Folding Forum

Ballpark excluding CPU, am I doing ok, or room to improve. Note Thanks to all Bruce, Foldy, & many others, things are much more stable now, from your guidance.

3 machines one with two gpu's, other two one gpu:

All 3 machines total 'shaders' = 3,712 <GTX's 960, 1060, 1050ti, 750ti>

AVG <no interruptions, stalled gpus etc> 750k ppd & 36 wu, in 24hr time span:

750,000ppd / 3712 = 202 ppd/shader

Does this make sense & is it good, bad, or ugly

Thanks

I've never worked it out based on PPD per shader, the usual metric is PPD/watt or PPD/$. The maths is right though.

As a baseline comparison my 1070 and 1080 are currently producing 1,500,000/4480 = 335 ppd/shader. My 980ti and 750ti are currently offline but would drag that down

All I would say is this, a pair of 1060's or 1070 will produce more points for less watts

Looks good! The shaders of latest nvidia generation pascal are faster than previous one.

Great! As noted, previously I'd have stalled GPU's routinely, sometimes multiple time per day. With your help it's very stable, rare GPU stall. So looking at the newer averages prompted the OP. PPD/watt or PPD/$ would also include the CPU's contribution, therefore better.

When I get my next machine (trade or freebie) I'll retire the 32 bit/750ti machine, & go 1070. I'll insure 'pascal on the new one

Thanks Guys

Not quite PPD/$or PPD watt is calculated one each platform separately, the calcs on GPU and CPU will lead to different results. I haven't run a cpu WU in several months due to the end of the "Bigadv" WU but both will be less than a gpu based on the current projects. Core A7 may change this but not while its stuck at 27 threads or less

foldy wrote:Looks good! The shaders of latest nvidia generation pascal are faster than previous one.

When I compare GPUs, I've always multiplied the shader count by the frequency to create a number directly related to GFLOPS. It's still simple and it's a better approximation.