New PCI/PCIe based GT520 cards


Advanced search

Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : New PCI/PCIe based GT520 cards

AuthorMessage
The Colvins
Send message
Joined: Mar 21 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 7,143,652
RAC: 10,941
Message 114374 - Posted 5 Oct 2011 21:14:39 UTC

    A few days ago I saw that zotac was introducing PCI and PCI 1x based GT520 cards for use in older PCs. My first thought was "sweet, GPUs in my old PC". Would it even work? With winter coming I figured the 1.5GHz dell with a card or two might make a nice space heater in my basement, but only if it could crunch a lot of units.

    http://www.zotacusa.com/geforce-gt-520-zt-50610-10l.html
    ____________

    Claggy
    Send message
    Joined: Dec 29 06
    Posts: 391
    Credit: 902,099
    RAC: 2,556
    Message 114376 - Posted 5 Oct 2011 23:43:11 UTC - in response to Message 114374.

      A few days ago I saw that zotac was introducing PCI and PCI 1x based GT520 cards for use in older PCs. My first thought was "sweet, GPUs in my old PC". Would it even work? With winter coming I figured the 1.5GHz dell with a card or two might make a nice space heater in my basement, but only if it could crunch a lot of units.

      http://www.zotacusa.com/geforce-gt-520-zt-50610-10l.html


      I'd rather have the GT430, it has twice the Cores than the GT520: http://www.zotacusa.com/geforce-gt-430-zt-40605-10l.html and is also available in PCIe 1x

      Presently Crunching here on a PCI 8400 GS: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=2355855

      Claggy

      DanNeely
      Send message
      Joined: Sep 4 05
      Posts: 1071
      Credit: 56,501,129
      RAC: 92,914
      Message 114383 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 10:46:32 UTC - in response to Message 114376.

        430's can be found for as low as $55 on newegg so you're paying a major price premium for interfacing with the PCI bus. Also, with high end cards having a noticable performance hit on E@H from 8x PCIe instead of 16x I suspect that falling all the way down to PCI (roughly 1x PCIe equivalent) would hurt the performance of even fairly modest cards like the 430 and 520.
        ____________

        Profile dskagcommunity
        Avatar
        Send message
        Joined: Mar 16 11
        Posts: 75
        Credit: 12,448,924
        RAC: 28,609
        Message 114387 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 15:52:50 UTC

          Does anybody knows if there are driver issues then with installed NVIDIA PCIe cards? So i mean one of my boxes runs a 8800GT and a 9800GTX with i think 266 driver version. I think standart driverpack dont have a PCI Driver for 430 PCI? SOoo when i must install a special driver perhaps(?), do the other two cards run? ^^

          I think too the 430 is better then the 520.

          Any experience with such constellations?
          ____________
          DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



          Claggy
          Send message
          Joined: Dec 29 06
          Posts: 391
          Credit: 902,099
          RAC: 2,556
          Message 114390 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 18:27:10 UTC - in response to Message 114387.

            Does anybody knows if there are driver issues then with installed NVIDIA PCIe cards? So i mean one of my boxes runs a 8800GT and a 9800GTX with i think 266 driver version. I think standart driverpack dont have a PCI Driver for 430 PCI? SOoo when i must install a special driver perhaps(?), do the other two cards run? ^^

            I think too the 430 is better then the 520.

            Any experience with such constellations?


            I'm running the Normal 266.58 driver with my PCI 8400 GS, the GT430, the 8800GT and 9800GTX will also run with this driver, getting a GT520 to run will involve finding a driver that the other GPU's can run too.
            (and if that involves running a 270 and later driver, make sure Boinc doesn't suspend GPU running when active, etc, otherwise GPU downclocking may occur.)

            Claggy

            The Colvins
            Send message
            Joined: Mar 21 05
            Posts: 3
            Credit: 7,143,652
            RAC: 10,941
            Message 114392 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 20:07:36 UTC

              It sounds like the PCI could be a huge bottleneck. If my goal was to use HDMI on this old box than I'd still probably go ahead and do it and then see what extra computing I could get, but probably not worth it for just $/computation.

