1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

WCG GPU Crunching: Performance/Value

Discussion in 'World Community Grid (WCG)' started by xvi, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    What/Why?
    I've spent some time trying to research GPU crunching performance and had made myself a chart to help visualize this. I pulled the only somewhat trustworthy performance numbers I could find and tossed a few simple functions on it to breakdown things like raw performance and value. The results are the following.


    Raw Performance
    First is a raw "more is better" chart based on the inverse of of the average time to complete a WU in seconds. Given that some of the names provided are nondescript, I've made assumptions based on the given performance. For example, two "Radeon HD 7900 Series" cards with obvious steps in performance are assumed to be the HD 7970 and the HD 7950. This will be verified/updated when user-submitted results come in.
    [​IMG]


    Price per Performance (Value)
    If something's not good value, it just rubs me the wrong way. This chart takes GPU performance and divides that by the street value as determined by retail price for latest-generation GPUs or eBay price for older GPUs. This chart answers the question "How many points can I get for X amount of dollars?"
    As stated above, given that some of the names provided are nondescript, I've made assumptions based on the given performance.
    (The chart will be put back in order in the next update.)
    [​IMG]


    Help improve the charts!
    If you'd like to contribute, I'd appreciate submissions. You can find GPU your GPU Work Unit completion time here as long as you know the result name that correlates with your GPU. You're looking for elapsed time in hours.
    Please fill out the following:
    Code:
    WCG Username: <If different than forum>
    CPU Model/Speed:
    GPU 0 Model:
    GPU 0 Time per WU:
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 Work Unit Completion Time:
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: <optional>
    Add additional GPUs as needed
    To Do List:
    • Update prices for all cards
    • Come up with better pricing strategy for old cards (Worthmonkey not accurate, eBay fluctuates)
    • Add performance per watt charts (just declared TDP?)
    • Research/Create CPU charts
    • Fix price/performance graph
    • Make charts prettier
    Changelog:
    2/13/13: Initial release! WYSIWYG!
    NHKS, james888, ChristTheGreat and 5 others say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  2. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    <Reserved>
    Crunching for Team TPU
  3. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    <Also Reserved>
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. [Ion]

    [Ion] WCG Team Assistant

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    11,787 (6.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,889
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    I appreciate the work that you've put into this, but I must say I'm a bit surprised/suspicious of some of the results. You have the HD7950 doing 1.85x the output of the GTX470, but I can state from personal experience that's not true. My GTX470s are each slower than a HD7770, and my system with two GTX470s does just under half what my single-HD7950 setup did.

    This is a really cool idea! :respect:
    xvi says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. Norton

    Norton WCG-TPU Team Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    8,515 (8.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19,108
    Pretty cool setup! :toast:

    FYI- the Radeon (unknown) is likely the 7850/70's iirc my 7870's show up as unknown and they should fall into that place on the chart- they both do around 70k ppd each ;)
    Crunching for Team TPU 10 Million points folded for TPU
  6. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    This started as a "I want a new video card. What should I buy?" sort of thing and just took off a little more than I expected.

    All performance numbers were pulled from a post from a self-proclaimed WCG tech on the WCG forums completing unknown work units on an unknown client with an unknown config. I'm using those numbers because I can't find anything else as complete. The only GPU I know is correct is a yet-to-be-added-to-the-chart HD 5770 which comes out to roughly the same performance as the "Radeon 5700 Series (Juniper)". Based on that, I assumed all the other results were roughly accurate. I figure they should be a decent placeholder until I get some more verifiable results.

    While I will admit to preferring AMD over nVidia, I wouldn't intentionally skew results either way. I'll happily take donations of cards for independent (and indefinite) testing though.:laugh:

    That's enough proof for me. I'll add it. :toast: Keep in mind that "XVI's Magical Performance Units" aren't currently based on points whatsoever (although they might be in the future).
    Daimus, Norton and [Ion] say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  7. [Ion]

    [Ion] WCG Team Assistant

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    11,787 (6.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,889
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    Oh, I'm certainly not accusing you of biasing the results. I'm just curious where the numbers came from and how they were calculated, that's all :toast:
    xvi says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    Like I say, just the first thing I managed to grab. I'm not sure how consistent the results will be across different work units and especially across different WCG projects, so I think I'll have to convert to a PPD-based scoring. I just haven't quite figured out an easy way to find the PPD of just the GPU.
    Norton and [Ion] say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. Norton

    Norton WCG-TPU Team Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    8,515 (8.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19,108
    I don't know about the other generations or NVidia but the Radeon 7xxx series seems to scale pretty close to linear based on # of stream processors... gpu speed, memory size, cpu type/speed have a lesser impact.

