mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-03-22, 15:10   #1
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

2×443 Posts
Default mfaktc and PCIe bus width

I was thinking about adding a second GPU; the two 16-lane PCIe slots on my motherboard are next to each other and I would really like to space the GPUs further apart for better heat dissipation.

The third PCIe slot can only run with 8 lanes. With the GPU sieving version of mfaktc, would this make any difference in the performance of the program?
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 15:30   #2
Xyzzy
 
Xyzzy's Avatar
 
"Mike"
Aug 2002

1F6416 Posts
Default

We tested this in our computer and there was no difference in throughput.

We tested "top/middle", "top/bottom" and "middle/bottom".

We tested three cards also but our third card is slow (GT 430) so we are not sure if three fast cards would be an issue.
Xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 15:30   #3
swl551
 
swl551's Avatar
 
Aug 2012
New Hampshire

23×101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
I was thinking about adding a second GPU; the two 16-lane PCIe slots on my motherboard are next to each other and I would really like to space the GPUs further apart for better heat dissipation.

The third PCIe slot can only run with 8 lanes. With the GPU sieving version of mfaktc, would this make any difference in the performance of the program?
I had terrible performance by not using the designated slots. the MOBO instructions often states specific slot loading.

Sadly two card next to each other (gtx-570s) caused the top card to be heat loaded by the lower card.... It didn't go so well.... Enter liquid cooling.

Also if you OC the cards you will see a significant increase in power consumption. A 600 watt PS will likely need to be 1000 watt... Where's FlashJH when we need him to tell his horror stories....

Last fiddled with by swl551 on 2013-03-22 at 15:56
swl551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 15:32   #4
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

133418 Posts
Default

I have a similar question but slightly more extreme. I have been thinking of getting a graphics card at some point something like a 740 when they come out eventually. The card will be designed for 16x with PCIe 3.0 but my motherboard only has PCIe 1.1. I know 2.0 cards should run on my system at an equivalent bus speed of 16x 1.1 or 8x 2.0. Would a PCI 3.0 card run at 4x 3.0 speeds? Would it run at all?
The motherboard is an ASUS P5K-VM if that helps. I will be wanting to use it for a variety of stuff including things like cudalucas, gpu-ecm, gpu P-1 etc.

Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2013-03-22 at 15:43 Reason: What is up with me today? Typos in everything I type.
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 15:37   #5
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

952710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyzzy View Post
..."top/bottom"...
Which did you prefer?
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 16:49   #6
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

88610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyzzy View Post
We tested this in our computer and there was no difference in throughput.

We tested "top/middle", "top/bottom" and "middle/bottom".

We tested three cards also but our third card is slow (GT 430) so we are not sure if three fast cards would be an issue.
My computer has the Raven-style case so it would be "left", "center", and "right".
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 16:55   #7
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

2·443 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swl551 View Post
I had terrible performance by not using the designated slots. the MOBO instructions often states specific slot loading.
The MOBO (Asus P6X58D Premium) instructions say the third slot can be configured as 8 lanes, with the trade-off that the middle slot (which would be unused) would then also use 8 lanes. With the middle one at 16, then the third can only run at 1 lane.
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 16:56   #8
swl551
 
swl551's Avatar
 
Aug 2012
New Hampshire

23×101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
My computer has the Raven-style case so it would be "left", "center", and "right".
Sounds like it time to try it and see what happens. Everything else is just speculation. (probably good speculation, but it is your stuff)
swl551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 16:56   #9
Aramis Wyler
 
Aramis Wyler's Avatar
 
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

3×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
I have a similar question but slightly more extreme. I have been thinking of getting a graphics card at some point something like a 740 when they come out eventually. The card will be designed for 16x with PCIe 3.0 but my motherboard only has PCIe 1.1. I know 2.0 cards should run on my system at an equivalent bus speed of 16x 1.1 or 8x 2.0. Would a PCI 3.0 card run at 4x 3.0 speeds? Would it run at all?
A co-worker of mine tried running pci 3.0 cards in 2.0 slots. The board was solid and could handle 2x16, not one of the boards that can do 1x16 or 2x8. Even so, the PCI 3.0 card wouldn't run in it. They say they are backwards compatible (usually with a *) but the truth is it's really hit and miss if a 3.0 card will run in a 2.0 slot. If it will run, it will almost certainly run slower than it would in a 3.0 slot not because of the channels/bandwidth but because of the clock speeds. Personally I'd reccomend getting a higher end 500 series 2.0 card than a lower end 700 series 3.0 card unless you are looking for a good excuse to replace the motherboard.

Regarding the Chuck's sitation, the 8x or 16x bandwidth won't matter at all, but the board configuration might. Make sure the mboard doesn't mind running 1 and 3 w/o 2. You might be suprised to find out that if you do run 1 and 3 w/o 2, they'll both run at full 16x speed anyway.

EDIT: For reference, I run an overclocked 480 and and overclocked 580 on an ASUS board with a 750 watt power supply.

Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2013-03-22 at 16:58 Reason: power supplies.
Aramis Wyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 17:45   #10
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3,617 Posts
Default

Chuck could use a riser card or ribbon
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-22, 18:32   #11
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

2×443 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
Chuck could use a riser card or ribbon
Now this is a great idea; something I never thought of.
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - PCIe 2.0 vs. 3.0 chaoz23 GPU Computing 7 2017-08-03 08:40
(patch) IniWriteFloat should limit its field width Explorer09 Software 0 2015-09-23 01:02
mfaktc on a Mac bayanne GPU Computing 0 2013-10-18 09:59
mfaktc (0.20) fairsky Software 9 2013-09-24 12:58
mfaktc tichy GPU Computing 4 2010-12-03 21:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:19.

Thu Apr 15 09:19:02 UTC 2021 up 7 days, 3:59, 0 users, load averages: 1.70, 1.28, 1.23

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.