HandOverFist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 3:42 pm
Previously was 20M ppd...now 54M ppd on the same WU.
Edit: Just made over 213M ppd in less than 25 minutes with (4) 5090's. Lowest scoring gpu was 48M ppd.
magic
Thanks
Been my experience that LAR's ppd estimates for gpus are not far off. Currently all four gpus are producing 50-54M ppd. This makes my own rig with (2) 4080's look foolish lol.
Joe_H wrote: ↑Sat Jan 17, 2026 5:16 pm
Except when they are totally bogus. We have seen some really off numbers for a number of GPUs from the LARS ppd estimates.
At least we know the 4080 and 5090 are pretty close.
Be careful with PPD display from the client :
- it is not accurate at the beginning of the WU, it will settle after a while
- it is completely delirious if stop and resume FAH, until the WU completes and a new one starts.
And of course, it also varies from project to project on a given GPU.
Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
From my experience with vast.ai, results can vary a lot even with seemingly identical hardware (same GPU model, same CPU class, etc.). The underlying host matters more than it looks - things like PCIe bandwidth, CPU scheduling, thermal limits, and overall system load can make a noticeable difference.
I’ve seen cases where two RTX cards of the same model produce significantly different PPD depending on the host.
Also, a bit counterintuitive, but in some setups disabling CPU folding actually improves overall GPU performance. The CPU can become a bottleneck (or compete for resources), especially on shared or constrained systems.
A couple of things that helped in my case:
• prioritizing GPU slots over CPU
• checking PCIe configuration / bandwidth if available
• trying different hosts rather than assuming identical specs = identical performance
Curious if others have observed the same variability on vast.ai or similar platforms.
This makes my own rig with (2) 4080's look foolish lol. 