              Thanks!
              ____________

              Claggy
              Send message
              Joined: Dec 29 06
              Posts: 391
              Credit: 902,099
              RAC: 2,556
              Message 114393 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 20:43:12 UTC - in response to Message 114392.

                It sounds like the PCI could be a huge bottleneck. If my goal was to use HDMI on this old box than I'd still probably go ahead and do it and then see what extra computing I could get, but probably not worth it for just $/computation.

                Thanks!

                Don't think using the PCI bus is a huge bottleneck, GPU usage on the 8400 GS is 95 to 99% with BRP4, and this one a host doing Collatz on a AGP HD4650 too,

                Claggy

                Profile Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
                Forum moderator
                Project administrator
                Project developer
                Avatar
                Send message
                Joined: Aug 28 06
                Posts: 3195
                Credit: 69,689,349
                RAC: 58,931
                Message 114394 - Posted 6 Oct 2011 21:54:56 UTC - in response to Message 114374.

                  With winter coming I figured the 1.5GHz dell with a card or two might make a nice space heater in my basement [...]



                  Unfortunately not...just ca 30 W of heating from the card, same as a small light bulb :-).

                  Seriously, I think this is a nice product for older PCs and well worth trying out. Thanks for sharing this info here.

                  48 CUDA cores are not that many, but comparable to what many notebooks will have, e.g. the one I'm typing on now

                  http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=2631392

                  Your older PC with PCI bus would have slower crunching times than this notebook, but anyway, if this works (check the CUDA logo on the box maybe), it would be a nice way to speed up an old host. If you do this, please let us know about the results.

                  Cheers
                  HB
                  ____________

                  The Colvins
                  Send message
                  Joined: Mar 21 05
                  Posts: 3
                  Credit: 7,143,652
                  RAC: 10,941
                  Message 114399 - Posted 7 Oct 2011 1:53:13 UTC

                    The space heater part was a bit of a joke. I haven't had a chance to do to many geeky things at home for awhile, so I'll probably get one of the cards suggested and see how far I can push the box. I'm also looking at getting a used Tesla card for fun too, I have a different PC that I think has the right slots open.
                    ____________

                    Sid
                    Send message
                    Joined: Oct 17 10
                    Posts: 87
                    Credit: 43,499,579
                    RAC: 67,888
                    Message 114401 - Posted 7 Oct 2011 6:54:30 UTC - in response to Message 114393.

                      It sounds like the PCI could be a huge bottleneck. If my goal was to use HDMI on this old box than I'd still probably go ahead and do it and then see what extra computing I could get, but probably not worth it for just $/computation.

                      Thanks!

                      Don't think using the PCI bus is a huge bottleneck, GPU usage on the 8400 GS is 95 to 99% with BRP4, and this one a host doing Collatz on a AGP HD4650 too,

                      Claggy

                      It may be bottleneck however. Even if I am switching from PCIE X16 to PCIE X8 (just to insert another card in the vacant slot) I'm loosing about 5% of RAC.
                      PCIE X4 is about 15% for BPR4 WUs. However Milkyway or Collatz are not so sensitive to the bus speed.

                      Profile dskagcommunity
                      Avatar
                      Send message
                      Joined: Mar 16 11
                      Posts: 75
                      Credit: 12,448,924
                      RAC: 28,609
                      Message 114404 - Posted 7 Oct 2011 13:11:28 UTC - in response to Message 114390.

                        Last modified: 7 Oct 2011 13:13:08 UTC

                        Does anybody knows if there are driver issues then with installed NVIDIA PCIe cards? So i mean one of my boxes runs a 8800GT and a 9800GTX with i think 266 driver version. I think standart driverpack dont have a PCI Driver for 430 PCI? SOoo when i must install a special driver perhaps(?), do the other two cards run? ^^

                        I think too the 430 is better then the 520.

                        Any experience with such constellations?


                        I'm running the Normal 266.58 driver with my PCI 8400 GS, the GT430, the 8800GT and 9800GTX will also run with this driver, getting a GT520 to run will involve finding a driver that the other GPU's can run too.
                        (and if that involves running a 270 and later driver, make sure Boinc doesn't suspend GPU running when active, etc, otherwise GPU downclocking may occur.)

