Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 05:56:15 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: GeForce GTX 680 are now available! Please post hashing results here.  (Read 17708 times)
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:20:33 AM
 #41

Mining doesnt use FP -_- Also not sure why you quoted the part on GF114. The GTX480 and Quadro/Tesla are GF100, not GF114.
Only the first sentence really talks about GF114, and it's just there to give context as to the difference in approach between GF114 and GK104.

As for mining, that's true. However, Telsa cards are not sold for mining. Most scientific computing uses FP, so when discussing whether the new 7B transistor Telsa card is 2x3.5B GK104 or GK110, floating point performance is a huge factor.
1480787775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787775
Reply with quote  #2

1480787775
Report to moderator
1480787775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787775
Reply with quote  #2

1480787775
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480787775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787775
Reply with quote  #2

1480787775
Report to moderator
1480787775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787775
Reply with quote  #2

1480787775
Report to moderator
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
 #42

Edit: Anyways if it is right that 1 of the 3 blocks cannot do anything but FP mathematics, that means that there are still 1024 cores which can. Coupled with the halved speed, it should still match the GTX580. I wonder why the performance is so poor then.

I dont buy the new architecture = no tuned miner theory. It should be relatively easy to write a compiler for a MIMD architecture like the GTX680 and get 99% utilization with data parallel tasks, like hashing.

It's not 1/3 blocks. There's 192 normal CUDA cores in an SMX and only 8 FP64 cores. That's why performance is so poor.
AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:33:36 AM
 #43

Edit: Anyways if it is right that 1 of the 3 blocks cannot do anything but FP mathematics, that means that there are still 1024 cores which can. Coupled with the halved speed, it should still match the GTX580. I wonder why the performance is so poor then.

I dont buy the new architecture = no tuned miner theory. It should be relatively easy to write a compiler for a MIMD architecture like the GTX680 and get 99% utilization with data parallel tasks, like hashing.

It's not 1/3 blocks. There's 192 normal CUDA cores in an SMX and only 8 FP64 cores. That's why performance is so poor.

Ahh, I misread and equated "blocks" with "SMs". Apologies.

But as far as I know, mining is integer performance, which should go with the normal CUDA cores right? Why is the performance so poor then?

As for FP performance, most scientific applications should use FP32 to save memory/time (although with the amount of lazy programmers I deal with everyday, that may not be the case....)

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:39:14 AM
 #44

Edit: Anyways if it is right that 1 of the 3 blocks cannot do anything but FP mathematics, that means that there are still 1024 cores which can. Coupled with the halved speed, it should still match the GTX580. I wonder why the performance is so poor then.

I dont buy the new architecture = no tuned miner theory. It should be relatively easy to write a compiler for a MIMD architecture like the GTX680 and get 99% utilization with data parallel tasks, like hashing.

It's not 1/3 blocks. There's 192 normal CUDA cores in an SMX and only 8 FP64 cores. That's why performance is so poor.

Ahh, I misread and equated "blocks" with "SMs". Apologies.

But as far as I know, mining is integer performance, which should go with the normal CUDA cores right? Why is the performance so poor then?

As for FP performance, most scientific applications should use FP32 to save memory/time (although with the amount of lazy programmers I deal with everyday, that may not be the case....)

Many scientific simulations require the precision of FP64, so FP32 isn't really an option. That's why you pay thousands for Telsa instead of just buying a GTX580.

As for AMD vs NVIDIA mining performance, there are other factors there. AMD supports a couple instructions that significantly improve hashing performance. You can't directly compare shaders*clocks between the two.
AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:50:40 AM
 #45

Quote
Many scientific simulations require the precision of FP64, so FP32 isn't really an option. That's why you pay thousands for Telsa instead of just buying a GTX580.

Except 6970 FP64 performance is even higher than Tesla.

People don't buy Tesla for its FP64 performance. They buy it because it is a dynamically-scheduled architecture (which tends to extract a ton of thread-level parallelism), with ECC support (important if you are into HPC), and TCC mode.

Quote
As for AMD vs NVIDIA mining performance, there are other factors there. AMD supports a couple instructions that significantly improve hashing performance. You can't directly compare shaders*clocks between the two.

I'm talking about Fermi vs Kepler

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 04:59:23 AM
 #46

Quote
Many scientific simulations require the precision of FP64, so FP32 isn't really an option. That's why you pay thousands for Telsa instead of just buying a GTX580.

Except 6970 FP64 performance is even higher than Tesla.

People don't buy Tesla for its FP64 performance. They buy it because it is a dynamically-scheduled architecture (which tends to extract a ton of thread-level parallelism), with ECC support (important if you are into HPC), and TCC mode.
That, and the better support NVIDIA offers to HPC developers. Interestingly, the hardware scheduler is gone in GK104.

Quote
As for AMD vs NVIDIA mining performance, there are other factors there. AMD supports a couple instructions that significantly improve hashing performance. You can't directly compare shaders*clocks between the two.

I'm talking about Fermi vs Kepler
For that, I have no idea. I would imagine it's a lack of optimizations for the new arch, but I don't know much about the CUDA miners.
AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 05:07:19 AM
 #47

Does anyone have a GTX680 here? I would be interested in the results of CUDA-Z.

http://cuda-z.sourceforge.net/

If the integer performance there is good, it's probably an optimization issue. If it is bad, then more than likely the hardware is just not as good as Fermi in some way.

Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
April 21, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
 #48

Quote
Many scientific simulations require the precision of FP64, so FP32 isn't really an option. That's why you pay thousands for Telsa instead of just buying a GTX580.

Except 6970 FP64 performance is even higher than Tesla.

People don't buy Tesla for its FP64 performance. They buy it because it is a dynamically-scheduled architecture (which tends to extract a ton of thread-level parallelism), with ECC support (important if you are into HPC), and TCC mode.

Quote
As for AMD vs NVIDIA mining performance, there are other factors there. AMD supports a couple instructions that significantly improve hashing performance. You can't directly compare shaders*clocks between the two.

I'm talking about Fermi vs Kepler
7900 serie has ECC support
mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2012, 05:28:55 AM
 #49

and updates on 680 hashrates?

bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 16, 2012, 08:18:22 PM
 #50

and updates on 680 hashrates?

Nope it looks like Nfail again.

Too bad because I would have loved to get rid of this shitty ATI mining monopoly game.

Angry
mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2012, 09:21:01 PM
 #51

the thing that got me excited was the quad-GPU VGX

edit: the VGX has only 786 cuda cores total across all 4 GPUs?  SAD!  no longer excited.



and the endless racks FULL of GPUs



and since they offer enterprise cloud computing, wondering if we could get all those GPUs hashing?  EXCEPT the fact that nVidia sucks balls at mining.

AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
May 16, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
 #52

edit: the VGX has only 786 cuda cores total across all 4 GPUs?  SAD!  no longer excited.

It seems more reasonable to me that it would be 768 core per each of the GPU.

mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2012, 12:24:32 AM
 #53

edit: the VGX has only 786 cuda cores total across all 4 GPUs?  SAD!  no longer excited.

It seems more reasonable to me that it would be 768 core per each of the GPU.

Yeah but it says

GPU Specifications
Number of GPUs    4
Total NVIDIA CUDA® Cores    768
Shader Perf (TFLOPS)    1.3
Power (W)    150

So.. Total CUDA cores = 768?  What a rip!

ataranlen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 843


The One and Only


View Profile WWW
May 23, 2012, 04:09:59 AM
 #54

I'm getting set up for doing some test mining on my dual 680's now.

Does anyone have a GTX680 here? I would be interested in the results of CUDA-Z.

http://cuda-z.sourceforge.net/

If the integer performance there is good, it's probably an optimization issue. If it is bad, then more than likely the hardware is just not as good as Fermi in some way.

Tested, Here are the results:
Gives more stable performance on the second card in my SLI Setup.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20040127/CUDA-Z.txt

I'll be interested to see performance with Cuda 5

MineTexas.com Minecraft Server We accept Bitcoin and Dogecoin.
Deepbit on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Deepbit/151108048294815
AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
May 25, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
 #55

Yup, it's the integer performance that is killing the hashing results, GTX580 is capable of almost 1000000 Miops and it does ~180 MH/s.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=192076

bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 25, 2012, 03:51:41 PM
 #56

How do you guys thing the k10/k20 tesla's will do. K10 is dual 680's and K20 is big kepler.

Fail again most likely. Nvidia are a bunch of retards for letting AMD and their shitty drivers be the only mining GPUs.
AzN1337c0d3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
May 28, 2012, 04:15:54 AM
 #57

There's a table of operations per clock cycle per SMX

Given that K20 has 15 SMX and K10 has 16 SMX and GTX680 has 8 SMX and we all know how fast GTX680 is at mining.... it doesn't look hopeful.

mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2012, 09:50:24 PM
 #58

How do you guys thing the k10/k20 tesla's will do. K10 is dual 680's and K20 is big kepler.

Fail again most likely. Nvidia are a bunch of retards for letting AMD and their shitty drivers be the only mining GPUs.
I think the mining community is too small for nVidia to focus on.  Thankfully!  If the whole world was mining the difficulty would be pretty darn hard.

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!