Page 1 of 5
GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:25 pm
by gordonbb
Anand Tech has posted
their review of the $279US EVGA GTX 1660 Ti. It only show Single-Precision results but shows the card at stock clocks producing in FAHBench about the same results as a GTX 1070 FE so likely 700-800kPPD.
The reviewed model is a
triple (2.75) slot single fan “short board” model not a dual-slot dual-fan model and is also the “Black” model with a 1770MHz Boost clock rather than the
XC Gaming model with a 1860MHz Boost clock which is likely of more interest to those folding with multiple air-cooled cards in one rig which should produce slightly better results.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:48 pm
by gordonbb
Code: Select all
Cost Yield TDP Value Efficiency
Model MSRP kPPD W kPPD/$ kPPD/W
RTX 2080 Ti 999 2400 260 2.40 9.23
RTX 2080 699 1400 225 2.00 6.22
RTX 2070 499 1275 185 2.56 6.89
RTX 2060 349 1050 160 3.01 6.56
GTX 1660 Ti 279 850 130 3.05 6.54
TLDR - 2060 is likely a better buy if cost is not a factor
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:57 am
by MeeLee
From what I read, it's closer to a regular 1070 in PPD (600-700k).
The main ingredient is faster and more efficient, lower power, GDDR6 ram, and a slightly higher GPU boost clock speed.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:53 pm
by toTOW
gordonbb> You're way too optimistic ... I'm seeing only 620k on a 1070 and 700-800k on a 1080 ...
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:53 pm
by gordonbb
toTOW wrote:gordonbb> You're way too optimistic ... I'm seeing only 620k on a 1070 and 700-800k on a 1080 ...
The original value for the GTX 1660 Ti I agree was a little optimistic and would likely be closer to 750kPPD. The values are assuming a stable overclock and not a lower power limit for stability and longevity but the results should scale for comparison.
Stable Overclock
Code: Select all
Card Cost Yield TDP Value Efficiency
US$ kPPD W kPPD/$ kPPD/W
RTX 2080 Ti $999 2400 260 2.40 9.23
RTX 2080 $699 1400 225 2.00 6.22
RTX 2070 $499 1275 185 2.56 6.89
RTX 2060 $349 1050 160 3.01 6.56
GTX 1660 Ti $279 750 130 2.69 5.77
I can't speak to the stock values as the actual data is no longer
available at Overclock.net just the summary so it is hard to judge how skewed the reported values are. I am running a 2060 and 2070 currently and can vouch for those numbers.
But the conclusion, even if we further reduce the PPD estimate for the 1660 Ti, is still that the 2060 is a better value and more efficient if cost isn't too much of an issue. Given the process and architecture improvements in Turing the 1660 Ti would likely only make sense if cost is an issue and one is trying to decide between a GTX 1060 6GB or 1070 and a GTX 1660 Ti.
My
EVGA 1070 Ti SC Black, averaged over 7 days, is running at 883.52kPPD, 1.96GHz Shader Clock (+150MHz Offset), 145.58W Actual Power Draw, (150W Power Limit), 63.71C GPU Temperature and 44.81% (1633.15rpm) Fan Speed and has completed 41 WUs.
I'm still relatively new at Folding and have a lot I can learn. I'm trying to maximize my Folding efficiency and to be rigorous in my methodology and appreciate any and all feedback that can help me along the way.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:14 pm
by Nathan_P
toTow's numbers for a reference spec 1070 and 1080 are spot on, my heavily factory overclocked 1070 and 1080 score around 700k and 850k PPD respectively.
As with all F@H numbers though, PPD is heavily dependant on the project being worked on. My 1080 can vary from 680k PPD to 890k PPD depending on the project
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:37 am
by MeeLee
Still, the 1660 isn't like the 1060 or 1070 or 1080.
It can be considered a lower end model of a new generation of cards.
It has slightly lower cuda cores, but higher GPU boost frequency from factory, and GDDR6 ram, which is a big improvement on GDDR5 ram.
As a result, lower overclock percentages can be gotten from these cards than a GTX1070 or 1080, but the 1660 should be considered a lower end RTX2060 card, without ray tracing, rather than a competitor to the 1060 or 1070.
It's a lot faster than a 1060.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:55 am
by gordonbb
MeeLee wrote:Still, the 1660 isn't like the 1060 or 1070 or 1080.
It can be considered a lower end model of a new generation of cards.
It has slightly lower cuda cores, but higher GPU boost frequency from factory, and GDDR6 ram, which is a big improvement on GDDR5 ram.
As a result, lower overclock percentages can be gotten from these cards than a GTX1070 or 1080, but the 1660 should be considered a lower end RTX2060 card, without ray tracing, rather than a competitor to the 1060 or 1070.
