Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: NVIDA 680 v 670

  1. #11
    Friend of SETI.USA Mad Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 17th, 2010
    Location
    Riding with the Red Baron
    Posts
    1,192

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Quote Originally Posted by John P. Myers View Post
    Nvidia's DP has always been faster than AMD's since the 300 series. By rule, whatever Nvidia can do SP, it can do exactly half that rate at DP which blows AMD out of the water. But like you said, Nvidia cripples it so AMD actually appears to have better DP.
    You see, actually I did not know this since before DC I never looked at SP/DP. And never needed any of those cards. So I always thought Nvidia just plain sucks here and is technologically behind. Hey Nvidia, if you are having a PR-bot, take that!

  2. #12
    Friend of SETI.USA
    Join Date
    November 15th, 2010
    Posts
    2,452

    Re: NVIDIA 680 v 670

    **

  3. #13
    Gold Member

    Join Date
    August 16th, 2012
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    1,314

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    If you see it in terms of energy efficiency (ratio 3dMark/TDP) you have:

    GTX 670 is 3.1 % better than GTX 680
    GTX 670 is 24.4 % better than GTX 690
    GTX 670 is 45.6% better than GTX 590

    For calculations I used data from Nvidia page, like TDP and 3DMark DirectX 11 results.

    670>680>690>590

    In terms of price I don't know.

    I don't own any CUDA card capable but when I am looking to buy a CPU I usually look for the most energy efficient one. This means I need to know a ratio of work/power. For me it is not important to have the fastest card or CPU but instead the one that for the same amount of work it uses less energy. Finally I look at the price.

    For example, I would buy two GTX 670 instead of one GTX 590.
    Last edited by pinhodecarlos; 09-29-12 at 07:29 PM.

  4. #14
    Past Administrator
    DrPop's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 13th, 2010
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    7,637

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Hmmm...interesting way to do it. I think you might get a more accurate result by using the GFLOPS rating for each card, instead of the 3DMark score. I would base my choice on GFLOPS / Watt. That 590 will out crunch the 670 and 680 by a huge margin, because it is a dual GPU card.

  5. #15
    Friend of SETI.USA Mad Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 17th, 2010
    Location
    Riding with the Red Baron
    Posts
    1,192

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Quote Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos View Post
    If you see it in terms of energy efficiency (ratio 3dMark/TDP) you have:

    GTX 670 is 3.1 % better than GTX 680
    GTX 670 is 24.4 % better than GTX 690
    GTX 670 is 45.6% better than GTX 590
    Surprising point of view. So far I thought SP/DP per watt would be the measure. How close is 3dMark to DC performance? AFAIK it's a benchmark not that really far away from it - besides project specifics. E.g. the 560Ti was bang-for-buck king on PG and the 570 on GPUGRID.

  6. #16
    Platinum Member
    John P. Myers's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2011
    Location
    Jackson, TN
    Posts
    4,502

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Quote Originally Posted by DrPop View Post
    Hmmm...interesting way to do it. I think you might get a more accurate result by using the GFLOPS rating for each card, instead of the 3DMark score. I would base my choice on GFLOPS / Watt. That 590 will out crunch the 670 and 680 by a huge margin, because it is a dual GPU card.
    Correct. GFLOPS/watt is what's important to crunching. DirectX benchmarks are purely for graphics capabilities and do not give an accurate representation of what they can do in the BOINC world.

    GFLOPS/W
    690 - 18.74
    680 - 15.85
    670 - 14.47
    590 - 6.82
    580 - 6.48
    570 - 6.41
    480 - 5.38
    470 - 5.06

    For us, clearly the 690 is far more efficient.

    690>680>670>590


  7. #17
    Friend of SETI.USA Mad Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 17th, 2010
    Location
    Riding with the Red Baron
    Posts
    1,192

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    JPM, thanks for the confirmation of the 'GFLOP' perspective. Yet I am wondering what difference projects may make on top of their degree of optimization, especially regarding the new 28nm GPUs. Probably there is always a compromise solution.

    No clue when projects will learn to use 28nm chips correctly, probably long time after 22nm or 18nm is out...

  8. #18
    Platinum Member
    John P. Myers's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2011
    Location
    Jackson, TN
    Posts
    4,502

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Matt View Post
    No clue when projects will learn to use 28nm chips correctly, probably long time after 22nm or 18nm is out...
    Probably, since projects still don't even use the advanced instruction sets on CPUs, such as AVX or SSSE 4.2 (or even 4.0)


  9. #19
    Friend of SETI.USA Mad Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 17th, 2010
    Location
    Riding with the Red Baron
    Posts
    1,192

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Quote Originally Posted by John P. Myers View Post
    Probably, since projects still don't even use the advanced instruction sets on CPUs, such as AVX or SSSE 4.2 (or even 4.0)
    Some folks in DC act like there was time and power to waste. Interestingly DA is the guy who has most time of them all. Then again, they need time to adapt and most projects except for WCG (yes IBM, you deserve the credits...no matter why you are doing this) are not really well supported economically. Or in other words, they just spend all or large chunks of their idle time and money - just like us.

  10. #20
    Gold Member

    Join Date
    August 16th, 2012
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    1,314

    Re: NVIDA 680 v 670

    Mad Matt,

    Despite we all are here as a hobby we need to have an environment concern, at least a tine one...lol

    John P. Myers,

    GFLOPS/watt is more accurate than my ratio but we can go even further, there's must be an even accurate way to measure the work done, maybe number of work units done per energy consumed per day. Of course these calculations must be taking in care for the project you will be concentrating on.

    Carlos

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •