Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientifically
Moderator: Site Moderators
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules before posting.
Please read the forum rules before posting.
Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientifically
This is a question that has been on my mind for some time. I am folding on a powerful CPU as well as a powerful GPU (2x E5-2697v2 and R9 290X respectively), and within a windows environment the two folding slots pull in roughly the same amount of points. I understand that points are based on benchmark hardware, etc... and I understand that each slot processes different work units with different cores, etc.
The question is this: given equal points, is one work unit more sceintifically valuable than another? Are experiments that run on Core A4 or A5 impossible to redesign to run on Core 17? Is there some additional computational wizardry that a CPU lends to Folding@Home that it cannot do without?
Statistically, GPU horsepower seems to greatly overshadow CPU performance ( http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... e=osstats2 ), and with GPU performance-per-dollar increasing exponentially over CPUs, will we see a future where F@H only runs on graphics cards? Or will CPU calculations still be necessary to simulate molecular dynamics that are not computable any other way?
The question is this: given equal points, is one work unit more sceintifically valuable than another? Are experiments that run on Core A4 or A5 impossible to redesign to run on Core 17? Is there some additional computational wizardry that a CPU lends to Folding@Home that it cannot do without?
Statistically, GPU horsepower seems to greatly overshadow CPU performance ( http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... e=osstats2 ), and with GPU performance-per-dollar increasing exponentially over CPUs, will we see a future where F@H only runs on graphics cards? Or will CPU calculations still be necessary to simulate molecular dynamics that are not computable any other way?
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
- Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB
Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400 - Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
- Contact:
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Saying that Project A is "more scientifically valuable" than Project B depends on your perspective. If, for example, Project A deals with Lung Cancer while Project B deals with "understanding biochemical reactions within a cell", it may seem that Project A wins for someone who may have a personal experience with Lung Cancer. However, a biochemist would value Project B over Project A while a cancer researcher would value Project A over B. Right now, we may see these two projects as different but maybe, later in the future, a discovery might be made which relates Project B to Project A. Thus, IMO, all Projects are equally scientifically valuable since they attempt to increase our understanding. Do remember that in experimentation, a negative result can be just as important as a positive result. Having said that, for the donors, there is a planned feature where the donor may choose to contribute more towards a single disease (it may consist of different Projects which relates to that disease). This has been implemented in the F@H Clients but not yet on the F@H Servers (no time frame given as to when it will be implemented).
Regarding the CPU VS GPU, FahCore_17 now allows explicit modelling (treat water atoms are individuals) on GPUs. This was previously reserved only for CPUs since GPUs could only run implicit modelling (treat water as a continuous medium) with the older FahCores (FahCore_11, FahCore_15 and FahCore_16). If you look at it from the ns/day scale, GPUs are significantly faster than the CPUs with the current generation of hardware.
I highly doubt that F@H will ever drop CPU support since an average computer will always have a CPU while a GPU can be optional. Do note that F@H is primarily aimed towards home users running average systems. However, F@H enthusiasts may choose to contribute using the best metrics, be it PPD/watts, PPD/price, etc. It is optional and is prone to changes in the hardware released by AMD, Intel and Nvidia.
Regarding the CPU VS GPU, FahCore_17 now allows explicit modelling (treat water atoms are individuals) on GPUs. This was previously reserved only for CPUs since GPUs could only run implicit modelling (treat water as a continuous medium) with the older FahCores (FahCore_11, FahCore_15 and FahCore_16). If you look at it from the ns/day scale, GPUs are significantly faster than the CPUs with the current generation of hardware.
I highly doubt that F@H will ever drop CPU support since an average computer will always have a CPU while a GPU can be optional. Do note that F@H is primarily aimed towards home users running average systems. However, F@H enthusiasts may choose to contribute using the best metrics, be it PPD/watts, PPD/price, etc. It is optional and is prone to changes in the hardware released by AMD, Intel and Nvidia.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Short answer: No.
Points are tied to scientific value, so equal points means equal scientific value. That is the whole basis of the points system, equal pay for equal work. Personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
Points are tied to scientific value, so equal points means equal scientific value. That is the whole basis of the points system, equal pay for equal work. Personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Thanks very much for the thoughful response PantherX! I complete agree that the sceintific value of individual simulations are equal (or at least impossible to compare), but the question was more specific to the platform the simulations are running on.
If I understand you correctly, a CPU has no advantage over a GPU for running a simulation? Comparing Core A5 to Core 17, is there any advantage to designing a project to run on A5? Better accuracy, more options for variables, etc... is a CPU capable of generating results that a GPU is not able to create?
If I understand you correctly, a CPU has no advantage over a GPU for running a simulation? Comparing Core A5 to Core 17, is there any advantage to designing a project to run on A5? Better accuracy, more options for variables, etc... is a CPU capable of generating results that a GPU is not able to create?
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 2850
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:44 am
- Hardware configuration: OS: Windows 10, Kubuntu 19.04
CPU: i7-6700k
GPU: GTX 970, GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 24 GB DDR4 - Location: Western Washington
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
It's easier to design and run code that works on a CPU rather than GPUs. GPUs are really tricky things. So in that respect, the researcher may end up spending less time resolving issues with CPU work rather than GPU work. This is becoming less of an issue now that core 17 is now fairly stable and runs on many platforms and architectures. Results wise, I don't think a CPU has any significant advantages.
F@h is now the top computing platform on the planet and nothing unites people like a dedicated fight against a common enemy. This virus affects all of us. Lets end it together.
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Thanks for clearing it up 7im and Jesse_V!
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:43 pm
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
As a general rule the gpus that people have are computationally more powerful than the cpus that people have. Since faster is better and the gpu software now is just as capable as the cpu software has always been, gpus are preferred. That's a general statement, though and it may not apply to your cpu and your gpu.
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
You can spend $5k and get a single bigadv box that makes 800 k PPD, or you can spend the same on a quad Titan box and get the same PPD.
Performance is a function of price.
Performance is a function of price.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
This is a universal truth.It should be made into a scientific law on the same importance as Newton or Einstein. Imho. Driver: "how fast can we go?". Engineer/mechanic "How much money do you have?". Replace driver and engineer with whoever is appropo/relevent to you needs and it's always true.7im said:Performance is a function of price.
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Yes, but not always. Technological advances tend to break this "law". When JIT hits NV drivers for FAH, the GPU folding speed doubles, at no additional cost. Then again, if folding on AVX comes to FAH, then CPUs double in speed at no additional cost.
So again, depending on the swing of the performance pendulum, the answer to this thread will change from one day to the next. Today, CPU and GPU are about even. Tomorrow may be a different answer.
So again, depending on the swing of the performance pendulum, the answer to this thread will change from one day to the next. Today, CPU and GPU are about even. Tomorrow may be a different answer.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Has this really been stated by the PG? Just looking at the Client Statistic page, it would seem GPUs are so many times faster than CPUs, yet the PPD differences don't seem to scale. If my GTX 760 can get 2x the PPD as my 3770k, does that mean my 760 is only 2x as fast?I thought the difference was greater than that. Even for a GPU that isn't top of the line. If they are both doing the same type of work (both explicit, with no drawbacks to the GPU), wouldn't PPD be roughly tied to FLOP count (assuming a 24/7 folder, so QRB should be similar).7im wrote:Short answer: No.
Points are tied to scientific value, so equal points means equal scientific value. That is the whole basis of the points system, equal pay for equal work. Personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
Folding@home: 24/7
- RTX 4070 Ti
- RTX 4070 Ti
-
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
- Hardware configuration: Machine #1:
Intel Q9450; 2x2GB=8GB Ram; Gigabyte GA-X48-DS4 Motherboard; PC Power and Cooling Q750 PS; 2x GTX 460; Windows Server 2008 X64 (SP1).
Machine #2:
Intel Q6600; 2x2GB=4GB Ram; Gigabyte GA-X48-DS4 Motherboard; PC Power and Cooling Q750 PS; 2x GTX 460 video card; Windows 7 X64.
Machine 3:
Dell Dimension 8400, 3.2GHz P4 4x512GB Ram, Video card GTX 460, Windows 7 X32
I am currently folding just on the 5x GTX 460's for aprox. 70K PPD - Location: Salem. OR USA
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
yes, PG has stated that scientific value is their goal when assigning points i.e. PPD. Theoretically, more PPD means more scientific value.
As a second point, with Core_17, GPU PPD values are assigned by running the same WU on the SMP benchmark machine. So theoretically there shouldn't be a disconnect between the CPU and GPU clients. Older cores such as the 11, 15, 16 were benchmarked against a GTX 460 so it was possible to have that disconnect.
As a second point, with Core_17, GPU PPD values are assigned by running the same WU on the SMP benchmark machine. So theoretically there shouldn't be a disconnect between the CPU and GPU clients. Older cores such as the 11, 15, 16 were benchmarked against a GTX 460 so it was possible to have that disconnect.
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Yes, stated by Pande Group many times. Simply search the blog or forum posts by Dr. Pande.PlayLoud wrote:Has this really been stated by the PG? Just looking at the Client Statistic page, it would seem GPUs are so many times faster than CPUs, yet the PPD differences don't seem to scale. If my GTX 760 can get 2x the PPD as my 3770k, does that mean my 760 is only 2x as fast?I thought the difference was greater than that. Even for a GPU that isn't top of the line. If they are both doing the same type of work (both explicit, with no drawbacks to the GPU), wouldn't PPD be roughly tied to FLOP count (assuming a 24/7 folder, so QRB should be similar).7im wrote:Short answer: No.
Points are tied to scientific value, so equal points means equal scientific value. That is the whole basis of the points system, equal pay for equal work. Personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
You are making some bad assumptions about points. Vs performance, so please start with some basics, like the points FAQ.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
Thanks for the info! I really haven't been following for a while. When I last frequented these forums, GPUs could only do implicit, so I knew my CPU folding had a special value.P5-133XL wrote:yes, PG has stated that scientific value is their goal when assigning points i.e. PPD. Theoretically, more PPD means more scientific value.
As a second point, with Core_17, GPU PPD values are assigned by running the same WU on the SMP benchmark machine. So theoretically there shouldn't be a disconnect between the CPU and GPU clients. Older cores such as the 11, 15, 16 were benchmarked against a GTX 460 so it was possible to have that disconnect.
What you said about the Core_17 benchmarking makes sense. If they are benching the same WU, it is very easy to base it on scientific value.
Sorry that I came across so newbish. I have been away for a while. Searching on this forum for PPD and GPU vs CPU issues is very tough, since there are so many topics, and usually there are too many results to even display. It's hard to find exactly what you are looking for.7im wrote:
Yes, stated by Pande Group many times. Simply search the blog or forum posts by Dr. Pande.
You are making some bad assumptions about points. Vs performance, so please start with some basics, like the points FAQ.
P5-133XL's answer was perfect. I have a better understanding now.
Folding@home: 24/7
- RTX 4070 Ti
- RTX 4070 Ti
-
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am
- Hardware configuration: 3 - Supermicro H8QGi-F AMD MC 6174=144 cores 2.5Ghz, 96GB G.Skill DDR3 1333Mhz Ubuntu 10.10
2 - Asus P6X58D-E i7 980X 4.4Ghz 6GB DDR3 2000 A-Data 64GB SSD Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus Rampage Gene III 17 970 4.3Ghz DDR3 2000 2-500GB Segate 7200.11 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus G73JH Laptop i7 740QM 1.86Ghz ATI 5870M
Re: Is GPU folding more valuable than CPU folding scientific
More like tripple, the projects I run that use AVX generrally run about 3 time as fast as when AVX is not used on the same project.7im wrote:Yes, but not always. Technological advances tend to break this "law". When JIT hits NV drivers for FAH, the GPU folding speed doubles, at no additional cost. Then again, if folding on AVX comes to FAH, then CPUs double in speed at no additional cost.
So again, depending on the swing of the performance pendulum, the answer to this thread will change from one day to the next. Today, CPU and GPU are about even. Tomorrow may be a different answer.
2 - SM H8QGi-F AMD 6xxx=112 cores @ 3.2 & 3.9Ghz
5 - SM X9QRI-f+ Intel 4650 = 320 cores @ 3.15Ghz
2 - I7 980X 4.4Ghz 2-GTX680
1 - 2700k 4.4Ghz GTX680
Total = 464 cores folding