 3422 2425 2466 3422 3422 3422 3449 3222 4423 4321 545 5648 4066 4485
8800GT 1782 3422 3422 3422 3396 4365 5648 5648 5648
9600GSO 1782 2776 2776 2776 2794 2794 2794 3504 2776 3606 4483 3645 3645 4423 4177 4177 4177 4236 4236 4236
9800GT 1728 3449 3449 3449 3449 3476 3449 3449 3449 4483 4483 4483 5754 5754 5754 5754 5754 5754 5754 5754
9800gx2 1782 3977 3977 4165 4013 3977 3977 3977 3977 5351 5351 5351 6354 6354 6354 6489 6354 6354
98oogx2 1783 4088 3977 3977 4013 4013 4013 4013 3977 5351 5351 5438 5529 5351 5351 6354 6354 6354 6489 6354 6354 6489 6354
02-16-2009, 06:00 AM
DAK1640

Nice simple format Skycrane :clap:
02-16-2009, 06:11 AM
skycrane

i hope thats easy for you to understand DAK, hey maybe if youve have a few bottles of the goose it would look better ????? lol

i just spent the last few hrs trying to get all this info from Mike and put it in a nice spreadsheet, and tried to upload it. but i guess it ddint work out to well :(

do you know of a way to get the spreadsheet into XS ?
02-16-2009, 06:15 AM
DAK1640

No, Mike showed me once but I killed those brain cells, and a few more...:rofl:
02-16-2009, 07:58 AM
MikeB12

you can only attach files that exist in that list when you click manage attachments. the only way to actually post a spreadsheet is to zip it since .zp is allowed. but that's not what people want to see, they want something you can see in a post, so I usually just screen capture it and post it as a jpg.

the only other way to do it, is use your own site then just link your page. then you can do whatever you want with that page in html.
02-27-2009, 04:06 PM
ColonelCain

Or, you could use google spreadsheets.

Anyone have the PPD for a 9800GTX+?
02-27-2009, 05:16 PM
l33t p1mp

I've gone as high as 3500, but that isn't full blast. I'm sure if I do all my rigs 24/7 for 2 days I can get past 6k.
02-28-2009, 09:05 AM
ColonelCain

leetpimp, is that for a 9800GTX+? And is that what it currently nets?

Anyone else?
02-28-2009, 09:14 AM
OldChap

can't be, my 98gtx (original) does 5720 (384pts) at 1944 shaders
02-28-2009, 09:24 AM
l33t p1mp

No, thats my gtx 260 SSC at 675 core and 1100 mem. I am gonna run it until 6 pm today and see what ppd I can crank out along with the quad at 3.6. I also have a dual 1.9 amd folding (dad's laptop) when it's plugged in. I also have rig 3 and 4 in my sig folding on and off today. I might run rig 3 until 6 pm also. Electricity should be free for folders! :D
02-28-2009, 10:24 AM
OldChap

never mind the core and memory, get the latest rivatuner and overclock the shaders... you should get in the order of 6670ppd then...in fact I would guess you could even get 7000 after all it is an ssc.

If I were you I would delete the work, the queue and the unit info files, reboot and start everything running again....maybe even the config too cos something is making this run at half speed
02-28-2009, 10:35 AM
ColonelCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

can't be, my 98gtx (original) does 5720 (384pts) at 1944 shaders

What about for some of the other WU's?

And what can you get 9800GTX+ shaders to?
02-28-2009, 10:46 AM
l33t p1mp

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

never mind the core and memory, get the latest rivatuner and overclock the shaders... you should get in the order of 6670ppd then...in fact I would guess you could even get 7000 after all it is an ssc.

If I were you I would delete the work, the queue and the unit info files, reboot and start everything running again....maybe even the config too cos something is making this run at half speed

Thanks, I'll try that. Anything for easy ppd! :D
02-28-2009, 12:34 PM
OldChap

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColonelCain

What about for some of the other WU's?

And what can you get 9800GTX+ shaders to?

other wu's
4300....511's
6600....353's

Never had a gtx+
02-28-2009, 02:08 PM
l33t p1mp

Oced my shader to 1458. Anything past that makes a very annoying buzzing sound and I can't concentrate on my work. When I'm out of the room I crank it up to 1650. What's the average shader OC on these cards? I'm cranking out WUs like crazy atm.
02-28-2009, 03:26 PM
ColonelCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

other wu's
4300....511's
6600....353's

Never had a gtx+

Hmm... thank you for the input!

