So I am curious as to what the 1050's actual wattage is being used while its crunching? to compare with the 1050Ti. Also will you be overclocking the RAM? I may not since I like the performance of my 1050Ti currently running stock.
I'll never know what the card is drawing itself, as I lack appropriate instrumentation, and I don't trust the self-reporting at all (it was reporting the card as using near 50% of TDP at zero-BOINC idle, which from simple arithmetic was wildly false). I will be able to give the change in system power draw between idle state and GPU 2X only. However at the moment I am running GPU 2X plus 1 CPU task, and I neglected to measure the idle state before beginning the run.
Yes, I intend to overclock both core clock and memory clock, and based on previous Pascal results think it likely that I'll see more Einstein productivity benefit from memory overclocking.
I'll follow closely as you overclock your GPU. The 1050 is a bargin if in can run as fast as the Ti variant. The only thing I'm wondering is investing in the 4GB Tis vs the 2GB 1050s a big deal in the memory size dept. or not.
The 1050 is not that bad, I expected the run times to be longer compared to 1050 Ti.
You're right, the self power reporting seems totally useless in this case.
For comparison, here's a table I made. Power is estimated based on idle/load difference.
BRP4G 1.57 2WUs ~power
----------------------------
750 Ti 3550 s 50 W
1050 3100 s ?? W
1050 Ti 2900 s 50 W
Tesla K20 2000 s 110 W
1070 1550 s 125 W (?)
HD7950 1700 s 120 W (undervolt. VDDC=1.125 V)
RX 480 1800 s 120 W
Fury X 1180 s 170 W (undervolt. VDDC=1.150 V)
The 1050 seems to give exactly half the performance of 1070 for less power.
I'm gathering more data, and need to think some more, but my preliminary conclusion based on various measurements and subtractions (all system wall power based), is that adding two GPU tasks on a stock clock 1050 adds 54 watts to system power consumption. I estimate a little over 3 watts of that goes to the CPU and motherboard for support, leaving just about 50 watts of the delta going into the 1050 itself.
A persistent unknown is the card idle power. I can say that in my system box idle power is down by over 3 watts when I have the 1050 in as compared to the 750. This is actually quite nice, as I think the 750 is not bad for idle power (though not so good as it self-reports). My working guess is that my 1050 idle power is 2 watts. If true, then at stock clock running 2X BRP4G on this system the 1050 card consumption proper is in the low fifties of watts.
I'm consuming more idle power than necessary, as my fan curve bottoms out at 40%. Sometime soon I plan to exercise the fan across full range in a quiet room with a view to assessing subjective tone and other undesirable behavior. My preliminary assessment is that the particular card I chose (Gigabyte GV-N1050OC-2GD) has low fan noise of pleasing character in my use conditions so far. Running it overclocked in a two-card case with less than excellent case ventilation will be more challenging, but I am currently optimistic. People with less sensitive ears, better ventilated cases, and no intention to run two cards in a case can probably pay little attention to the fan issues on 1050/1050Ti card.
I've started bumping up my memory speed on the 1050Ti. Going to do it in +50mhz increments. Right now it looks like that little bump(1777mhz) saved 40secs, my times started to lengthen a little after starting two cpu gamma units on my 4690K.
For overclocking trials I am currently specifying offsets from default using MSIAfterburner. I started with +400 to Memclock together with +100 for core clock. I soon hit a ceiling in which the card did not report advance to a higher memory clock when I specified +550 instead of +500. It appears that there may be a hard limit to memory clock, at a speed represented by GPU-Z as 2002, by MSIAfterburner as 4004, and presumably called 8008 by Nvidia marketing.
Actually +500 is not bad, but I'd like to have been able to explore up to actual failure, in order to set a speed enough lower to feel comfortable. For the moment I am leaving the memory offset request at +500 and inching up the core clock request (have seen success at +100).
Both my 1070 and my 1060 run DDR5 Samsung memory at rates appreciably faster than 2002/4004, and the cards allowed them to run enough faster still to get failure. But I think I've seen reports in reviews of hard limits on the 1050 series cards. A last point on memory is that GPU-Z reports this card to be populated with Hynix RAM, so neither the Micron nor the Samsung I've previously heard reports of on Pascal cards.
My 1050 overclocking work seems to have reached ceilings on both memory and core clock imposed by the card, firmware, or driver, without getting to an error of result condition.
