mersenneforum.org GPU Noob-Experiences/Questions
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-10-24, 00:09 #78 bcp19     Oct 2011 7×97 Posts I was looking at newer video cards (my 450 seems kinda dated) and wanting to stay NVIDIA for the programs I have running here, I looked at their GTX line. For the GTX 550 there are 3 options, an ASUS GTX 550 for $130, a Gigabyte Technology GTX 550 for$142 and an NVIDIA GTX 550 for $200. By comparing all 3, it seems they all have the NVIVIA chip, so the question begs, which is the better choice, the$130, $142 or the$200 one? Is there an obvious difference in computing capability or is this a case of 'paying for the name'?
2011-10-24, 01:47   #79
kladner

"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

13·773 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bcp19 By comparing all 3, it seems they all have the NVIVIA chip, so the question begs, which is the better choice, the $130,$142 or the $200 one? Is there an obvious difference in computing capability or is this a case of 'paying for the name'? I'd suggest seeing if you can find comparative reviews for the different card brands. Unless one of the manufacturers overclocked the chip, the computing capacity would be the same for the same chip. As to other value, I can't say. On a quick look at Google for the chipset number I came up with an Anandtech article that compares different nV chipsets from the 5xx and 4xx series, perhaps not terribly favorably. I have not read the whole thing. They also discuss price points. The Suggested Retail on the GTX550Ti is$149. The SR on its big brother, the GTX560Ti is $249, but the 560 has twice as many CUDA processors and a wider memory bus. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4221/n...p-short-at-150 I know another$100 might be hard to come by. But this article is from mid March. You can likely find the 560 for less by now. If you can stretch your price envelope, the processing power/$is better for the 560 v 550. As to one brand card versus another with the same chips, I would not expect a great difference between the Gigabyte and Asus offerings. The nVidia would be the "reference board," built just the way the chipmaker wanted it. Whether that is better, I can't say. That much higher a price does look like "paying for the name". My own approach was to find the best deal I could on the chipset I decided on (GTX460), which happened to be a Gigabyte. So far so good on that. I happened on a good promotional deal from Microcenter: price reduction + rebate. New Egg certainly does similar things. EDIT: Take a look at New Egg, Microcenter, or (your favorite online retailer). If you can sort for just the 500 series cards, and then sort by price, compare the low end price you can get on a 560 with what you can get a 550 for. Don't forget to look for rebates. I see now that the Ti chip is more powerful than the plain 550 or 560. The plain 550 looks to be a higher-clocked version of the GTX 460, which is a good performer as is. See the difference here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-top,2944.html Last fiddled with by kladner on 2011-10-24 at 02:08 Reason: More research 2011-10-24, 01:57 #80 Christenson Dec 2010 Monticello 24×107 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by bcp19 I was looking at newer video cards (my 450 seems kinda dated) and wanting to stay NVIDIA for the programs I have running here, I looked at their GTX line. For the GTX 550 there are 3 options, an ASUS GTX 550 for$130, a Gigabyte Technology GTX 550 for $142 and an NVIDIA GTX 550 for$200. By comparing all 3, it seems they all have the NVIVIA chip, so the question begs, which is the better choice, the $130,$142 or the $200 one? Is there an obvious difference in computing capability or is this a case of 'paying for the name'? While the 450 is perhaps a bit dated, it's still a perfectly good card that runs circles around CPUs at TF, and otherwise does good work. We hope you'll keep it in service somehow; also, make sure you have the power supply capability for your new configuration -- more GPU power = more watts from the power supply!!!! 2011-10-24, 04:29 #81 delta_t Nov 2002 Anchorage, AK 3×7×17 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by kladner cmd.exe /k "start /b /low /affinity 0x20 mfaktc-win-64.exe" The changes are replacing the cmd "/c" with "/k", and adding the start command switch "/b". I'm not completely sure that both are necessary, but it works like this so I'm leaving it alone. If you do the /k you will need the /b, otherwise what will happen is two command windows will open. 2011-10-24, 04:38 #82 delta_t Nov 2002 Anchorage, AK 1011001012 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by bcp19 Is there an obvious difference in computing capability or is this a case of 'paying for the name'? The Nvidia chips will be the same. Besides 'paying for the name' on some of them, price differences could be reflected in the cooler (reference design vs. custom), but the higher priced ones could have a factory overclocked chip. Looked for catch phrase terms like "superclocked" or "extreme" or something to that effect and then take a look to see if the core clock frequency is higher than the usual default (for the GTX 550Ti the default core clock frequency is 900MHz). Last fiddled with by delta_t on 2011-10-24 at 04:38 2011-10-24, 05:05 #83 kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 13·773 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by delta_t If you do the /k you will need the /b, otherwise what will happen is two command windows will open. Thanks. I wasn't sure about that. In the end, the combination does give me what I wanted: the mfaktc window staying open to show the final output. 2011-10-25, 09:42 #84 nucleon Mar 2003 Melbourne 5×103 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by delta_t The Nvidia chips will be the same. Besides 'paying for the name' on some of them, price differences could be reflected in the cooler (reference design vs. custom), but the higher priced ones could have a factory overclocked chip. Looked for catch phrase terms like "superclocked" or "extreme" or something to that effect and then take a look to see if the core clock frequency is higher than the usual default (for the GTX 550Ti the default core clock frequency is 900MHz). Also it might be confusing to see which card is faster and the relative speed of each one (factory overclocks really make it harder). Sorry I don't know the original source of this info, but in short if you want to compare, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rce_500_Series Grab the first number in the core config, say for GTX560Ti it's 384, and GTX580 is 512. Then look at the clock speeds 822MHz (GTX560Ti) 772MHz (GTX580). Multiply them: GTX560Ti) 315,648 GTX580) 395,264 So as long as they have enough CPU resources behind them, The GTX580 is roughly 25% faster with those clock speeds. Some of the factory over clocked GTX560Ti cards come awfully close to the default GTX580 card at much less the price. Do the numbers for GTX590, and it doesn't look all that great. (Personally I'd prefer 2x 560Ti cards for less$\$)