And that is with shaders near 2000, right?
Stock cooling as well?
02-28-2009, 03:49 PM
OldChap

1890 or 1944 depending on ambient (get some eue's if ambient goes over 25deg C) yes stock cooling 100% fan
02-28-2009, 05:06 PM
l33t p1mp

Ladies and gentlemen, check out this mad ppd for only 6 or 7 hours of folding on nearly stock gpu settings.

http://www.xcpus.com/folding/Folding...Name=l33t_p1mp

Look at projected! :D

I'm going to beat that score tomorrow.
03-01-2009, 12:50 PM
l33t p1mp

Yay, I beat my score.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...hp?s=&u=431101
03-01-2009, 04:46 PM
ColonelCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

1890 or 1944 depending on ambient (get some eue's if ambient goes over 25deg C) yes stock cooling 100% fan

At 100%, is that very loud?
03-01-2009, 05:18 PM
l33t p1mp

That is more or less loud as hell.
03-01-2009, 05:45 PM
OldChap

Ok with action movies or music on too, otherwise kinda distracting
03-02-2009, 08:37 AM
Kondik

*loves his GTX285 that's dead silent and quite cold compared to the noise it makes under max load*

:cord:
03-02-2009, 12:17 PM
l33t p1mp

Buy me one? :D
03-11-2009, 02:11 PM
=SOC= Admiral

-AMD Turion x2 64 2.0GHz
-Nvidia Gforce 8200m
-Windows 7 32
-179.48
-not over clocked
-CPU Core1 67.17
-CPU Core2 65.81
-Total 132.98

I knew my cpu was inefficient but not this much.
03-16-2009, 09:11 AM
GTSRboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColonelCain

Or, you could use google spreadsheets.

Anyone have the PPD for a 9800GTX+?

Mine is doing about 5400ppd.

I do about 6200ppd overall

>>In reference to my GPU folding, when it shows my iter a second, its getting 50 iter /sec , then 300, then 700, then 12000, the 23048108418, then goes blank for a few seconds, then starts the process over again. Its folding alot slower also.....anyone know what the heck that means?
03-16-2009, 06:30 PM
INFRNL

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTSRboy

Mine is doing about 5400ppd.

I do about 6200ppd overall

>>In reference to my GPU folding, when it shows my iter a second, its getting 50 iter /sec , then 300, then 700, then 12000, the 23048108418, then goes blank for a few seconds, then starts the process over again. Its folding alot slower also.....anyone know what the heck that means?

one of my systems seems slower than normal too; but its on an ati card. not sure what the deal is; maybe newer wu's not sure.

Do you have your card overclocked at all? just trying to see what to expect from a 9800gtx+
03-16-2009, 06:53 PM
GTSRboy

Its OCed but thats from EVGA, its at about 730mhz (thats what the + is). I havnt done anything to it. I used to crank out a work unit every 1.5 hours, it was doing that for a week straight, now it takes about 12 hours to do one. IDK why its slowed down so much, i reinstalled the program and it still does it. On top of that, my CPU (Q9300) cant fold at all now. It work fine but it has a 'serious error' once i open up F@H

I have been folding with the 9800+, Q9300, and a PS3 round the clock. The combo of all that is about 6,200 ppd. Before i realised there was a seperate GPU program i was averaging about 1,400 ppd (q9300+PS3), so the 9800+ is doing slightly under 5k/day. Of course, thats what i was* doing
03-16-2009, 07:25 PM
INFRNL

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTSRboy

Its OCed but thats from EVGA, its at about 730mhz (thats what the + is). I havnt done anything to it. I used to crank out a work unit every 1.5 hours, it was doing that for a week straight, now it takes about 12 hours to do one. IDK why its slowed down so much, i reinstalled the program and it still does it. On top of that, my CPU (Q9300) cant fold at all now. It work fine but it has a 'serious error' once i open up F@H

I have been folding with the 9800+, Q9300, and a PS3 round the clock. The combo of all that is about 6,200 ppd. Before i realised there was a seperate GPU program i was averaging about 1,400 ppd (q9300+PS3), so the 9800+ is doing slightly under 5k/day. Of course, thats what i was* doing

Thanks; So if you oc the shaders via rivatuner you should result in higher ppd with the 9800gtx+.