    Helpful for your project? Dunno :eek:
    xvi and Chevalr1c say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 10 Million points folded for TPU
  10. mstenholm

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,038 (1.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,147
    You input template does not take into consideration that a GPU can do 1, 2, 3...16 WU at the time. Personally I prefer number of WU in a day taken over a few days to even out weekend fluctuations in amount of PVs. The original data was compiled before the WU got double in size and people in general found out that they could run more then one at the time.

    My data:

    7970 @ 1045 MHz 1900/day (12 WU)
    7950 @ 1100 MHz 1600/day (10 WU)
    7770 @ 1100 MHz 730/day (5 WU)
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
    xvi, Chevalr1c and HammerON say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  11. james888

    james888

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,362 (3.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,502
    This is interesting. You might want to do a performance/watt graph also. Edit: Ah that is in the to do list. Maybe you should use wizz's reviews to find watts used. Maybe just use reference.


    WCG Username: <jjames888>
    CPU Model/Speed: 2500k 4.4ghz
    GPU 0 Model: 7970 (16 WU's)
    GPU 0 Time per WU: ?
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <1200/1600>
    GPU 0 Work Unit Completion Time: .2 hours (720 seconds, or 12 minutes) I do range from .16 - .22 hours elapsed time (about 10-13 minutes)
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: X0930110551170200907070826
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
    xvi says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  12. Chevalr1c

    Chevalr1c

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,185 (2.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,367
    WCG Username: Chevalr1c
    CPU Model/Speed: Core 2 Duo E8400
    GPU 0 Model: Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 (Turks XT)
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 0.04 - 0.05 hours (I assumed that the "CPU time" values have to be used here)
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 Work Unit Completion Time: 0.18 - 0.24 hours (I used "elapsed time" here)
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: I looked a a batch of 3 pages on the "Results status" page and noted minima and maxima.
    xvi says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,555 (10.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,070
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    what is AMD Radeon HD (Unknown)? Since it was third on the list for higher PPD output is what made me curious.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. ChristTheGreat

    ChristTheGreat

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    921 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    363
    so HD6950 does a better job than the GTX 680 xD
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. Norton

    Norton WCG-TPU Team Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    8,515 (8.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19,108
    At the time the original list was made it was the Radeon 7850/7870 (the older BOINC Manager couldn't pick up the specs on the card). The 7.0.40 and up revisions seem to pick up the specs my 7870 just fine now.
    xvi says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 10 Million points folded for TPU
  16. JNUKZ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    185 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Location:
    Portugal
    Looks like any HD7xxx are a beast even my 7770 is better than GTX 680.
  17. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Washington, US
    The only card I've managed to test is a HD 5770 and it seemed to match the original data somewhat closely. The (admittedly old, but statistically sound) data I've used is more of a placeholder until I can get some more recent results. Again, I think a system based on PPD would be better, but it's harder to implement with WCG than it is with Folding@Home.

    You're right about the multiple WUs thing though. Unfortunately for this comparison, yes, multiple running multiple WUs at once can get more performance out of a card, but it makes a royal mess of things when trying to compare cards. Again, working off of PPD would help even this out, but it would still create some dirty data until a good number of results came in and everything can average out. Unless I can reliably calculate the increase in performance divided by the number of WUs running at once, results running multiple WUs might have to wait. I suppose the big question is whether or not Card X benefits more from that than Card Y, in which case single WU results should be thrown out completely and multi-WU results should be used.