This comparison method is only applicable in comparing the 400 and 500 series of Nvidia cards. BTW Guide only!

-- Craig

2011-10-25, 10:01   #85
nucleon

Mar 2003
Melbourne

10038 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kladner I have to add that the /low switch for the Start command seems to have greatly improved system responsiveness, while still turning in Time per Class values from 4.9xx-5.0xx on 70-71 runs.
Awesome.

Glad I was able to give you some ideas to play with.

-- Craig

2011-10-25, 11:11   #86
TheJudger

"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

2×3×5×37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by nucleon Then look at the clock speeds 822MHz (GTX560Ti) 772MHz (GTX580). Multiply them: GTX560Ti) 315,648 GTX580) 395,264 So as long as they have enough CPU resources behind them, The GTX580 is roughly 25% faster with those clock speeds.
For mfaktc this is not true, mfaktc runs more effecient on CC 2.0 (GTX 580) than on CC 2.1 (GTX 560Ti).

A stock GTX 580 has 50+% more throughput than a stock GTX 560Ti for mfaktc.

Oliver

 2011-10-26, 20:26 #87 garo     Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 251010 Posts That begs the question. Why?
2011-10-27, 04:07   #88
Christenson

Dec 2010
Monticello

32608 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by garo That begs the question. Why?
Probably because CC2.1 adds a feature that slows things down. Also, a GTX580 *ought* to be faster than a GTX560, assuming larger part numbers mean more capable cards.

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post awholenumber Math 7 2017-06-18 07:25 bozocv Msieve 36 2015-12-31 00:12 FlightTribe Information & Answers 13 2012-11-28 19:57 sleigher Msieve 56 2011-11-17 11:37 xago666 Information & Answers 3 2008-03-11 01:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:57.

Sun Nov 29 10:57:03 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 8:08, 3 users, load averages: 1.48, 1.26, 1.11

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.