Post your PPD rates !!

**skycrane** · 02-09-2009, 03:46 PM

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

**ThunderDuck** · 02-09-2009, 04:02 PM

Good info here
http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=3193
Charts get updated by legoman666

**OldChap** · 02-09-2009, 04:14 PM

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

Edit : the last chart by legoman 666 seems to be this one: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...d_then_PPD.gif

**WFO** · 02-09-2009, 06:29 PM

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.

**[XC] riptide** · 02-10-2009, 03:26 PM

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!

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.

**Kondik** · 02-11-2009, 03:42 AM

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

] 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.

**coo-coo-clocker** · 02-11-2009, 04:12 AM

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...

**Sparky** · 02-11-2009, 10:17 AM

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...

**initialised** · 02-11-2009, 01:09 PM

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.

**OldChap** · 02-11-2009, 02:27 PM

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

**DAK1640** · 02-11-2009, 04:57 PM

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.

**initialised** · 02-11-2009, 06:18 PM

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

**DAK1640** · 02-12-2009, 03:31 AM

initialised you are disqualified as requested.
TY MikeB12...

**MikeB12** · 02-12-2009, 04:07 AM

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?

**WFO** · 02-12-2009, 06:27 AM

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?

**[XC] riptide** · 02-12-2009, 06:34 AM

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.

**initialised** · 02-12-2009, 06:51 AM

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.

**DAK1640** · 02-12-2009, 03:12 PM

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.

**initialised** · 02-12-2009, 04:10 PM

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.

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.

**[XC] riptide** · 02-12-2009, 05:12 PM

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.

**skycrane** · 02-12-2009, 06:12 PM

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

**initialised** · 02-13-2009, 01:41 PM

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

A GTX285 on Windows 7 Again performance is equivalent to Vista & XP

A 4870 performs similarly on both a Q8300 with 4GB on XP32 and an i7 940 @ 3.96GHz with 6GB

**MikeB12** · 02-16-2009, 01:05 AM

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

**skycrane** · 02-16-2009, 05:38 AM

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

**DAK1640** · 02-16-2009, 06:00 AM

Nice simple format Skycrane

Thread: Post your PPD rates !!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Post your PPD rates !!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions