2016/06/16 06:45:39
Chris21010
if anyone was curious i'll be compiling a list of completed projects and its PPD on the 1070 SC.
 
EVGA GTX 1070 SC 
 
9160: 548,798
9162: 603,458
9205: 719,087
9205: 731,320
9212: 542,418
9442: 667,843
9661: 585,755
9704: 636,693
9704: 644,790
9704: 645,873
9704: 638,934
9704: 648,603
10494: 641,117
10494: 645,885
10496: 567,901
11401: 700,339
11418: 643,776
11419: 628,293
11419: 631,978
11423: 762,127
13131: 554,719
13131: 560,008
 
AVG PPD: 634,077
 
 
 
OK, first off my initial testing was off by nearly 10%, 569,252 PPD, because i found out that even though all my hardware was pcie 3.0 compliant the gpu was actually running pcie 2.0 until i forced it to run at 3.0 speeds. if you want a direct unit to unit comparison of pcie 2.0 vs pcie 3.0 look below.
 
PCIE 3.0
9704: 636,693
9704: 644,790 
9704: 645,873 
9704: 638,934 
9704: 648,603
Avg PPD: 642,978
 
PCIE 2.0
9704: 638,585
9704: 572,532
9704: 575,073
9704: 572,382
Avg PPD: 589,643
 
8.295% improvement with the 1070 going form pcie 2.0 to pcie 3.0.
 
 
 
Now for comparison purposes the EVGA GTX 1080 (i assume FE) gets ~796,132 PPD AVG, Data here.
 
With the 1070 avg being 634,077 PPD it is 26% lower than that of the 1080, link to data above. some other useful stats on the 1070 is that its PPD per Watt at 150W full load is 4,227 and its PPD per USD spent is 1,441. On the other hand the 1080 has 4,423 PPD/W and 1,244 PPD/$. with the 1080 achieving 26% higher PPD while only increasing its TDP by 17% to 180 Watts the 1080 wins in efficiency by 5%. BUT it looses in the PPD over cost department! With an increased cost of 48%, $650 vs $440, the 1070 is actually 18% higher in PPD per USD spent.
 
so in conclusion, if efficiency is your goal and cost doesn't matter then the 1080 is the go to folding card right now. but if cost is of concern the 1070's are there to help you out and not break the bank.
2016/06/16 06:54:10
olddanit
Thank you, i am curious to compare your results with my 980ti's score (I'm not sure if there's a a reason to upgrade now to a 1080 or wait for the 1080TI), sadly I don't have any 9205 in my log so I'll wait for some other results.
2016/06/16 08:16:54
nathan_P
I've only got a result for a 970 on 9205 - tpf 6:15 - 333k ppd, looking forward to seeing more results - I'm not in the market for a 1080 at those prices
2016/06/16 12:36:52
ipkha
Looks good. I've got my eye out for a 1070 FTW to add to my lone 970.
I wouldn't see much reason to upgrade a 980ti this go round. You can see a comparison on the anandtech bench results.
2016/06/16 14:43:32
Chris21010
alas, that 720K unit was a special one and well above the avg i have so far. i got unit 10475 twice so only 4 completed different units thus far. still though, ~600K PPD avg so far is quite nice. i'll keep this list updated for a couple days just so i can get a good avg set.
2016/06/16 19:53:45
drougnor
Hey, kids! Don't drink and post! You could end up posting in the entirely WRONG thread and not realize it until LONG MINUTES have passed! Don't be me!
 
*laughs*
 
Moving the original post to the right topic!
 
d
2016/06/17 06:00:55
Chris21010
ok, woke up this morning to see i got unit 9704 three times, so the number posted is its avg like with 10475.
 
also on a side note i noticed that my 1070 is only working at ~60% power and 70C but i am hitting the power/voltage limit consistently... this doesn't make any sense to me and i'll google around or post a topic about it after work. i dont see why im not getting near my power or temp thresholds of 103% and 81C respectively and still have the card throttle itself. so, these PPD's could be on the lower side if i can fix this and get the card to run like i think it should.
 
 

Attached Image(s)

2016/06/17 06:56:20
mdk7777777
interesting.
smaller circuits mean higher density and faster heat up.
 
While the clocks that can be achieved intermittently / for short duration during gaming are obviously what is hyped...what can be achieved continuously for FOLDING may be entirely different.
 
I would start the experiment by setting the fan profile manually to 87% continuous to see the affect...
But it may well be a heat transfer problem (rate limited by scale and interface) rather than heat sink capacity(max BTU).
 
been expecting to see this problem crop up for some time. It will be interesting to see if water cooling is still sufficient, or if other solutions are required.
 
 
 
 
 
2016/06/17 09:30:57
Chris21010
But Temps are well below any thermal threshold and as the chart also shows it never triggers the thermal limit on the card. Also i have a manual fan curve on the card and its currently @84% when temps are ~70C. Something else is amiss here and i'll get to the bottom of it when I can research it properly later tonight.
2016/06/17 09:40:00
mdk7777777
Yup, many other possibilities,
1. limited because designed for limited continuous Voltage load(don't want to overheat VRM, exceed the 6 pin capacity ....etc. etc. etc.)
2. inefficiency, lack of optimization of open cl on new architecture(pipeline fills and empties instead of maintaining continuous load)memory latency etc. etc.
3. simply artificially limited to avoid too closely matching 1080 performance. 
 
Might not find a solution in one night.
 
But everyone will be interested in you research.

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account