as far as you problem idk. maybe something changed and is conflicting between the smp and the gpu clients somehow. maybe you are now running the newer wu's but shouldnt take 12 hours. is your system running hotter, are you on it more than you used to be. Im sure someone with more knowledge can help yo. I am still a neb when it comes to DC
03-17-2009, 04:11 AM
WFO

-- I-7 gpu 1 -- GTX 295 5903

Min. Time / Frame : 2mn 00s - 12096.00 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 2mn 07s - 11429.29 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 3mn 20s - 7257.60 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 3mn 19s - 7294.07 ppd
Eff. Time / Frame : 3mn 17s - 7368.12 ppd
03-17-2009, 12:55 PM
GTSRboy

All my 'problems' are cleared up, i wasnt folding with SMP, im not sure why the old program wasnt working but now im on SMP for the CPU. The GPU is acting strane and taking long because its getting new work units, its PDD is holding at a steady 5700. If you OC a 9800GTX i assume it would be essentially the same as a +. Ive heard you can push the shaders a bit farther even on the + also
03-17-2009, 05:27 PM
INFRNL

My PPD on my 4850 have been up for the past couple of days; not sure why. I am running almost 4K PPD on it now and it was running closer to 3k or less previously; Im not complaining though; however I would like to see some better #'s. My 48030 almost seems like its running a little slower, but maybe the wu's its been running. will have to look into that later. Might be trading it for a 9800gt with a friend. will see what I can produce with that before I make a final decision, but I am only been getting around 2500 ppd on the 4830; so I think the 9800GT will get closer to 5k ppd
03-17-2009, 07:37 PM
GTSRboy

My roomate has a 9800GT, he says the PPD on it varies from 4-5k
03-18-2009, 07:57 PM
INFRNL

So I am auditioning my buddy's 9800GT. stock on my 4.4ghz 9550 also runing 4 threads of WCG am getting approx 4kppd (stock speeds) on 5903's. I am using the latest driver; cant recall # exactly. so I am getting approx 1-1.5k more than 4830 was getting. not bad. not sure how much more I would get from oc'ing; possibly up to 500ppd maybe. I will monitor more to see if points avg out. I have monitor set to all frames. Fahmon says approx 10hrs eta.
04-21-2009, 01:25 PM
GTSRboy

285 came, and i OCed th Q9300 to 3.0ghz so im up to about 11,500 ppd potential myself. My roomates occasionally fold for me, they total about 8,000 PPD in processing power.

285 = 8250 PPD @ 722 / 1587 / 1276 fan at 73
Q9300 = 2200 PPD @ 3.0ghz (400*7.5)
PS3 = 900 PPD
Laptop = 1500 Points every other day
04-21-2009, 10:50 PM
p2501

What a big chunk, 1888 points, near 6h to complete:

Project : 5904
Core : GPU2 NV MT
Frames : 100
Credit : 1888

-- GTX295-0 --

Min. Time / Frame : 3mn 28s - 7842.46 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 3mn 29s - 7804.94 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 3mn 40s - 7414.69 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 3mn 40s - 7414.69 ppd
Eff. Time / Frame : 3mn 35s - 7587.13 ppd
04-22-2009, 08:08 AM
OldChap

Think of us lesser mortals then ..those take 8 hours for me still, output is better than some 511's THOSE are the ones I don't like some even dip into the high 3kppd range
04-22-2009, 10:12 AM
p2501

I shouldn't have ebayed at least one of my 9600GSOs then, I wonder how long one of these would have taken on them... -_-;
04-22-2009, 12:15 PM
shadowwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by p2501

I shouldn't have ebayed at least one of my 9600GSOs then, I wonder how long one of these would have taken on them... -_-;

14 to 16 hours depending what the other gso is doing i asked my brother he is
still folding on them.
04-22-2009, 10:24 PM
p2501

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwind

14 to 16 hours

Okay, that is massive. :eek2:
05-11-2009, 05:41 PM
shadowwind

any one folding with the gtx 260s what is the ppd with the current WUs
05-11-2009, 08:39 PM
INFRNL

I dont recommend the 192's... I am only getting from 5k- 6300. I have a couple that are @ 8k but I dont know if those #'s are accurate. I think The 216 260's should get in the 7 k range

I fint it like this: 9800gt= 4500k give or take...gts 250 is approx 1k more ppd, 260 216 is approx 1k more ppd more than 250, gtx 275 is approx 1 k more than 260, and would guess the 285 would be approx 1 k more than 275. I would say give or take approx 500 ppd for ea. my gtx 275 gets into the 92-9300k range so that would be approx 1500 ish more than 260.

