Somebody find a way to talk ne out of another 980TI

[TennesseeTony]

EVGA 1070 $420, or $390 after 'rebate'

This is the top 150 watt model, the next up uses 170 watts, which I don't feel is justified for an extra 100MHz or so, especially if the goal is to reduce power usage. Current promotion for Gears of War 4 game code, the game is on pre-order for $60. Might could sell the code for a quick $30 rebate.

Might could. Hmm. One might think I'm from the south using such phraseology.

 

[TennesseeTony]

The 1070 truly has the best performance per watt (from the figures I've seen anyway).

Oops. Looks like I used 250w in my calculations for the 1080, but it's only 180w, making the 1080 by far the most efficient (but awfully expensive).

 

[Orange Kid]

Oops. Looks like I used 250w in my calculations for the 1080, but it's only 180w, making the 1080 by far the most efficient (but awfully expensive).

To do a real cost analysis you would have to figure in all costs for a certain amount of gain for a particular task. IE; if you were to do 50m points in POEM, it would take the 1070 longer to achieve that goal than the 1080 so total costs of running the machine for a longer period of time would have to be factored in as well as initial costs. Then other factors such as driver maturity and app changes in the future would be a consideration to take into account too.
Kinda like, should I take Social Security at 62 or wait till 70 when I would get the max, but then what if I die at 69 then I would have gotten nothing. Life is such a conundrum. What to do ,what to do. Spend more to get more or wait more to get more.

 

[TennesseeTony]

That's more than my little brain can calculate, Kid. Good insight though, and very true.

GTX1070 (lower spec 6171 model) FahBench = 88.8 Factory clocked/OC'd at 150 watts plus

Vs Mark's 980Ti at 1400MHz = 87.3 at 250 watts plus

Wow. Nice.

Edit: I first ran the test with only 1 thread available, and got 77 something. Definitely need a full core+ per GPU for folding. Tested on a i7-5820K, which I finally figured out how to run at stock speeds (3.3GHz). (Yeah, now I don't have to worry about AVX tasks sending 300 watts to my processor.)

 

[Markfw]

Not sure the 980 is 250 watts. I have a box with an E5570 running 100% load for CPU and GPU, and its only taking 266 watts from the wall. (kill-a-watt) but thats under a bad WU. Under a good one I have seen it at 300. But worst case scenario, only 50 watts for the CPU, hard drive, etc ?? I think the card uses less than 250.

 

[Markfw]

Also, the variability may be great, but less in the 980 series than the 1080 series. I think its the cuda cores. The 1070 only has 1920, where the 980TI has 2816. For now I stick to them, but may try a 1070.

 

[TennesseeTony]

980TI on a 3930k stock = 87.321 980TI@1400 mhz card stock is 1190
....

GTX980 TDP is 165 watts, plus overclocking. I've only noticed a max increase of 100-118 watts at the wall using a kill-a-watt, running Einstein and POEM, on the 1070.

Fails all tasks immediately for Asteroids and GPUGrid. GPUGrid hasn't programmed for the 10 series yet, waiting on Nvidia to release CUDA 8/8.5 for some reason. Not sure if the same holds true for Asteroids, didn't look into it yet.