I was only trying to demonstrate to Matt, or anyone else looking for a GPU, if you have a budget like most people do, the GPU's that I'm using still give a decent RAC.
Thanks for the info and advice everyone. I was thinking either a 1060 or RX 480. The two comments above seem to be conflicting regarding the 480's performance.
Check out the power too. I think you will find that the GTX 1060 is more efficient (PPD/watt) than the RX 480.
Let's find out the answer.
There are only 3 hosts using single 1060 with RAC > 300:
The best of all is 883k per 2 1060 cards, which is ~440k per one card, which is 30% more, than that of single-card machines (it seems the second card is some more powerful one, but let's pretend they're the same).
The best of all is 1257k per 2 RX 480 cards, which is ~620k per one card, which coincides with single-card machine, so we can assume, that both cards are RX 480.
TDP of 1060 is 120W, then 440/120 = 3.6k credits/watt,
TDP of RX 480 is 150W (actually more like 175W for overclocked non-reference cards), then 620/175 = 3.5k credits/watt.
So, practically the same credits/watt for both cards.
I was only trying to demonstrate to Matt, or anyone else looking for a GPU, if you have a budget like most people do, the GPU's that I'm using still give a decent RAC.
Yes, sorry, i should have mentioned, that it's OP's requirement to only consider more recent ones.
I myself am running AMD R9 290 which is the same age as yours. As i can see, it performs on par with the last generation giving 600k/day, but requires 50-100% more power. The strong points seem to be high DP performance and wide memory bus, the rest are worse.
I have just checked ebay, the price of used GTX 970 or R9 290 is too high to recommend them.
Thanks for the info and advice everyone. I was thinking either a 1060 or RX 480. The two comments above seem to be conflicting regarding the 480's performance. Anyone else have experience with the 480?
I recently purchased two 480s and am very happy with them. All of my previous GPUs were from Nvidia and this was my first AMD purchase. I can only run one task at a time, but it only takes ~700 seconds. I also have a couple of 1060s running two tasks at a time. The 6GB versions takes ~1650 seconds and the 3GB version takes ~1775.
The 480 is both faster and has a cheaper purchase price than the 1060. After the mail in rebate, the 480s only cost me $165 each (still on sale at Newegg). I have a dual 1070 computer which is more power efficient than the dual 480 computer, but the 1070s had a much higher purchase cost.
This is running stock clocks in case anyone is interested, and running x3 at 1400s each which works out about 640K RAC once things get stable. I think about 7K from CPU tasks as well.
The power draw at wall is about 300W, although i'd have to average over an time interval to get a good figure. Temps are 79C
If you are using published RAC numbers or if you are taking them from the host_id file, are you assuming the hosts are not crunching other CPU tasks - or are you counting them out? They do make a bit of a difference and RAC values take nearly a month to settle to a steady state.
I expect the 480s (and 470s) are on sale due to the imminent arrival of the Vega 10/11 series. I would wait and see.
And there is supposed to be a CUDA version coming for the Nvidia cards, which would help them achieve their full potential. But it is an interesting comparison, and something to consider if you need a card now. Thanks.
That one is mine. It is in fact a PC with one GTX 1070 plus one 6GB GTX 1060, currently running zero CPU tasks, and no work from other projects. It is also my daily driver, so subject to some extra losses compared to a dedicated machine. As with most machines here, the RAC is currently in a state of rapid change.
If you believe the current generation AMD cards are power efficiency comparable with the Pascal cards, you may have noticed that there is rather a lot of evidence out there the other way.
If you are using published RAC numbers or if you are taking them from the host_id file, are you assuming the hosts are not crunching other CPU tasks - or are you counting them out? They do make a bit of a difference and RAC values take nearly a month to settle to a steady state.
That's why i'm looking at the best cases - when RAC settles, they should be on top. CPU contribution is two orders of magnitude lower, so it is safe to neglect it.
That one is mine. It is in fact a PC with one GTX 1070 plus one 6GB GTX 1060, currently running zero CPU tasks, and no work from other projects. It is also my daily driver, so subject to some extra losses compared to a dedicated machine. As with most machines here, the RAC is currently in a state of rapid change.
If you believe the current generation AMD cards are power efficiency comparable with the Pascal cards, you may have noticed that there is rather a lot of evidence out there the other way.
Then max output of a 1060 is ~350k/day, not 440k/day. This means that it's power-efficiency is lower at crunching FGRPB v1.18+ currently, which is the only benchmark that matter.
Jim1348 wrote:
I expect the 480s (and 470s) are on sale due to the imminent arrival of the Vega 10/11 series. I would wait and see.
And there is supposed to be a CUDA version coming for the Nvidia cards, which would help them achieve their full potential. But it is an interesting comparison, and something to consider if you need a card now. Thanks.
Yes, current app favours AMD, because it is an OpenCL app. After release of CUDA version nVidia should catch up.