This is roughly what I have concluded in my research. Obviously depends on wu's. Me personally I would run at least a gtx 260 216 if your trying to push out more ppd. JMO though

EDIT:lol, or are you trying to compare your gts 250's? shouldnt be too far behind the 260s, still approx 1k
05-12-2009, 12:32 AM
PoppaGeek

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwind

any one folding with the gtx 260s what is the ppd with the current WUs

I just got a GTX 260 192 today. First WU FAHmon showed ppd of 6630, second WU says it is Project 5756 and PPD is 4286.45.

EDIT: Reading log: First WU was a 5767, 353 points I THINK. Second is 5756 and 511 points. Hope that helps.
05-12-2009, 01:19 AM
HuffPCair

my 9800GTX+ usually does around 6700 PPD going off FAHMON
05-12-2009, 01:24 AM
PoppaGeek

The different size WUs and the way FAHMon jumps around it is kinda hard to tell what your PPD is. Need to keep a track record to get a real feel for it I guess.
05-12-2009, 01:26 AM
HuffPCair

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoppaGeek

The different size WUs and the way FAHMon jumps around it is kinda hard to tell what your PPD is. Need to keep a track record to get a real feel for it I guess.

Yeah I dont pay attention much I am not doing it for the points really. I am just doing it for the cure and what else is my computer going to do when I am not here. Only thing I worry about is making sure they are getting done correctly and in a timely fashion.
05-12-2009, 01:40 AM
PoppaGeek

The numbers help in buying decisions.
05-12-2009, 04:39 AM
shadowwind

yes and no the numbers do help but the budget is what i go by in the end
i decided to get a blue ray in stead of getting the gtx 270s and the budget
allowed me to put 2 gts 250s in that build if they want to try and fold on them..
and to me if i was going for points it would be with the 295s i just dont want the rma problems if it happens to fail. thanks this will help when he comes get
his computer on ppd . its for a potential new folder i hope.
05-13-2009, 03:39 PM
OldChap

gtx260 192shaders clocked to 1620 these numbers are fairly typical

Code:

Project : 5749 Core : GPUv2 Gromacs Frames : 100 Credit : 511 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 1mn 20s - 5518.80 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 20s - 5518.80 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 1mn 21s - 5450.67 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 21s - 5450.67 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame Project : 5757 Core : GPUv2 Gromacs Frames : 100 Credit : 384 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 50s - 6635.52 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 50s - 6635.52 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 50s - 6635.52 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 50s - 6635.52 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame Project : 5765 Core : GPUv2 Gromacs Frames : 100 Credit : 353 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 37s - 8243.03 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 37s - 8243.03 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 37s - 8243.03 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 37s - 8243.03 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame Project : 5774 Core : GPUv2 Gromacs Frames : 100 Credit : 768 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 1mn 39s - 6702.55 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 39s - 6702.55 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 1mn 39s - 6702.55 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 39s - 6702.55 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame Project : 5900 Core : GPU2 NV MT Frames : 100 Credit : 472 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 55s - 7414.69 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 03s - 6473.14 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 55s - 7414.69 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 1mn 01s - 6685.38 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame Project : 5903 Core : GPU2 NV MT Frames : 100 Credit : 1888 -- 260-2 -- Min. Time / Frame : 3mn 58s - 6853.92 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 4mn 15s - 6396.99 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame -- 260-1 -- Min. Time / Frame : 4mn 07s - 6604.18 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 4mn 17s - 6347.21 ppd No Cur. Time / Frame No R3F. Time / Frame No Eff. Time / Frame
05-13-2009, 04:57 PM
shadowwind

nice and thank you OC that is what i wanted the gts 250s are really not that far behind in points i got 2 Danger den blocks coming for the gts 250s i want to push the shader some on water i will post results if i got some thing positive
in PPD. I WAS FORCE TO TAKE A VACATION AND USE UP ALL MY VACATION
TIME I GOT 10 WEEKS TO GO TALK ABOUT BEING BORED LOL.
05-13-2009, 05:00 PM
INFRNL

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuffPCair

my 9800GTX+ usually does around 6700 PPD going off FAHMON

Thats weird; how is a basically GTS 250 getting higher ppd than a 260? My gts 250 got a hair lower #'s than the 260 192. I think my 260 192 gets approx 3-500 ppd less than my old gts 250.

I will have to check but I think my 260 192 #'s are similar to OC's. Lately most of the wu's are giving me an avg of around 6k ppd, and some closer to 5K
05-13-2009, 05:04 PM
HuffPCair

Quote:

Originally Posted by INFRNL

Thats weird; how is a basically GTS 250 getting higher ppd than a 260? My gts 250 got a hair lower #'s than the 260 192. I think my 260 192 gets approx 3-500 ppd less than my old gts 250.

I will have to check but I think my 260 192 #'s are similar to OC's. Lately most of the wu's are giving me an avg of around 6k ppd, and some closer to 5K

Got me but like I said I am going off FAHMON plus that is just the few projects PPDs I have looked at again like I said never really cared how high any of my stuff is as long as it is getting completed right and in a timely fashion
05-13-2009, 05:26 PM
shadowwind

I said the gts 250 are really not that far behind in points so im wanting to push the shader and try a volt mod out and see if i can cut the gap some.
i should of said that in the first place but im sipping on some walker and feeling good sorry.
05-14-2009, 12:51 PM
GTSRboy

so ive been SMP folding on my Q9300 for weeks now, temp is fine and no errors. How much of an increase would i see if i added a second SMP? i hear people run multiple SMP's
05-14-2009, 01:46 PM
OldChap

If memory serves my increase was about 25%-33%

Most of what I did was before christmas (on XP) have a look at this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ghlight=WinAFC
05-14-2009, 06:34 PM
GTSRboy

uuhhggg this all went over my head...i read that thread, opened winAMP, did some googling and have no idea at all how to run two SMP's...lol the explinations are all i tech lingo
05-15-2009, 06:30 AM
shadowwind

there is a good smp how to here its in plain english and it works well its is the
sticky how to fold smp im not that sharp when it comes to soft ware.
but that one guide was easy.
05-15-2009, 07:48 AM
shaolin95

Noob alert...how can I find out my PPD rate?
05-15-2009, 08:00 AM
shadowwind

google xstremesystems.org individual user list team 36362 should get you there
thats the PPD and tracks all the team also try xstreme cpus they also got a good chart on PPD.
05-15-2009, 08:26 AM
OldChap

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaolin95

Noob alert...how can I find out my PPD rate?

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...hp?s=&u=451622
05-15-2009, 09:06 AM
shaolin95

Thanks guys!
05-15-2009, 09:21 AM
OldChap

For ppd an your computer... http://fahmon.net/ if you don't have this already
05-20-2009, 09:26 PM
GTSRboy

getting about about 6900 PPD on the OCed GTX285...thought it was be more than that considering a 9800 gets about 5500
05-20-2009, 09:57 PM
INFRNL

^^^ Try bumping up your shaders more, and it depends on WU's. Are you comparing to a wu that you have run on your 9800?
05-21-2009, 06:58 PM
GTSRboy

im not sure which work units their getting, but PPD is PPD. Ill crank up it up and see what i get. Right now the Q9300/PS3/285 is about 9,500/day
05-21-2009, 07:24 PM
INFRNL

^^^ I thought maybe you were monitoring from fahmon. all my stats I post are from fahmon. ppd is ppd only if they are true. fahmon says what my ppd are but it fluctuates on fahmon. I monitor daily ppd and it doesnt match what the extreme systems monitor is claiming.

I had one day that I produced 37k of actual points and the XS system only showed 30-31k when F @ H showed the 37k for a 24hr period.

Basically if you are monitoring actual points then it doesnt matter what the wu's are, but if you are going off fahmon then it does cause its not accurate. I have 3 fahmon's on 3 different systems and for the same gpu; I can get 3 different ratings, lol

Thats why I asked. seems low for a GTX 285, but if you are running at stock oc clocks it may be correct and if you dont mind bumping shaders up, then I think you will see a bigger gain!
05-21-2009, 07:32 PM
PoppaGeek

Anyone want to suggest how many GTS 250s a Corsair 750 can handle ok, not pushing it. It has 4 6 pins and 60a on 12v. My guess is 3.

I looked thru a few threads and peoples sigs and could not really find anything. Was thinking about 260s spread out in different machines but this GD70 has 4 slots and the 250s are not that far behind a 260 in ppd. It would be easier for me to do what I want to do buying a 250 each month for 3 - 4 months. Several of you have them or 9800GTX and seem happy with them.

I think too much. :(

:toast:
05-21-2009, 08:38 PM
INFRNL

I would say 2 safely, possibly 3. I cant recall. I think the gts 250 requires a minumum of 500w, but I could have my info incorrect. From what I gather a gts 250 gets on avg approx 5500-5800 ppd. a gts 260 (216) will yield approx 1k ppd more for now about $50 or less in cost compared to a gts 250. Its a tough call. I originally started with a gts 250 cause I got it for $110 while the gtx 260s were still 180-200, but I stepped it up to a gtx 275. now you can get the gtx 260's for $150 ish I believe, so it could possibly be worth the extr dough; your call. I think the gts 250 will save you some on electricity compared to a gtx 260, but not sure by how much.

I was in the same delima as you. Started off with 1 gts 250 and a 9800gt. now I am running 3 gtx 275's 1 more coming in tomorrow and GTX 260 192 going out next week to be replaced with yet another gtx 275.

I can however tell you that the gts 250 get approx 1k ppd more than a 9800gt, and gtx 260 get approx 1k more ppd than the 250. basically from my findings, each step up in a card yields approx 1kppd. hope this helps

EDIT: looks like my 9800gt gets approx 4700 ppd, gts 250 got avg 5700 ppd, my gtx 260 192 sucks and gets avg of approx 6200 ppd, and my gtx 275 are getting avg of 8800 or more ppd. This is according to fahmon. I have hand calculated close to 40k ppd in a 24 hour period with my 3 gtx 275's, gtx 160 192, and 9800gt.

My 9800gt gets 2-300 less ppd on my old amd system compared to my q9550 according to fahmon.
05-21-2009, 09:03 PM
PoppaGeek

I think you are right INFRNL. Have been playing around with Corsairs PSU Finder and eXtreme Power Supply Calculator. Corsair obviously recommends a much heavy supply than eXtremes does since they are selling them and eXtreme isn't. I might get by with 3 250s, the new 55nm ones but could not OC anything. Corsair says I need a 1000 for 2 260s and I know that is not correct as many are using 750s for sli. Nvidia cards always required more PSU than comparable ATIs which I find interesting.

EVGA says the 512 meg 250 requires 24a and 450w supply. The 55nm 260 216 was 36a and 500w.

eXtreme Calc says 473 watts with 2 260 216s, a Phenom 810 no OC and the rest of what I have in it. A 750 at 80% is 600 watts. But with 60a is it enough?

Still thinking.....:confused:
05-21-2009, 09:54 PM
HuffPCair

I have been running into a weird problem I had to lower my clocks on ym gpu cause I started getting errors but yet all my games and even furmark still show no problem and I have been folding with these clocks since I started folding
So got me some splainin todo.
05-22-2009, 04:31 AM
shadowwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoppaGeek

I think you are right INFRNL. Have been playing around with Corsairs PSU Finder and eXtreme Power Supply Calculator. Corsair obviously recommends a much heavy supply than eXtremes does since they are selling them and eXtreme isn't. I might get by with 3 250s, the new 55nm ones but could not OC anything. Corsair says I need a 1000 for 2 260s and I know that is not correct as many are using 750s for sli. Nvidia cards always required more PSU than comparable ATIs which I find interesting.

EVGA says the 512 meg 250 requires 24a and 450w supply. The 55nm 260 216 was 36a and 500w.

eXtreme Calc says 473 watts with 2 260 216s, a Phenom 810 no OC and the rest of what I have in it. A 750 at 80% is 600 watts. But with 60a is it enough?

Still thinking.....:confused:

poppa im using a mushkin 800 watt psu and it been doing well pushing 3 evga gts 250s with no problems and for the price its one good psu so far.
05-22-2009, 07:50 AM
HuffPCair

Ok I didnt want to make a new thread for this soooo.

For my F@h gpu client all of a sudden I am getting errors so they are not completing. I am kind of confused because my clocks have been the same since I started folding. So is this a sign of my card maybe dying???? It plays games and everything else works but when I got to fold it will either fail right away and say unstable system or it has even made it to like 70% and then claimed a fail.

I am at a loss right now so if anyone could give me some tips here would be nice.

