The Scottish Boinc Team

Kepler, Maxwell and Pascal chips compared for the 'budget card' segment:


Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal and Turing chips compared for the 'budget card' segment:

Just a note though. If you plan to run more than one GTX 1050 / 1050 ti, you get more GFLOPs/watt and more GFLOPs/$ from a single GTX 1060 than two GTX 1050 /1050 ti. The GFLOPs/watt goes up as the GPU model goes up.

Efficiency is becoming more and more important to me. The leccy bill was getting crazy. Most of my older cards are shutdown and I try to use the others only through the night on cheap rate and all day through winter rather than use the electric heaters.

nVidia just seem to have released a GT1030 specially against the Radeon RX 550. What is so special about the Radeon RX 500 series?
Let's start with the RX 550 (original can be seen here, you might have to register with AMD Users)
Radeon RX 500 Series The RX 550 is a very capable card in view of its power needs, a mere 50 Watt. Those willing to spend a little more on purchase and power bills can choose for the even more capable RX 560
The TBP (Typical Board Power) of the RX 560 is actually 60-80 Watt, so the GFLOPS/Watt may be even better yet.
What does nVidia offer?
Geforce 10 Series *=Normal values unknown yet. For the Titan Xp I only know of the 'Turbo boost' values, at the moment.

Considering the fact that most projects only ask for Single precision, the GT 1030 offers real value. But when we take double precision performance (e.g. MilkyWay) into account, nVidia is fighting a lost battle as they have sacrificed that feature to boost the sales of their professional (Quadro/Tesla) cards. I do not know yet of the effects of the half-precision performance, but nVidia seems to have made the wrong choice there too by offering Half-precision at 1/64th of the Single precision while AMD offers it at the same GFLOPS as the single precision. There ought to be projects where AMD cards smash the nVidia cards, performance-wise.

Dirk Broer wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 3:55 pm .... There ought to be projects where AMD cards smash the nVidia cards, performance-wise.

Dirk, I really appreciate the effort you put into producing these tables and it hacks me off that they are not working properly for you. I intend installing a new version of advanced bbcode on the server which may allow you to use tables but no promises. In the mean time I have started rebuilding some of the tables. I intend to complete this once I am finished updating and enhancing the WCG forum.
In the mean time bare with me and let me know if I have missed any tables once I am finished in the Website problems forum.
Alez

If your update solves the problem, I can rebuild those tables myself too. I really like how they look under the new version, tartan and all.

Dirk Broer wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 1:09 am If your update solves the problem, I can rebuild those tables myself too. I really like how they look under the new version, tartan and all.

I've rebuilt the tables for you and left them in a more human friendly view which you can see if you edit them. Biggest difference between this board and the AMD board is that this board does not understand it uses [tr=textleft][/tr] and you only have to declare it once. Also declaring [thread ] and tbody is different but not hugely. Anyway, let me know as I mentioned before of any tables I have missed and I will rebuild them for you.

Thanks!
It's looking good and I think I can build them myself now too

Updated and expanded:

Dirk Broer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:36 pm Tesla, Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal, Turing and Ampère chips compared for the 'budget card' segment:

Model	Video Chip	CUDA version	Video Speed MHz	RAM speed MHz	RAM bandwidth GB/s	CUDA cores	SM/CU count	GFLOP SP	GFLOP DP	TDP in Watt
GTS 250	GT 92-428	1.1	702	2000	64.00	128	16	387	-	150
GTS 450	GK 106-250	2.1	783	3608	57.73	192	4	601	50	106
GTX 550 Ti	GF 116-400	2.1	900	4104	98.50	192	4	691	58	116
GTX 650	GK 107-450	3.0	1058	5000	80.00	384	2	812	34	65
GTX 650 Ti	GK 106-220	3.0	928	5400	86.40	768	4	1425	59	110
GTX 650 Ti Boost	GK 106-240	3.0	1032	6008	144.20	768	4	1505	63	134
GTX 750	GM 107-300	5.0	1085	5012	80.19	512	4	1111	35	55
GTX 750 Ti	GM 107-400	5.0	1085	5400	86.40	640	5	1305	41	60
GTX 950	GM 206-250	5.2	1188	6612	105.80	768	6	1572	49	90
GTX 1050	GP 107-300	6.1	1455	7008	112.10	640	6	1733	54	75
GTX 1050 Ti	GP 107-400	6.1	1392	7008	112.10	768	6	1981	62	75
GTX 1650 DDR5	TU 117-300	7.5	1665	8000	128.00	896	14	2984	93	75
GTX 1650 DDR6	TU116-150-KA	7.5	1590	12000	192.00	896	14	2849	89	75
GTX 1650 Super	TU116-250-KA	7.5	1725	12000	192.00	1280	20	4416	138	100
RTX 3050	GA107-300-A1	8.5	1725	14000	224.00	2304	18	7949	124	90

Those 'budget' GTX 1650 cards do between 150 and 210 Euro's though... and 1650 Ti's were nowhere to be found, I replaced them with the DDR6 variant -that also has a 90 Watt TBP sub-variant...
Also added the RTX 3050

Thanks Dirk. GFLOPs alone don't give an accurate comparison of older GPUs to newer GPUs. GFLOP to GFLOP, the newer GPUs are just faster. I guess due to faster memory and bandwidth speeds. I imagine a GTX 1650 Ti is probably faster than a GTX 780 on projects like PG and Collatz while pulling 75 watts vs 230.

I have now included Cuda version, GPU speed, RAM speed, RAM bandwidth and SM count, but my guess is that the number of CUDA cores and the SM count (and the CUDA version) is more important than the speeds or the bandwidth. For those of use -like me- who still use a GTX 650: swith to a GTX 1650 or a GTX 1650 Ti (or the GTX 1660 Ti, which is even better, credit-wise).

scole of TSBT wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:20 am Just a note though. If you plan to run more than one GTX 1050 / 1050 ti, you get more GFLOPs/watt and more GFLOPs/$ from a single GTX 1060 than two GTX 1050 /1050 ti. The GFLOPs/watt goes up as the GPU model goes up.

So, here I present the budget plus table:
Tesla, Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal, Turing and Ampère chips compared for the 'budget plus card' segment: