Advice for an efficient folding GPU... or no GPU folding

[jwyount]

With very useful input from FoldingForum I'm about to build a new 24/7 multipurpose Windows 7 PC around an i7-3770k and a Sabertooth z77 with modest overclocking, air-cooled with a Noctura NH-C14 (in my basement, one mile south of Canada). My only remaining question is what, if any, GPU to buy. The answer will depend in large part on PPD/watt.

I'd describe my minimum graphics need as "moderate gaming".
* I play FPS and similar games. Skyrim and Left4Dead 2 are good examples. I might get into Secret World.
* My 2009 ATI Sapphire Radeon HD4870 1GB DDR5 Dual DVI is currently satisfactory at 1920x1080 resolution on a 27" monitor.
* I have no interest in driving multiple monitors.
* I have even less interest in 3d gaming. I strongly prefer 2d movies to 3d in theaters.

My old parts, however, are going into an old case to be used as a gaming computer for guests.

I'm going to give the integrated HD 4000 a try first, but I'm pretty sure I'll end up buying a GPU.

So...
I'd consider anything from Nvidia's equivalent to the Radeon HD4870 (which is essentially useless for folding) to the latest Nvidia GTX 690 (very efficient folding beast).

How much to spend and what to get? I haven't a clue.

I am aware that many folders strongly encourage GPU folding for it's benefit to FAH and that many feel that GPUs are undervalued in the formula for PPD. I don't know whether PPD shows the true value of GPU folding or not, but I can say that I'm more interested in the actual scientific value than the PPD per se. I feel that FAH should either adjust the formula or present a clear argument for why the current formula is sound.

If I do go for a premium GPU that's well above my gaming needs I want to have at least some sense of how long it's likely to useful to FAH. Otherwise I should ignore folding and worry only about gaming.

Tom's Hardware's recent Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart seems to place my Radeon HD4870 in about the 8th tier out of nearly 30 performance levels yet folders tell me my HD4870 is nearly obsolete for folding.

I'm also interested in PPD/watt, not just raw PPD.

Nvidia claims the cutting-edge GTX 680 and GTX 690 are extremely power efficient. But at $1,000 for a GPU they'd better be absolutely amazing, since I estimate that $100-$200 would satisfy my gaming needs.

Perhaps the best answer lies in-between, with the GTX 590 3GB (~$660) or the GeForce GTX 560 ti 1GB ($225).

I tried to research the best choices through Google. I'm better informed, but still far from a satisfactory answer.

I very much welcome your suggestions.

[bruce]

The HD 4xxx series GPUs are just about to the point of no longer being useful for FAH. All of the new projects are either for NV or for ATI 5xxx or above. See a long topic on the HD4xxx and earlier GPUs..

One reasonable option would be to keep the current GPU but fold only on the CPU with smp. Another would be to upgrade your GPU and fold on both the GPU and the CPU. Part of the answer depends on PPD/Watt, as you've already mentioned. Another part is whether your games will benefit from a GPU upgrade. I can't give you and direct answers about those two choices.

One other consideration if you're going to upgrade the GPU: The FahCore and drivers for an ATI GPU need the support of one of your CPUs. Folding on Fermi GPUs tend to need significantly less support from your CPUs so productivity of SMP would be better.

[jwyount]

Thanks, bruce, for a fast reply.

The new machine will have either no GPU (unlikely) or whatever new GPU Nvidia I decide to get after this thread has run its course.

I will not be using my ATI Radeon HD4870 or any other ATI GPU in the new computer (see above).

[jwyount]

BTW, I'm also open to dual GPUs with an SLI connection but I strongly suspect that's not the best choice for me, with the following logic:

Given that I'm concerned with PPD/watt I suspect I'm better off going with a top-end GTX 690 over the equivalent computational power from a dual SLI configuration: same PPD but fewer watts with a GTX 690. That, and I'm not willing to shell out over $2,000 for a pair of GTX 690s.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

[P5-133XL]

Going high-end with video cards is not PPD/Watt efficient. You do get higher points, but the wattage goes up more than the points. For efficiency in PPD/Watt, what you need is something like GTX 460's (and not the Ti or SE versions). What you want is a card with lots of shaders but nothing much else so don't pay attention to the fancy RAM or super-high clock rates that boost performance but boost power usage even more. That means you don't have to spend $2K on video cards! That being said, buy a card with as long of a warranty as you can. I know that it isn't politically correct here but preferably lifetime because GPU folding wears out video cards. Typically the fans go but especially if you OC you can just get a generalized death. So buy your card(s) from a major brand that has good support for their cards.

Avoid Kepler till the drivers have settled down and folding works well. At the moment, there are significant folding issues with those cards. Fermi is fine.

In a way, there is a folding lifespan to GPU cards. Since the best PPD/Watt cards are invariably lower-mid range cards they work well to start as WU's are small but as time progresses WU's get bigger and these efficient cards start getting lower PPD's as the WU's desire more simultaneous shaders. You'll find that there are good WU's (older ones) and bad WU (newer ones).

SLI is totally unimportant to Folding. SLI helps for gaming, but folding uses multiple cards independently regardless.

You can fold with multiple video cards, but you do need to keep two things in mind: Power and heat. First power, you need a PS that not only has enough power but also one that either has only a single rail or the rails can supply enough power for all your cards simultaneously. A cheap PS is not something you are going to want. It is very frustrating to diagnose a PS supply problem because what you will get are video cards that generate lots of errors and you are not going to want to admit that it is the PS as opposed to virtually anything else that could be causing the problem. Secondly, you need a case that can efficiently get rid of heat because two relatively high performance video cards generate a lot of it. The second card will invariably run much hotter than the first. Don't assume that because the cards are double wide and have slots to exhaust air that most of the heat is leaving out the back.

Having multiple continuously folding video cards does not make for a quiet computer. If that is anywhere near one of your goals then it will be a failure. Unless you like the sound, and can sleep with the constant drone don't put the computer in your bedroom...

[HaloJones]

A 560Ti will deliver excellent PPD for a low outlay but be careful of the specifications, there appears to be multiple spec for what appears to be the same card. Get the ones with 448 cores.

[iceman1992]

Refer to this article for the most efficient GPU. Kepler is not included in the article.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi ... -folding/4

[jwyount]

Buy a card with as long of a warranty as you can. I know that it isn't politically correct here but preferably lifetime because GPU folding wears out video cards.

I entirely agree that a long warranty is very desirable... I gather you're pretty sure that folding and modest overclocking do not void the warranty?

Avoid Kepler till the drivers have settled down and folding works well. At the moment, there are significant folding issues with those cards. Fermi is fine.

Got links on the Kepler issues and a guess as to how long before they "settle down"?

Kepler began with the GTX 600 series, is my understanding, so I won't research the driver issue unless I'm otherwise leaning towards the GTX.

In a way, there is a folding lifespan to GPU cards.

I was aware of that and said that an estimate of how long a GPU is likely to be viable for folding will influence my selection if I'm getting it for folding. If a candidate gonna be obsolete soon for efficient folding then I'll either ignore folding in the purchase decision or get a GPU with a longer folding lifespan.

You can fold with multiple video cards, but you do need to keep two things in mind: Power and heat. ... A cheap PS is not something you are going to want. ... Secondly, you need a case that can efficiently get rid of heat because two relatively high performance video cards generate a lot of it.

I've long been committed to quality power supplies. My current Cooler Master UCP Series 900W ATX12V (admittedly silver, not gold) should be sufficient for my new power needs, but if not I'll replace it with a gold supply (given I'm switching to 24/7 operation and overclocking).

Heat:
* It'll be in my basement (10m HDMI and USB 3.0 cables), which rarely gets above 60 degrees Fahrenheight.
* My Thermaltake Xaser III is decent for airflow.
* I'll probably leave the side panel off, just as I did when the computer was in my office.
* My Noctura NH-C14 cooler is excellent.
* I'm very unlikely to get more than one GPU.

Having multiple continuously folding video cards does not make for a quiet computer. If that is anywhere near one of your goals then it will be a failure. Unless you like the sound, and can sleep with the constant drone don't put the computer in your bedroom...

The computer will be completely silent for all practical purposes since it's in the unfinished basement.

[jwyount]

Thanks all of you for useful replies!

iceman1992's bit-tech article makes me think of going high-end.

If NVidia is right that their 680 and 690 are super power efficient, then surely they would dominate that PPD/watt chart.

HaloJone's recommendation of a 560Ti has appeal for the combination of PPD/watt (which I'm most interested) and PPD/purchase-price (which should certainly be considered).

P5-133XL, your advice that "Going high-end with video cards is not PPD/Watt efficient" is not consistent with the bit-tech article.... unless you're comparing GPUs with CPUs (instead of GPUs with other GPUs), but even then a high-end Nvidia GPU will be better for PPD/watt than a low-end one. Can you either concede the point or support it?

I haven't been able to find a good PPD/watt estimate for the i7-3770k processor. Data there would be welcome. If GPUs are far enough behind CPUs in PPD/watt efficiency I may decide to ignore GPU folding.

One folder's estimate from my last thread is that "Ivy should get around ~22-28k depending on WU". Presumably the i7-3770k would be the top-performing Ivy chip (that's why I picked it) but I'll just use that range. If it's pulling 113-153 watts (from a quick Google) that'd be 143-247 PPD/watt as a very rough estimate. With efficient GPU's in the bit-tech article pulling 37-61 PPD/watt, that suggests Ivy Bridge folding is 2.3-6.8 times as efficient as any of the NVidia GPUs I'd consider.

Again, that leaves out the GTX 680 and 690. If they're twice as efficient as a GTX 590 3gb then their PPD/watt efficiency could be pretty close to Ivy Bridge. At that point maybe I'd want a GTX 690!

On the other hand, with this mediocre data it's quite possible that the 3770k is 5x as efficient as the GTX 680 and 690 and that those GPUs are the most efficient available for a Windows machine, in which case I'd go with a lower-end GPU instead and maybe skip GPU folding.

But these are very rough estimates, which is why I started this thread.

[P5-133XL]

I've never seen that bit-tech article. I like it. It is very useful. I gave you info from my experience and from that I'd say I was wrong.

One thing that they are not doing, is incorporate the efficiency and the original price in their PPD/Watt. I think that would be useful. Calculate the total electricity cost over 2 years assuming a 24x7 folding activity using your local base cost per Watt-Hr. Then add the cost of the video card. Then you can calc. the total PPD over the two years to get a PPD/$. That will give you a much better comparison than either PPD/Watt or PPD/Card cost because it incorporates both. I think 2Y is a reasonable amount of time to depreciate the card cost.

There is no doubt that for a high-end CPU that OC'ed SMP folding is significantly more efficient in PPD/Watt than GPU folding. That is especially true when you get into multiple socket CPU's where you can get 200,000-300,000 PPD. Here are two power-usage references for the i7 3770 (entire system power rather than just the chip): Legitreviews and Anandtech. I don't have any good references as to the PPD that it gets at factory or OC'ed but my assumption is that it would be north of 25K PPD.

If you are really interested in a dedicated high end folding and are willing to spend some money (but want electricity efficiency) look into folding on a G34 socket with four CPU's rather than you current track. There are several threads here about that and you can get some very impressive PPD's for a very modest electricity budget. If you can't afford it all now, get a base quad system and buy two CPU's and later you can add more. Do note that PPD goes up geometrically rather than linearly with CPU capability on bigadv's so more CPU capability gives much more PPD. You will need to use Linux rather than Windows because of memory constraints.

[heikosch]

Again, that leaves out the GTX 680 and 690. If they're twice as efficient as a GTX 590 3gb then their PPD/watt efficiency could be pretty close to Ivy Bridge. At that point maybe I'd want a GTX 690!

Actually there´s no good F@H support for Kepler GPUs (GTX6xx), so I get only 13k-14k PPD - comparable with my old GTX460.

Heiko

[7im]

No optimized support, YET.

I've seen several other reports that 680s fold like 580s, so maybe heikosch got a dud.

[heikosch]

No optimized support, YET.

You always give us hope!

I've seen several other reports that 680s fold like 580s, so maybe heikosch got a dud.

I read about people who claim that their GTX680 performs like a GTX580 but all PPD numbers that were published show only small numbers.

Examples:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha ... y-15k.html
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1572933&mpage=1
http://www.awardfabrik.de/forum/showthread.php?p=455856 (german)
...

Maybe someone knows the trick!

Heiko

[jwyount]

I've never seen that bit-tech article. I like it. It is very useful. I gave you info from my experience and from that I'd say I was wrong.

/salute

Here are two power-usage references for the i7 3770 (entire system power rather than just the chip): Legitreviews and Anandtech. I don't have any good references as to the PPD that it gets at factory or OC'ed but my assumption is that it would be north of 25K PPD.

Thanks, I'll dig through those shortly.

If you are really interested in a dedicated high end folding and are willing to spend some money (but want electricity efficiency) look into folding on a G34 socket with four CPU's rather than you current track. There are several threads here about that and you can get some very impressive PPD's for a very modest electricity budget. If you can't afford it all now, get a base quad system and buy two CPU's and later you can add more. Do note that PPD goes up geometrically rather than linearly with CPU capability on bigadv's so more CPU capability gives much more PPD. You will need to use Linux rather than Windows because of memory constraints.

Thanks, but no: this will be a multipurpose rig.

I'll be running it 24/7 only because I want it on to receive CrashPlan backups from about a dozen other computers.

Since it's running 24/7 anyway and CrashPlan use very few system resources I want to use FAH to put those watts to better use.

I'll game and use it for other things as well, but other than a GPU that changes little.

[{RaW}Eagle1]

I'm guessing you're factoring in initial outlay in addition to PPD / watt? Kepler isn't the right way to go at the moment. . . I saw a benchmark on these forums for it somewhere, but can't find it . . . Performance similar to a GTX580 (as previously mentioned) in addition to a cost not dissimilar to that of a second hand car.

In order to run games at 1920x1080 with a reasonable amount of anti-aliasing your going to need a GTX560Ti or above. . . the 460s just don't cut it on directX 11 and the 480s generate a lot of heat. My best advice would be to go with a GTX560Ti and add another if it doesn't make the grade for the next Black Ops or Crysis (which is highly unlikely). To be honest: The speed at which the technology is driven by the need for ever increasing graphical performance has slowed due to the consoles being stuck on DX10 graphics capability and most games being ported to the PC from the console. eg. Black Ops, Need for Speed Shift 2, Crysis 2. (Black Ops invited the player to "adjust the brightness on your TV set" in the options menu on the initial PC release and Crysis 2 wasn't a DX11 release [they released a graphics pack download several months after the initial release.])

If you do opt for the GTX560Ti on the basis of potentially adding another later you will want to make sure your mainboard is dual PCIe2 at 16x/16x not split 8x/8x and make sure your power supply has enough PCI outputs.

Hope it helps.

Eagle

PS. If you're interested in gaming performance benchmarks try anandtech and tomshardware.