I have a computer with an MSI Gaming RX 470 that crunches x2 when it's not in use. Each WU completes in about 1350 seconds. If I would let it crunch 24/7, RAC would peak at roughly 443K in ideal conditions. Since the RX 470's power consumption is virtually identical to the GTX 1060, that would probably put it ahead in PPW for Einstein@home ATM.
I was only trying to
)
Chester--
I was only trying to demonstrate to Matt, or anyone else looking for a GPU, if you have a budget like most people do, the GPU's that I'm using still give a decent RAC.
Jim1348 wrote:Matt_145
)
Let's find out the answer.
There are only 3 hosts using single 1060 with RAC > 300:
And there are also 3 hosts using multiple cards, at least one of which is 1060, with RAC > 500k:
The best of all is 883k per 2 1060 cards, which is ~440k per one card, which is 30% more, than that of single-card machines (it seems the second card is some more powerful one, but let's pretend they're the same).
This single RX 480 https://einsteinathome.org/host/11905468 has RAC = 618k.
There are 3 hosts using dual cards, at least one of which is RX 480, with RAC > 1200k:
The best of all is 1257k per 2 RX 480 cards, which is ~620k per one card, which coincides with single-card machine, so we can assume, that both cards are RX 480.
TDP of 1060 is 120W, then 440/120 = 3.6k credits/watt,
TDP of RX 480 is 150W (actually more like 175W for overclocked non-reference cards), then 620/175 = 3.5k credits/watt.
So, practically the same credits/watt for both cards.
Ace Casino wrote:Chester-- I
)
Yes, sorry, i should have mentioned, that it's OP's requirement to only consider more recent ones.
I myself am running AMD R9 290 which is the same age as yours. As i can see, it performs on par with the last generation giving 600k/day, but requires 50-100% more power. The strong points seem to be high DP performance and wide memory bus, the rest are worse.
I have just checked ebay, the price of used GTX 970 or R9 290 is too high to recommend them.
Matt_145 wrote:Thanks for the
)
I recently purchased two 480s and am very happy with them. All of my previous GPUs were from Nvidia and this was my first AMD purchase. I can only run one task at a time, but it only takes ~700 seconds. I also have a couple of 1060s running two tasks at a time. The 6GB versions takes ~1650 seconds and the 3GB version takes ~1775.
The 480 is both faster and has a cheaper purchase price than the 1060. After the mail in rebate, the 480s only cost me $165 each (still on sale at Newegg). I have a dual 1070 computer which is more power efficient than the dual 480 computer, but the 1070s had a much higher purchase cost.
chester_4 wrote:This single
)
Waves...
This is running stock clocks in case anyone is interested, and running x3 at 1400s each which works out about 640K RAC once things get stable. I think about 7K from CPU tasks as well.
The power draw at wall is about 300W, although i'd have to average over an time interval to get a good figure. Temps are 79C
If you are using published RAC numbers or if you are taking them from the host_id file, are you assuming the hosts are not crunching other CPU tasks - or are you counting them out? They do make a bit of a difference and RAC values take nearly a month to settle to a steady state.
hth
I expect the 480s (and 470s)
)
I expect the 480s (and 470s) are on sale due to the imminent arrival of the Vega 10/11 series. I would wait and see.
And there is supposed to be a CUDA version coming for the Nvidia cards, which would help them achieve their full potential. But it is an interesting comparison, and something to consider if you need a card now. Thanks.
chester_4 wrote: 2x
)
That one is mine. It is in fact a PC with one GTX 1070 plus one 6GB GTX 1060, currently running zero CPU tasks, and no work from other projects. It is also my daily driver, so subject to some extra losses compared to a dedicated machine. As with most machines here, the RAC is currently in a state of rapid change.
If you believe the current generation AMD cards are power efficiency comparable with the Pascal cards, you may have noticed that there is rather a lot of evidence out there the other way.
AgentB wrote:If you are using
)
That's why i'm looking at the best cases - when RAC settles, they should be on top. CPU contribution is two orders of magnitude lower, so it is safe to neglect it.
Then max output of a 1060 is ~350k/day, not 440k/day. This means that it's power-efficiency is lower at crunching FGRPB v1.18+ currently, which is the only benchmark that matter.
Yes, current app favours AMD, because it is an OpenCL app. After release of CUDA version nVidia should catch up.
I have a computer with an MSI
)
I have a computer with an MSI Gaming RX 470 that crunches x2 when it's not in use. Each WU completes in about 1350 seconds. If I would let it crunch 24/7, RAC would peak at roughly 443K in ideal conditions. Since the RX 470's power consumption is virtually identical to the GTX 1060, that would probably put it ahead in PPW for Einstein@home ATM.
computer: https://einsteinathome.org/host/12495628
The same time as for RX 480,
)
How do you get your GPU to run more than one task at a time?