It's a lot faster than a 1060.
Folding won’t generally see a significant advantage with GDDR6 versus 5 or 5X. Nor do the improvements in the Turing architechture with respect to dedicated integer cores be able to be leveraged in the current version of OpenMM in use but that may change.
It is, however, useful to compare the performance of the new Turing cards compared to Pascal as that is what most of us are familiar with and at this point both are available in the market so the information is useful for someone deciding whether to buy a1070 or a 1660 for folding.
I actually find my 2070 to be a strong overclocker. I can run +180MHz stable Folding at 2025MHz for weeks. I haven’t pushed the 2060 yet to see how far it goes yet but I’m mostly focused on efficiency which is where Turing really seems to shine with the process and architecture improvements.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:44 pm
by HaloJones
I've read that Turing's compute pipeline is more efficient so whereas Pascal switches between integer and floating-point, Turing can run them simultaneously.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:10 pm
by toTOW
Which is pretty useless since FAH is floating point operations only ...
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:28 pm
by gordonbb
Nathan_P wrote:toTow's numbers for a reference spec 1070 and 1080 are spot on, my heavily factory overclocked 1070 and 1080 score around 700k and 850k PPD respectively.
As with all F@H numbers though, PPD is heavily dependant on the project being worked on. My 1080 can vary from 680k PPD to 890k PPD depending on the project
I just started running a "Stock" Baseline for my cards. i.e. No overclocks, Default Power-Limit, Auto Fan. Granted I'm just a few WUs in but my
EVGA GTX 1070 SC Gaming Black ACX 3.0 (08G-P4-5671-KR) is still yielding 895.14kPPD as the lower card in a dual-card Rig. It's not a higher-end FTW model so it's base clock is 1607 and Boost is 1683MHz but it still manages to Boost up to 1974-87MHz at 67C and 57% Fan so I'm not certain why your yield is so low with your 1080 if your running it Stock with no Power Limit Adjustments and your not Thermally limited by your chassis or Ambient Temperature. I'll have better numbers for yields at Stock for my hardware at the end of the week.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:59 am
by Theodore
gordonbb wrote:Folding won’t generally see a significant advantage with GDDR6 versus 5 or 5X. Nor do the improvements in the Turing architechture with respect to dedicated integer cores be able to be leveraged in the current version of OpenMM in use but that may change.
I beg to differ on that.
Due to the way the pascal cards are made, not much overclocking can be done on the GPU, but quite an amount can be done on the Vram.
I think this is what most people have been doing with these cards to get higher PPD (when limited by the purchase of faster hardware).
The GDDR5 used in the 1060, 1070, and 1080 is limited to 8Gbps; or about 7,6GB/s.
It is probably very easy to overclock these cards to 8,6GB/s, and a noticeable performance improvement is detected while folding.
I think many overclocking articles in EVGA or overclock.net forums will concur.
The GDDR6 used in 1660 and RTX cards, is limited to 14Gbps or 13.6GB/s; which is nearly twice the speed.
Definitely a boost in performance for folding that far outpaces overclocking GDDR5 RAM on a now 'older gen card' (the 1060, 1070, and 1080 cards are now 1 generation old), and performance of faster RAM is definitely measurable in FAH.
The exact amount of benefit GDDR6 gives over GDDR5, is probably best tested by safely overclocking the GDDR5 RAM as high as possible; and/or underclocking the GDDR6 RAM to speeds equal that of a GDDR5 card.
It will probably give a closest estimate on the performance impact in FAH.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:32 am
by Joe_H
You can "beg to differ" all you want, but your belief runs counter to extensive testing by folders showing speed and amount of VRAM has a minimal effect on GPU folding speed. The GPU clock speed for the shaders is more important. In fact, such testing has shown that excessive VRAM speed leads to increased thermal load and can either bring on errors, or slow down the shaders.
Now if you want to do careful testing and post the results, others may be interested or be able to show problems with your test setup.
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:56 am
by gordonbb
Theodore wrote:gordonbb wrote:Folding won’t generally see a significant advantage with GDDR6 versus 5 or 5X. Nor do the improvements in the Turing architechture with respect to dedicated integer cores be able to be leveraged in the current version of OpenMM in use but that may change.
I beg to differ on that.
Due to the way the pascal cards are made, not much overclocking can be done on the GPU, but quite an amount can be done on the Vram.
I think this is what most people have been doing with these cards to get higher PPD (when limited by the purchase of faster hardware).
The GDDR5 used in the 1060, 1070, and 1080 is limited to 8Gbps; or about 7,6GB/s.
It is probably very easy to overclock these cards to 8,6GB/s, and a noticeable performance improvement is detected while folding.