                        Claggy


                        OK i was only awared of it because one of my ATI 3850´s (for MW) need special drivers, becuase it was AGP and not PCIe. So i through that too with PCI and PCIe Cards in the same System.
                        ____________
                        DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



                        Profile mickydl*
                        Send message
                        Joined: Oct 7 08
                        Posts: 39
                        Credit: 38,532,558
                        RAC: 6,521
                        Message 114475 - Posted 13 Oct 2011 6:50:20 UTC

                          OK, for those who are interested, I am currently testing the GT430 PCI. Here are a few numbers:

                          Project............Runtime
                          Einstein...........14h 14m (51280s)
                          DNETC............1h 26m (5171s)
                          PPS sieve........1h 25m (5117s)
                          Cullan/Woodall..0h 14m (856s)

                          The test machine is a Phenom IIx4 965 with 64 Bit Linux.
                          As you can see, for memory intense applications like Einstein the card is practically useless unless you have a very old PC. For projects that have less memory access it might be worth trying.

                          Michael

                          Profile dskagcommunity
                          Avatar
                          Send message
                          Joined: Mar 16 11
                          Posts: 75
                          Credit: 12,448,924
                          RAC: 28,609
                          Message 114478 - Posted 13 Oct 2011 12:28:06 UTC

                            Last modified: 13 Oct 2011 12:33:36 UTC

                            Wow thx for your test! I had planned such a card or more cards for Einstein or Seti. But Einstein was prefered and happy now that i dont buyed it :/ Only Seti would be interessing now, how fast this card can compute one of them.

                            On another thread you can see 430PCIe(!) with, i think 1 hour 40 per WU, runtime. That really hurts PCI Version needs over 14 hours O.o
                            ____________
                            DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



                            Profile Gary Roberts
                            Forum moderator
                            Send message
                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                            Posts: 2928
                            Credit: 821,103,995
                            RAC: 1,606,797
                            Message 114479 - Posted 13 Oct 2011 12:38:40 UTC - in response to Message 114475.

                              If you look through the taskID output for that task on the website, there appears to be about 9.5 hours where time was elapsing but no crunching was being done. Perhaps your card was running another project or doing something else during that period. If you add up the actual crunching time (where checkpoints were being committed) it's much less than the run time you quote. Maybe you should try a couple more tasks where nothing else is interfering. The card is probably a lot better than you think.

                              I don't have any GPU crunching experience so I don't know why the 9.5 hour gap is there.

                              ____________
                              Cheers,
                              Gary.

                              Profile mickydl*
                              Send message
                              Joined: Oct 7 08
                              Posts: 39
                              Credit: 38,532,558
                              RAC: 6,521
                              Message 114481 - Posted 13 Oct 2011 13:39:43 UTC - in response to Message 114479.

                                If you look through the taskID output for that task on the website, there appears to be about 9.5 hours where time was elapsing but no crunching was being done. Perhaps your card was running another project or doing something else during that period. If you add up the actual crunching time (where checkpoints were being committed) it's much less than the run time you quote. Maybe you should try a couple more tasks where nothing else is interfering. The card is probably a lot better than you think.

                                I don't have any GPU crunching experience so I don't know why the 9.5 hour gap is there.


                                The 9 hour gap is probably the night time when the machines are switched of.
                                I don't run them 24/7. I didn't take the time to actually go through the log file and add up all times. The reported times are the run times as reported by the project.

                                I remember calculating the estimated run time after the first 1.5 hours into the WU. Based on the progress bar and the run time at that point a came up with a total estimated run time of over 14 hours. So it appears to be right. However, I will run a couple of more WUs to test the card.