I am on Win7 using the win7 64 bit driver. My clocks are what are in my sig, well currently I am at stock and waiting to get work so I do not know if it will work on stock even, but I dont get why every game including Crysis even works with out a problem. The gpu client even made my driver crash a few times. I have reinstalled it and everything.

I really hope my card isnt dying cause I am broke right now since I keep getting laid off lol. So I have the budget of a typical college student.

Thanks for any help Ill be gone for a bit because I got class for a while but any advice is greatly appreciated.
05-22-2009, 08:05 AM
shadowwind

have you tried running it at stock speeds you got a nice oced card i thinking
what ever work unit your running doesnt like it much you can all ways boost
it up again for playing your games. i think you will be all right at stock once you get a work unit. i should read all before i post
05-22-2009, 08:21 AM
OldChap

@Poppageek if you consider the connections then the slot is rated 75watts and the 6pin is rated 75watts so that card has to use less than 150 watts...*3 =450watts for your cards plus your rig ???I would say No problem running 3 probably 4 if cpu is stock

Add to this I have a 1k-sr from pc p&c with 66amps on 12v rail and have run 5 cards (2*gx2+98gtx) + cpu @3.5 for months at a time where my maximum load according to my Kill-a-Watt clone is circa 850watts. The downside is that most PSU's are at their most efficient in the 50-60% loaded range.

@Huff..This last week on my main rig I have had to drop my shader overclock by 1 notch.....I'm not yet sure of the reason...rising ambients or different WU's but whichever the problem was not eue's rather computer lock-up without bsod or anything like that. Try a notch lower and watch the results
05-22-2009, 11:03 AM
HuffPCair

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

@Poppageek if you consider the connections then the slot is rated 75watts and the 6pin is rated 75watts so that card has to use less than 150 watts...*3 =450watts for your cards plus your rig ???I would say No problem running 3 probably 4 if cpu is stock

Add to this I have a 1k-sr from pc p&c with 66amps on 12v rail and have run 5 cards (2*gx2+98gtx) + cpu @3.5 for months at a time where my maximum load according to my Kill-a-Watt clone is circa 850watts. The downside is that most PSU's are at their most efficient in the 50-60% loaded range.

@Huff..This last week on my main rig I have had to drop my shader overclock by 1 notch.....I'm not yet sure of the reason...rising ambients or different WU's but whichever the problem was not eue's rather computer lock-up without bsod or anything like that. Try a notch lower and watch the results

Thanks OC that is what I did before I left for class and it has worked and I am for some reason getting better PPD lol I am usually below 5700 and right now FAHMON is showing above 6000. So who knows, but I am back in action. THanks again for the response pal.
05-22-2009, 12:01 PM
PoppaGeek

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwind

have you tried running it at stock speeds you got a nice oced card i thinking
what ever work unit your running doesnt like it much you can all ways boost
it up again for playing your games. i think you will be all right at stock once you get a work unit. i should read all before i post

Huff I agree with Shadow. Maybe not a good comparison but my 4850 is doing one or 2 WUs ok the erroring out, then 1 or 2 goods one and erroring out. While I am confident my card is not 100% ok I also think there is a good possibility it is the WUs they are sending. THey can be so different in the percentage of GPU they use, the heat they generate their size, who knows. I dropped the clocks on my card and am hoping things will get better. :up:
05-22-2009, 01:12 PM
PoppaGeek

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldChap

@Poppageek if you consider the connections then the slot is rated 75watts and the 6pin is rated 75watts so that card has to use less than 150 watts...*3 =450watts for your cards plus your rig ???I would say No problem running 3 probably 4 if cpu is stock

Add to this I have a 1k-sr from pc p&c with 66amps on 12v rail and have run 5 cards (2*gx2+98gtx) + cpu @3.5 for months at a time where my maximum load according to my Kill-a-Watt clone is circa 850watts. The downside is that most PSU's are at their most efficient in the 50-60% loaded range.

@Huff..This last week on my main rig I have had to drop my shader overclock by 1 notch.....I'm not yet sure of the reason...rising ambients or different WU's but whichever the problem was not eue's rather computer lock-up without bsod or anything like that. Try a notch lower and watch the results

Thanks OC this is what I was looking for. EVGA gives the amps required, like 24a for a GTS 250. So for 2 cards is that 48a? I guess not as I finally found the recommendation for a 9800GTX+ was 24a for 1 30a for 2.

Anyway I think I am getting a good feel for this. Thanks!

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