I think many overclocking articles in EVGA or overclock.net forums will concur.
The GDDR6 used in 1660 and RTX cards, is limited to 14Gbps or 13.6GB/s; which is nearly twice the speed.
Definitely a boost in performance for folding that far outpaces overclocking GDDR5 RAM on a now 'older gen card' (the 1060, 1070, and 1080 cards are now 1 generation old), and performance of faster RAM is definitely measurable in FAH.
The exact amount of benefit GDDR6 gives over GDDR5, is probably best tested by safely overclocking the GDDR5 RAM as high as possible; and/or underclocking the GDDR6 RAM to speeds equal that of a GDDR5 card.
It will probably give a closest estimate on the performance impact in FAH.
Hmm - when I tested it I saw a 2% increase in PPD:
Code: Select all
Power GPU Mem GPU GPU Cha Fan FAHBench FAHBench FAHBench Inc. Total
Limit Clk Clk Clk T T Score Scaled Atoms Change Change
(W) O/S O/S (MHz) (°C) (°C) (%) (ns/day) (ns/day) (%) (%)
217 185 0 2025 66 44 70 118.7782 184.5906 35206
217 185 50 2025 66 43 70 119.0690 185.0425 35206 0.24% 0.24%
217 185 100 2025 66 43 70 119.2506 185.3247 35206 0.15% 0.40%
217 185 150 2025 66 43 70 119.4067 185.5673 35206 0.13% 0.53%
217 185 200 2025 66 43 70 119.6039 185.8737 35206 0.17% 0.70%
217 185 250 2025 66 43 70 119.7430 186.0898 35206 0.12% 0.81%
217 185 300 2037 67 43 70 120.1965 186.7948 35206 0.38% 1.19%
217 185 350 2025 66 44 70 120.1370 186.7023 35206 -0.05% 1.14%
217 185 400 2037 67 44 70 120.4953 187.2591 35206 0.30% 1.45%
217 185 450 2025 67 44 70 120.5535 187.3495 35206 0.05% 1.49%
217 185 500 2037 67 43 70 120.7269 187.6189 35206 0.14% 1.64%
217 185 550 2025 67 44 70 120.7805 187.7023 35206 0.04% 1.69%
217 185 600 2025 67 43 70 120.8827 187.8611 35206 0.08% 1.77%
217 185 650 2025 67 43 70 121.0401 188.1056 35206 0.13% 1.90%
217 185 700 2025 67 43 70 121.1519 188.2795 35206 0.09% 2.00%
GTX 1070 Ti
Ambient: 24C
Stable GPU Temp reached by 60% of 5min run
nvidia-smi -i 1 -pm 1
nvidia-smi -i 0 --power-limit=217
DISPLAY=:0 XAUTHORITY=/run/user/122/gdm/Xauthority nvidia-settings -a [fan:0]/GPUTargetFanSpeed=70
DISPLAY=:0 XAUTHORITY=/run/user/122/gdm/Xauthority nvidia-settings -a [gpu:0]/GPUGraphicsClockOffset[3]=185
DISPLAY=:0 XAUTHORITY=/run/user/122/gdm/Xauthority nvidia-settings -a [gpu:0]/GPUMemoryTransferRateOffset[3]=0
nvidia-smi -i 0 -l 1 --format=csv,noheader --query-gpu=temperature.gpu,power.draw,clocks.current.sm,fan.speed
~/projects/FAHBench-2.3.2-Linux/bin# ./FAHBench-cmd -w wu-11713 --run-length 300
When I tried it in Production I saw no noticeable increase in PPD. When I stopped after a month I saw no noticeable decrease.
What increase are you seeing and what is your test methodology?
Re: GTX 1660Ti Compute Performance
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:53 am
by MeeLee
Joe_H wrote:You can "beg to differ" all you want, but your belief runs counter to extensive testing by folders showing speed and amount of VRAM has a minimal effect on GPU folding speed. The GPU clock speed for the shaders is more important. In fact, such testing has shown that excessive VRAM speed leads to increased thermal load and can either bring on errors, or slow down the shaders.
Now if you want to do careful testing and post the results, others may be interested or be able to show problems with your test setup.
I don't think that information is correct.
I can concur with Theodore, overclocking just the VRAM by 700Mhz on a mid-tier card, increases PPD by about 10-15%, not the 2% mentioned above.
My stock 1060 runs at 335k PPD, but with a VRAM overclock it runs at about 375k PPD.
Likewise, when I would underclock the VRAM to the maximum underclock, the PPD count is nearly halved of fully working.
If it were the case that folding wouldn't benefit vram overclocking, everyone would underclock their VRAM to idle, and save a lot of energy in the process.
Vram overclocking definitely makes a difference on my cards!