                                Michael

                                Claggy
                                Send message
                                Joined: Dec 29 06
                                Posts: 391
                                Credit: 902,099
                                RAC: 2,556
                                Message 114482 - Posted 13 Oct 2011 13:47:12 UTC

                                  Last modified: 13 Oct 2011 13:48:46 UTC

                                  I got my PCI GT430 a couple of days ago, just done a couple of Seti@home bench runs with it,
                                  then i set up a Second Boinc Installation on my E8500, and set it running Seti Cuda only (using an Alpha app):

                                  http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6199212

                                  A mid AR task there is taking around 4,400 seconds, compare it to my PCI 8400 GS that takes around 14,500 secs (using the Stock app at the moment):

                                  http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=5306154

                                  Claggy

                                  Profile mickydl*
                                  Send message
                                  Joined: Oct 7 08
                                  Posts: 39
                                  Credit: 38,532,558
                                  RAC: 6,521
                                  Message 114520 - Posted 15 Oct 2011 17:07:05 UTC

                                    I now have made a second test and the result stays the same. BRP4 WUs take 14h14m with the GT 430. I have also checked my first test WU and the result is also 14h14m as stated in one of my previous mails.

                                    So my conclusion doesn't change. For Einstein the card is practically useless unless you have a very low-end CPU.

                                    Michael

                                    Amauri
                                    Send message
                                    Joined: Jul 12 11
                                    Posts: 6
                                    Credit: 694,971
                                    RAC: 590
                                    Message 114536 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 5:51:41 UTC - in response to Message 114520.

                                      My GT520 PCIe (Linux) takes 2h39m to run an E@H WU. And I Love its low power consumption...

                                      Profile microchip
                                      Send message
                                      Joined: Jun 10 06
                                      Posts: 48
                                      Credit: 5,063,241
                                      RAC: 7,116
                                      Message 114545 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 15:20:08 UTC

                                        My PCIe GT 440 does an E@H WU in 90 minutes. I originally planned to buy the GT 520 but after I read some reviews and saw the performance being so bad, I went for the GT 440. Some reviews said the GT 520 is so bad, it shouldn't even exist :)
                                        ____________

                                        Team Belgium

                                        Amauri
                                        Send message
                                        Joined: Jul 12 11
                                        Posts: 6
                                        Credit: 694,971
                                        RAC: 590
                                        Message 114546 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 16:41:09 UTC - in response to Message 114545.

                                          My PCIe GT 440 does an E@H WU in 90 minutes. I originally planned to buy the GT 520 but after I read some reviews and saw the performance being so bad, I went for the GT 440. Some reviews said the GT 520 is so bad, it shouldn't even exist :)


                                          GT 440 = 311 GFlops / 65 W = 4.78 GFlops/W
                                          GT 520 = 155 GFlops / 29 W = 5.34 GFlops/W

                                          When you have a low power consumption requirement, GT 520 is better than GT 440. I don't need a very good performance, just want to run some WU's without heating my computer.

                                          Cheers,
                                          Amauri

                                          Profile dskagcommunity
                                          Avatar
                                          Send message
                                          Joined: Mar 16 11
                                          Posts: 75
                                          Credit: 12,448,924
                                          RAC: 28,609
                                          Message 114548 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 17:08:04 UTC - in response to Message 114520.

                                            I now have made a second test and the result stays the same. BRP4 WUs take 14h14m with the GT 430. I have also checked my first test WU and the result is also 14h14m as stated in one of my previous mails.

                                            So my conclusion doesn't change. For Einstein the card is practically useless unless you have a very low-end CPU.

                                            Michael


                                            Ok thx for the test again, very bad result :/
                                            ____________
                                            DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



                                            Profile microchip
                                            Send message
                                            Joined: Jun 10 06
                                            Posts: 48
                                            Credit: 5,063,241
                                            RAC: 7,116
                                            Message 114552 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 18:17:02 UTC - in response to Message 114546.

                                              Last modified: 17 Oct 2011 18:19:20 UTC

                                              My PCIe GT 440 does an E@H WU in 90 minutes. I originally planned to buy the GT 520 but after I read some reviews and saw the performance being so bad, I went for the GT 440. Some reviews said the GT 520 is so bad, it shouldn't even exist :)


                                              GT 440 = 311 GFlops / 65 W = 4.78 GFlops/W
                                              GT 520 = 155 GFlops / 29 W = 5.34 GFlops/W

                                              When you have a low power consumption requirement, GT 520 is better than GT 440. I don't need a very good performance, just want to run some WU's without heating my computer.

