Expected GPU Magnitude Update (17-2-2018)

I don't think it's ridiculous to use the TITAN Black or TITAN V.
They have the highest DP-Performance per Watt on single GPU-Cards according to the wiki-lists.

Would like to have one of them, especially the Black costs sometimes on ebay only around 250-300$.
Sure the V with around 3000$ is somehow ridiculous if you buy it only for BOINC but if you already have it for work and let the card work in the night for you cannot be as bad :P.

TITAN Black:
SP: 5120
DP: 1706
TDP: 250W

TITAN V:
SP: 12288
DP: 6144
TDP: 250W

Radeon 7970 GHz-Edition:
SP: 4096
DP: 1024
TDP: 250W

Radeon RX Vega 64:
SP: 10215
DP: 638
TDP: 295W

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units

Very good overview @nexusprime.

Do these numbers scale when having more GPUs in one system? For example, if I have 2 GTX1080 running Einstein, will my system reach a magnitude of 2 x 17.1 = 34.2?

I would get a higher mag running Enigma on my 280x than by running Milkyway?

I don't mean ridiculous in a bad way. I love the TITAN Black, it is essentially the same as a TESLA K40 which I still use for research. But they used to be very expensive, and there are not that many of them left that still work. The real issue with the cards was that their thermal solution wasn't enough to keep up with their thermal output under constant load.

I edited my post to make it clear :)

I ran some checks while writing the code to make sure I could use tasks from machines with multiple of the same GPU. I'm fairly certain that it scales, assuming both GPUs are fully utilized and their are not thermal issues.

Nice catch. It looks like task data and highest RAC methods are giving inconsistent results for that case.

For Milkyway Tahiti
Highest Rac: 45 Mag

For Enigma Tahiti
Highest Rac: 38Mag

Some computer specs are reported (on projects websites) as

[Coprocessors: [2] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970

What I assume it means rig has 2 cards installed, at least one is 970.

This computer has 2 cards and running times either ~1000s or ~3000s. I guess 1000s might be for GTX 970 and 3000s for a weaker card, as times on e@h are consistent and my 1060 takes ~1000s for a task.

Thus listed card is probably the fastest one or random, as it always shows GTX 970 for this computer.

I've checked manually only a handful of entries for my articles to make sure I check computers with only one card installed.

How did you solve this problem for your statistic?

I guess they are really 2 GTX970's in one system.

Have a look at these systems:
http://www.asteroidsathome.net/boinc/show_host_detail.php?hostid=26048
http://www.asteroidsathome.net/boinc/show_host_detail.php?hostid=100737
http://www.asteroidsathome.net/boinc/show_host_detail.php?hostid=240829
where you have different combinations of GPUs.

Nevertheless and interesting aspect to understand.

[Coprocessors: [2] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 -> means that there are 2 GTX 970s installed

Mixing different cards from the same company is rare but they should appear as

[coprocs][BOINC|7.6.33][CUDA|GeForce GTX 780|1|3072MB|37892][CUDA|GeForce GTX 770|1|2048MB|35286][/coprocs]

in the host file.

Though that data from Einstein does look suspicious. I also ran the code a separate time only allowing for machines with one GPU and obtained close to the same results. But I may go back to limiting the results to machines with only one GPU.

I always remove machines that have multiple flags for CUDA (Nvidia), multiple flags for CAL (AMD), or both flags.

Amicable and e@h it seems lists only name for 1 card, unlike asteroids. As tasks at e@h take the same time to finish (+/- 5%) I would be surprised if they are both 970s, as this computer takes either ~1000s or ~3000s to solve a task.

Thanks, informative.

It seems some projects report in different ways, at least on the website, as I haven't checked host files. Amicable and e@h it seems lists only name for 1 card, unlike asteroids (see @parejan comment). As tasks at e@h take the same time to finish (+/- 5%) I would be surprised if they are both 970s, as this computer takes either ~1000s or ~3000s to solve a task. Unless one card would be severely starved of some resources and the other not.

Thanks for pointing this out. Definitely something to watch.

Though I do wish that e@h (and yoyo) would use the standard current version of the website. It would make the analysis work a lot easier.

Interesting. All these projects are on different versions of BOINC software, which probablity doesn't help here to obtain the same level of information.

I like to read every post you .. I also learn a lot of steemit from every post you. Whether it's writing or photos.
Thank you companion steemians..
My curiosity you want to visit my blog awaiting for me..

It is quite depressing to see Titan V (and other prosumer cards) perform so badly on Milkyway. That project should really try to optimize their tasks for these cards, especially for Titan V as this card has a good FP64 support IIRC.

There are some issues with how this measurement works and the fact that there are only a few examples. Additionally high end cards tend to run multiple work units at the same time, which I failed to account for properly. It is mostly an issue for milkyway. which is the primary FP64 project. Hopefully I can fix this in the next version. Here are some more accurate results for Titan V: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@cautilus/my-quest-to-use-an-nvidia-titan-v-for-boinc-titan-v-and-1080-ti-boinc-benchmarks

The script that you are running, is it public? Would like to be able to run monthly to see stats for my GPU .

The script is not currently public. The goal is to post the code when I'm confident that the results given by the current code don't need to be compared to other methods of estimating the RAC to validate the results.
Some problems with the current method have been pointed out, so the code is in for a near total rewrite (again) before the next update.