    I guess I'm forced to buy a new video card so I can test this out. Oh the drudgery. :laugh:

    Yep! Already in the to-do list. I'd very much prefer actual power consumption rather than what it says on the box. Wizzard does a pretty good job of calculating consumption as does Anandtech. Sadly, the power draw will be under full gaming and not actual crunching, but it should be a very good indicator regardless. All of this is in the works though.

    Dangit, you're right. "GPU 0 Time per WU" and "GPU 0 Work Unit Completion Time" are supposed to be the same thing. I was obviously asleep while writing that up.

    In my testing, "Elapsed time" was what correlated with the results I've scavenged, but "CPU time" would probably be more accurate while running multiple units. I assume by "CPU time" they mean "GPU time". If not, my scavenged results will not (easily) compare with new results.

    This still true, Norton? 1WU at 85 sec vs 3WU at 105 sec (/3 = 35 sec per WU?). That's a 243% increase. o.0
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. mstenholm

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,038 (1.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,147
    At one point I did some timing of different numbers of WUs on the same rig:

    7770 - 3 each took 6:55, 4 took 8:31 each
    7950 - 4 each took 4:34, 6 took 6:25 each and I ended up with 10 since it produced the highest points wise

    I think that you should stay with your original data set and just normalize them with 7970 being 100 % and then add that you can run multiple WU. We can input the most used number : i.e 7970 is 12 but the range is 10-16. The optimal number will differ from rig to rig so a little trial and error is required. Best of luck with whatever solution you chose.
    ChristTheGreat and xvi say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  19. AnnCore

    AnnCore Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    266 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Location:
    Neuch√Ętel, Switzerland
    So you got me curious too, and I recorded a few results...

    This is with 4 WUs: 2 CPU WUs and 2 GPU WUs (each GPU: 1CPU + 1 ATI GPU)

    Note: No screensaver.

    WCG Username: AnnCore
    CPU Model/Speed: QX9770
    GPU 0 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 8:36
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    GPU 1 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 1 Time per WU: 8:45
    GPU 1 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 1 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    And then this is with 4 WUs: 2 CPU WUs and 2 GPU WUs (each GPU: 1CPU + 1 ATI GPU)

    Note: With screensaver.

    WCG Username: AnnCore
    CPU Model/Speed: QX9770
    GPU 0 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 9:17
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    GPU 1 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 1 Time per WU: 9:22
    GPU 1 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 1 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    Last I tried only GPU WUs (1.0 CPU + 0.5 ATI GPU)

    This is with 4 WUs: 2 CPU WUs and 2 GPU WUs (each GPU: 1CPU + 1 ATI GPU)

    Note: No screensaver.

    WCG Username: AnnCore
    CPU Model/Speed: QX9770
    GPU 0 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 14:25
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    GPU 1 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 1 Time per WU: 13:57
    GPU 1 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 1 GPU Result Name: <optional>

    For all times per WU I took the average of 5 consecutive results.

    I haven't tried 4 WUs with screensaver on.

    Bottom line, 4 WUs in about 14:11 > 4 WUs in about 17:20 (2 x 2 WUs in about 8:40).

    Edit:

    4 GPU WUs with screensaver (1 CPU + 1 ATI GPU)

    4 WUs every 14:05. (the average of 20 consecutive results)

    Not sure what happens with the screensaver on with only 2 GPU WUs...

    My son's rig:

    WCG Username: AnnCore
    CPU Model/Speed: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
    GPU 0 Model: ATI Radeon HD 5850
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 8:02 (the average of 10 results)
    GPU 0 Clock Speed: <If overclocked>
    GPU 0 GPU Result Name: <optional>
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
    xvi and Bow say thanks.
  20. topry New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Thanks for doing this, I've been researching the same info. Following are my stats:

    CPU Model/Speed: i7 960/3.2
    GPU 0 Model: GTX 660 'SuperClocked' model
    GPU 0 Time per WU: 11-14 (1CPU + 1GPU)

    GPU 1 Model: GTX 550Ti
    GPU 1 Time per WU: 16-18 (1CPU + 1GPU)

    Running 2WU at .5 + .5 gives a much broader range, with an average of 30% increase for each card.

    Attempts to run 3WU with latest nVidia drivers resulted in driver crash within 15 minutes.
    xvi and Chevalr1c say thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page