The core clock actual available increments seem to be something near, but not exactly 12.5. My last two offset requests which seemed successful were for +225 and +250. The +275 request, which should have gotten a result two "ticks" higher got the same speed.
At current operating conditions (temperature matters) this means I'm running at an indicated 1911 core clock, 2002 memory clock on the GPU-Z reporting scale. I plan to run overnight at this condition to get an initial safety assessment and collect operating condition (power, temperature) averages. All this has been at 2X on BRP4G/Cuda55 on Window 7 with the latest Nvidia driver as of a couple of days ago. I intend to run brief trials comparing 1X, 3X, 4X, 5X.
While at one level it is annoying not to be allowed to run the card as fast as it can give correct answers, at another level this might be viewed as a sort of safety cushion which helps make this a particularly suitable naive or entry level user card, unlikely to hurt the project by being set to run a little too fast by an inattentive user who returns flocks of invalid results.
My 1050 overclocking work seems to have reached ceilings on both memory and core clock imposed by the card, firmware, or driver, without getting to an error of result condition.
The core clock actual available increments seem to be something near, but not exactly 12.5. My last two offset requests which seemed successful were for +225 and +250. The +275 request, which should have gotten a result two "ticks" higher got the same speed.
At current operating conditions (temperature matters) this means I'm running at an indicated 1911 core clock, 2002 memory clock on the GPU-Z reporting scale. I plan to run overnight at this condition to get an initial safety assessment and collect operating condition (power, temperature) averages. All this has been at 2X on BRP4G/Cuda55 on Window 7 with the latest Nvidia driver as of a couple of days ago. I intend to run brief trials comparing 1X, 3X, 4X, 5X.
While at one level it is annoying not to be allowed to run the card as fast as it can give correct answers, at another level this might be viewed as a sort of safety cushion which helps make this a particularly suitable naive or entry level user card, unlikely to hurt the project by being set to run a little too fast by an inattentive user who returns flocks of invalid results.
Your OC times on the 1050 look fantastic for a low cost card. I think this is repeatable with most of the 1050s, from what I read there is a hard lock at the 1900 core. My times are starting to drop to the 2750sec levels and lower. I just increased the mem. speed again to 1850mhz(7400mhz), I seem to get a reduction of around 25-35 secs for each 50+mhz I up on the memory slider. Core clocks still factory autoboosting to 1784mhz , this card must be a gem, unless all the 1050s are boosting like this.
I too increased the mem clock to ~7408 (QDR) and times are now ~2730 s. That's only 25% slower than my Tesla K20, which consumes 110W.
Now trying 7608 QDR mem..
EDIT: Well, this is odd - running at this clock run times are actually prolonged by ~40 sec. Not sure why, as all parameters reported seem to be OK.
My 1050 overclocking work seems to have reached ceilings on both memory and core clock imposed by the card, firmware, or driver, without getting to an error of result condition.
The core clock actual available increments seem to be something near, but not exactly 12.5. My last two offset requests which seemed successful were for +225 and +250. The +275 request, which should have gotten a result two "ticks" higher got the same speed.
That's a strap. NV cards don't OC at 1mhz increments but at the strap increments. As you found out at 13mhz. I don't recall what the increment is but even my GTX 570s behave the same way.
If there's ever a BIOS modding app for Pascal the limits could probably be removed.
archae86 wrote:Todderbert
)
I'll follow closely as you overclock your GPU. The 1050 is a bargin if in can run as fast as the Ti variant. The only thing I'm wondering is investing in the 4GB Tis vs the 2GB 1050s a big deal in the memory size dept. or not.
The 1050 is not that bad, I
)
The 1050 is not that bad, I expected the run times to be longer compared to 1050 Ti.
You're right, the self power reporting seems totally useless in this case.
For comparison, here's a table I made. Power is estimated based on idle/load difference.
-----
I'm gathering more data, and
)
I'm gathering more data, and need to think some more, but my preliminary conclusion based on various measurements and subtractions (all system wall power based), is that adding two GPU tasks on a stock clock 1050 adds 54 watts to system power consumption. I estimate a little over 3 watts of that goes to the CPU and motherboard for support, leaving just about 50 watts of the delta going into the 1050 itself.
A persistent unknown is the card idle power. I can say that in my system box idle power is down by over 3 watts when I have the 1050 in as compared to the 750. This is actually quite nice, as I think the 750 is not bad for idle power (though not so good as it self-reports). My working guess is that my 1050 idle power is 2 watts. If true, then at stock clock running 2X BRP4G on this system the 1050 card consumption proper is in the low fifties of watts.
I'm consuming more idle power than necessary, as my fan curve bottoms out at 40%. Sometime soon I plan to exercise the fan across full range in a quiet room with a view to assessing subjective tone and other undesirable behavior. My preliminary assessment is that the particular card I chose (Gigabyte GV-N1050OC-2GD) has low fan noise of pleasing character in my use conditions so far. Running it overclocked in a two-card case with less than excellent case ventilation will be more challenging, but I am currently optimistic. People with less sensitive ears, better ventilated cases, and no intention to run two cards in a case can probably pay little attention to the fan issues on 1050/1050Ti card.
I've started bumping up my
)
I've started bumping up my memory speed on the 1050Ti. Going to do it in +50mhz increments. Right now it looks like that little bump(1777mhz) saved 40secs, my times started to lengthen a little after starting two cpu gamma units on my 4690K.
For overclocking trials I am
)
For overclocking trials I am currently specifying offsets from default using MSIAfterburner. I started with +400 to Memclock together with +100 for core clock. I soon hit a ceiling in which the card did not report advance to a higher memory clock when I specified +550 instead of +500. It appears that there may be a hard limit to memory clock, at a speed represented by GPU-Z as 2002, by MSIAfterburner as 4004, and presumably called 8008 by Nvidia marketing.
Actually +500 is not bad, but I'd like to have been able to explore up to actual failure, in order to set a speed enough lower to feel comfortable. For the moment I am leaving the memory offset request at +500 and inching up the core clock request (have seen success at +100).
Both my 1070 and my 1060 run DDR5 Samsung memory at rates appreciably faster than 2002/4004, and the cards allowed them to run enough faster still to get failure. But I think I've seen reports in reviews of hard limits on the 1050 series cards. A last point on memory is that GPU-Z reports this card to be populated with Hynix RAM, so neither the Micron nor the Samsung I've previously heard reports of on Pascal cards.
My 1050Ti has Samsung memory.
)
My 1050Ti has Samsung memory. Now running 1800mhz ram, and 1784mhz core.
My 1050 overclocking work
)
My 1050 overclocking work seems to have reached ceilings on both memory and core clock imposed by the card, firmware, or driver, without getting to an error of result condition.
The core clock actual available increments seem to be something near, but not exactly 12.5. My last two offset requests which seemed successful were for +225 and +250. The +275 request, which should have gotten a result two "ticks" higher got the same speed.
At current operating conditions (temperature matters) this means I'm running at an indicated 1911 core clock, 2002 memory clock on the GPU-Z reporting scale. I plan to run overnight at this condition to get an initial safety assessment and collect operating condition (power, temperature) averages. All this has been at 2X on BRP4G/Cuda55 on Window 7 with the latest Nvidia driver as of a couple of days ago. I intend to run brief trials comparing 1X, 3X, 4X, 5X.
While at one level it is annoying not to be allowed to run the card as fast as it can give correct answers, at another level this might be viewed as a sort of safety cushion which helps make this a particularly suitable naive or entry level user card, unlikely to hurt the project by being set to run a little too fast by an inattentive user who returns flocks of invalid results.
archae86 wrote:My 1050
)
Your OC times on the 1050 look fantastic for a low cost card. I think this is repeatable with most of the 1050s, from what I read there is a hard lock at the 1900 core. My times are starting to drop to the 2750sec levels and lower. I just increased the mem. speed again to 1850mhz(7400mhz), I seem to get a reduction of around 25-35 secs for each 50+mhz I up on the memory slider. Core clocks still factory autoboosting to 1784mhz , this card must be a gem, unless all the 1050s are boosting like this.
I too increased the mem clock
)
I too increased the mem clock to ~7408 (QDR) and times are now ~2730 s. That's only 25% slower than my Tesla K20, which consumes 110W.
Now trying 7608 QDR mem..
EDIT: Well, this is odd - running at this clock run times are actually prolonged by ~40 sec. Not sure why, as all parameters reported seem to be OK.
-----
archae86 wrote:My 1050
)
That's a strap. NV cards don't OC at 1mhz increments but at the strap increments. As you found out at 13mhz. I don't recall what the increment is but even my GTX 570s behave the same way.
If there's ever a BIOS modding app for Pascal the limits could probably be removed.