Decisions, Decisions... Nvidia or ATI...? - Page 4 - Tech Support Forums

RamonGTP · July 12th, 2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXreaction

256MB of memory only really looses to 512MB of memory when you have very high resolution and a lot of AA. I am talking about 4-8x AA and 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. Otherwise the difference is 5-10%.

I was not able to find 256MB 8800 GT SLI benchmarks, but I could find 512MB 8800 GT SLI benchmarks and it showed between 40-70% performance increase in games that supported it at high resolution (in cases where the cpu was not limiting it).

Well why would you buy TWO cards if you're running at low resolutions? SLI has little to no perforamnce gain at low resolutions, and at high res you need the memory. So really, the most useless choice would have been 2 256MB cards, by a long shot.

1680x1050 is not exactly uncommon. Neither is the use of AA

KarmaKiller · July 12th, 2008, 11:52 PM

I totally agree. And I still don't see why he would go from a 8800GTS 320Mb card to 2x GS's. Might as well just get another GTS IMO. It would probably perform better.

Anywho, he's got his card coming.. Congrats Shy!

(Shameless plug: You know, you can fold on that new GPU of yours.)

ShyguyXPC · July 13th, 2008, 12:06 AM

yep, actually have to find out if our team over at XPC is even really active at all, had a couple members interested in the GPU client, but at least one of them it sounded like it didn't go over well for them...

if our team isn't really going to be active on that one, may crunch for TIMO for F@H for a while then... already crunching for Dnet's OGR project for XPC, & on & off again for World Community Grid & Rosetta@Home... will be back up with those two once the quad is in though. with the programs I have running on this machine, plus Dnet, plus running Boinc for R@H & WCG, it takes a toll on the systems responsiveness & what not, even with the E6400 & 3GB RAM (part of the problem with the latter 2 is that I never have enough available drive space for them to do their work on)

also if the newer GPU client for F@H supports it (read somewhere that the newer client only runs with the HD3xxx/4xxx series now... but not sure if that was right?), if the newer client supports it, I can even run the HD2600 Pro for a few extra points/jobs etc on the other rig (see if I can run the CPU & GPU client together on that one? AMD X2 BE 2400+/ATI HD 2600 Pro 512MB)

EXreaction · July 13th, 2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaKiller

I totally agree. And I still don't see why he would go from a 8800GTS 320Mb card to 2x GS's. Might as well just get another GTS IMO. It would probably perform better.

Anywho, he's got his card coming.. Congrats Shy!

(Shameless plug: You know, you can fold on that new GPU of yours.)

Yes, I know 2 8800 GTS 320 would perform better than 2 8800 GS's would. You are ignoring the price here. 2 8800 GS's cost $130 combined. 1 8800 GTS alone costs $140+.

KarmaKiller · July 13th, 2008, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXreaction

Yes, I know 2 8800 GTS 320 would perform better than 2 8800 GS's would. You are ignoring the price here. 2 8800 GS's cost $130 combined. 1 8800 GTS alone costs $140+.

I'm not ignoring the price..
ZOTAC GeForce 8800 GTS 320mb | ZOTAC 8800 GTS 320MB | ZOTAC Geforce 8800GTS 320 MB | Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS
$99.. plus less hassle..

@Shy
Basically, it works like this:
1 CPU Core = Console
2/+ CPU Cores = SMP
GPU = Compatible card PLUS 1 CPU core..

So if your running a dual core box, plus the GPU crunching, then you should have a single instance of console going, plus the GPU. It takes 1 CPU core to feed the GPU the work and what not.
On a Quad, it's a bit different. The 5.92 SMP client supports multicores, so you only have to run one instance of SMP to max out all 4 cores. If your want to run the GPU client with a Quad, you have to enter the advanced options in the CPU client, and set it to only use 80%(Nvidia cards) 75%(ATI cards) of the CPU cores. Then run your GPU client on top of that. That's the best I've found so far.
And the 2600 can crunch too. It's not going to be blazing fast by anymeans, but every bit helps.

RamonGTP · July 13th, 2008, 01:15 AM

Actually if you're running Vista, the GPU client only takes up a small percentage of one core, so if you have a fast enough dual core, you can run both the SMP and GPU client at the same time. XP's video subsystem isn't quite as efficient and does use an entire core to keep the GPU fed with data.

KarmaKiller · July 13th, 2008, 01:35 AM

That's true for Nvidia, but I've been reading posts talking about the ATI GPU client taking up a good amount of a core. (~40%)
On my system, (now on xp again) I have my quad set to the above setting, (CPU 80%) and the GPU client going, and that's how I maxed out my PPD. I get a touch over 5k(according to FahMon) with just my Quad rig. When I have it set for the SMP client to use all 100% of my CPU, my PPD on my GPU drops from 3,420PPD to 2,853PPD)
This is just my rig for example though, and that is OC'd too.. So IDK..

RamonGTP · July 13th, 2008, 03:04 AM

Well I havne't tried the new client, but that was my experience with the older GPU client which was ATI only.

EXreaction · July 13th, 2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaKiller

I'm not ignoring the price..
ZOTAC GeForce 8800 GTS 320mb | ZOTAC 8800 GTS 320MB | ZOTAC Geforce 8800GTS 320 MB | Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS
$99.. plus less hassle..

Alright, you also should remember that I said I would pick up an 8800 GTS 320 if it could be gotten for around $100 or less.

Memory fading?

RamonGTP · July 13th, 2008, 01:52 PM

I think price is irrellivent in this case really. Getting 2 256Mb cards in SLI or CF is useless regardless of how inexpensive they are. You won't get the benefits at low resolutions because sli does not scale at low res. You won't get the benefits at high resolutions because you don't have enough texture memory. It's just a bad idea.