                                              Cheers,
                                              Amauri


                                              Right, and I went for the card which gave me most performance for my small budget. You'd be surprised how cool the ASUS GT 440 runs even under full load. It never goes above 60°C :) But like i said, I went for performance within my budget
                                              ____________

                                              Team Belgium

                                              Amauri
                                              Send message
                                              Joined: Jul 12 11
                                              Posts: 6
                                              Credit: 694,971
                                              RAC: 590
                                              Message 114553 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 19:35:26 UTC - in response to Message 114552.

                                                Last modified: 17 Oct 2011 19:38:59 UTC

                                                Right, and I went for the card which gave me most performance for my small budget. You'd be surprised how cool the ASUS GT 440 runs even under full load. It never goes above 60°C :) But like i said, I went for performance within my budget


                                                Ok, but it isn't so cool, it's dissipating 65W inside your computer and heating the HD, mobo, etc. So you need a better fan to keep a low temperature inside. And this extra heat goes to the ambient air...

                                                An E@H WU takes 159 min. in GT520, against 90 min. in GT 440, so:
                                                GT 520 = 159 min x 29 W = 77 Watt-hours (1 WU)
                                                GT 440 = 90 min x 65 W = 97 Watt-hours (1 WU)

                                                Here in Brazil the summer is very hot, and I don't like air conditioning systems. Better power efficiency is an imperative requirement. Fortunately, you don't have this problem.

                                                Khangollo
                                                Avatar
                                                Send message
                                                Joined: Feb 17 11
                                                Posts: 35
                                                Credit: 52,543,696
                                                RAC: 61,435
                                                Message 114554 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 19:36:56 UTC

                                                  Speaking of GT 440 - I like the little GT 440. Mine does a BPR4 unit in 64 minutes. I'm quite impressed how well it works - old GTX 285 with at least triple the power consumption is only twice as fast.
                                                  Poor thing never saw 3D or any graphics apart from text console, though... :)

                                                  Profile microchip
                                                  Send message
                                                  Joined: Jun 10 06
                                                  Posts: 48
                                                  Credit: 5,063,241
                                                  RAC: 7,116
                                                  Message 114556 - Posted 17 Oct 2011 21:04:17 UTC - in response to Message 114553.

                                                    Last modified: 17 Oct 2011 21:11:15 UTC

                                                    Right, and I went for the card which gave me most performance for my small budget. You'd be surprised how cool the ASUS GT 440 runs even under full load. It never goes above 60°C :) But like i said, I went for performance within my budget


                                                    Ok, but it isn't so cool, it's dissipating 65W inside your computer and heating the HD, mobo, etc. So you need a better fan to keep a low temperature inside. And this extra heat goes to the ambient air...

                                                    An E@H WU takes 159 min. in GT520, against 90 min. in GT 440, so:
                                                    GT 520 = 159 min x 29 W = 77 Watt-hours (1 WU)
                                                    GT 440 = 90 min x 65 W = 97 Watt-hours (1 WU)

                                                    Here in Brazil the summer is very hot, and I don't like air conditioning systems. Better power efficiency is an imperative requirement. Fortunately, you don't have this problem.


                                                    Actually, it isn't heating up much as one side of my case is always open. My drive is actually hotter than my GT 440, when I touch both of them to compare and my drive is placed fairly above my GPU so it's not the GPU that's heating it up (I think it's the CPU with the big ass heatsink from Scythe) :)

                                                    And as I mentioned, I bought it for performance within my budget. I'm not trying to dispute that the GT 520 uses less power (we all know it does) but it also has terrible performance. But you went for power efficiency, not like me for performance within a certain budget :)

                                                    I'm actually thinking of buying the GT 520 for my workstation. Since I don't play games but am an avid movie watcher, and the GT 520 is more than enough for hardware acceleration of films (VDPAU), I think it'll be a nice fit for my workstation. Power efficient, cheap and quiet (saw an ASUS GT 520 with passive cooling)
                                                    ____________

                                                    Team Belgium

                                                    Post to thread

                                                    Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : New PCI/PCIe based GT520 cards


                                                    Home · Your account · Message boards

                                                    This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants PHY-1104902, PHY-1104617 and PHY-1105572 and by the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the MPG.

                                                    Copyright © 2014 Bruce Allen