Hardware How To Build The Best Folding Rig

How would that help? You can't fold on nVidia GPUs unless they're CUDA-capable (i.e. 8-series onwards) and have a CUDA driver, so you're always going to be restricted by the CUDA limitation.

 

huh and people wonder why we are in a power crisis lol =p ya I would hate to see their power bill thats for sure but hey its great because it goes to a good cause but man I would invest into solar power for those setups lol

 

Good article. I too would like to see the watercooled 14 gpu behemoth. It's got to be done just as a proof of concept to see if the VM route will work. Probably need dual PSU's too.

That said, Silverstone showed 4x 8800GX2/295's Folding in the Raven2, but did not show any thermals. That could be a good case for those without deep pockets as its speculated to be about £120.

Is there going to be a review of the P6T7? It looks to be a very novel board, even if it is X58.

And whats with all the bots about recently?

 

I used to run a GPU client but it never got to 100% it always bombed out and started a new one. In the end I gave up with it. Seems to me that folding on GFX cards doesn't work very well.

 

Imagine the Microstuttering in SLI...O_O

 

More cause for "mines better than yours" willie waving

 

Decent article, but you made an extremely important omission, which is that you completely ignored the possible contributions of CPUs to folding production. Although it's true that it's more difficult and expensive to build a farm centered around CPUs, current quad-core CPUs are actually just as good and in some cases better than GPUs for folding. A 45nm Core 2 Quad or Phenom II CPU can hit 5-6k PPD depending on the overclock when using the Linux SMP client, and an i7 CPU can hit 8-10k PPD depending on the overclock, which is actually more than any single GPU is capable of producing. Folding on a quad-core CPU in a multi-GPU folding box will give you essentially the same contribution as adding an entire GPU would, which is pretty significant in my books.

There are two ways of setting up the Linux SMP client efficiently with modern systems. You can either install Linux natively and run the GPU clients under WINE, or you can run Windows and use VMWare Player in conjunction with instances of notfred's folding virtual appliance (one instance per two cores). Running two 2-core instances of the Linux SMP client produces more points per day, although the RAM requirements are higher. Still, 4GB is enough for a multi-GPU box with two VMs.

Also, the PPD chart looks a bit off (the positioning of the GTX260 192SP below the 9800GTX+ and GTS250, and the GTX280 and GTX275 being placed below the GTX260 216SP; it should be GTX260 192SP<GTX260 216SP<GTX280<GTX275<GTX285<GTX295). You also list some numbers for the 9600GSO, although you didn't specify which version (I presume it's the EOL 96SP version, since it's placed higher than the 9600GT; the current 48SP version would perform worse than the 9600GT).

 

I think people are missing the point of folding. It maybe a form of Willie Waving but at the very least it acomplishes something.

 

+1 for notfred's VM SMP client
it's worth putting a faster quad-core to keep up with the GPU's but also to get a few extra PPD thu SMP clients.

 

Why do you recommend the crappy eXtreme Outervision PSU calculator?

- It's funded by Thermaltake
- It gives wattage values way off (50-200% too much)

 

I couldn't imagine turning a rig on like this here in Tx, U.S. during the summer. Constant daily temps of over 100f. Ouch. But for those like me that hate the cold, I could put a rig like this in the front of my central air intake, or living room, and have a nice little 1kw heater. Folding while heating,, great for winter months, but too bad for summer.

 

What has it actually accomplished so far?

 

Our earlier feature addressed this: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/06/15/what-is-folding-and-why-does-it-matter/6

 

I think some people need to get out more!

 

Apologies if I'm becoming a little too 'geeky' is this, (the politest word I can probably get away with) but I do have a couple of questions on the hardware side if maybe someone (Lizard?) could help out...

I've taken a look at the specialist Tesla C1060 cards that nVidia produce, and they appear at first glance to be little more than GTX 275's with 4GB RAM instead of 896MB - yet you can buy a GTX 275 for less than £200, whereas a C1060 costs around £1,300.

http://www.viglen.co.uk/pricelist/HPCpricelist.pdf (Opens a 2.1MB pdf just to warn people - p8 if you're interested).

Why on earth is there such a price disparity?

If the extra (and faster?) RAM makes such a huge difference to performance, then wouldn't it be worth paying all the extra upfront to save on the very substantial running costs of having four cards running instead of one? (Plus all the reduced CO2 emissions, heat, noise etc, etc).

And if it doesn't make that much difference, then why are four GTX 295's, (each with double the number of processor cores) still cheaper than a single C1060?

I suppose this is all a bit of a moot point as I'm not actually thinking of buying four 295's anyway, but then if one C1060 does a similar job with a quarter of the electricity, (plus all the other benefits) well, that could be something to think very seriously about.

Seeing as you'd be showcasing their products to a wide audience, would there be any chance of persuading nVidia to lend you some C1060's to build a showcase folding rig with them & see what's what?

That's a follow up article I'd love to see...

 

There's such a huge price difference not just because of the extra RAM but because Tesla cards are professional workstation/HPC products, not gaming (GeForce) products. Because of this, Tesla cards (like Quadro cards) go through a much stricter qualification process than GeForce cards, just like a Xeon is much more thoroughly tested than a Core 2/i7.

The trouble is, the extra RAM makes absolutely no difference to folding@home, so a Tesla card is completely pointless for running this GPGPU app. Other HPC apps however may well use the extra RAM.

I've been talking to Nvidia about doing an article on Tesla cards for the better part of six months but due to their high price Nvidia won't give any samples to the press. They're probably also pretty scared that we could slate them for their high price, even though we review Xeons/Opterons on a regular basis.

 

Thanks for the detailed response.

So, essentially, for folding purposes, a C1060 is going to produce (approximately) the same performance, yet for close to 7 times the price. Fair enough.

All that 'stricter qualification process' may be important for mission critical applications such as medical equipment, but I suspect for even most Tesla users (who don't need the extra memory) it's probably just a waste of money - as a good quality after-market cooler should keep the thing reasonably safe.

It's no wonder they don't want to hand any over to you!

(To think I was actually weighing it up as an option...)

 

Yes indeed, and to make matters worse I'm not convinced the 'additional qualification' is enough to justify the huge price difference, even if you are a professional user. For example, in contrast, a professional CPU (Xeon or Opteron) is a superior product to a desktop CPU (they have better thermals, error detection and correction) - something neither ATI or Nvidia have addressed with their professional cards.

 

Haha! They've stuck some extra RAM on it, relabelled it and charged £1,100 for the privilige haven't they - cheeky swines. Still, they're a business and not a charity I suppose - charge what you can get away with & all that.

You know, I'd absolutely LOVE to see one of these pitched against a bog-standard 295 now, as even for apps that could make use of the additional memory I'd be willing to bet the extra 240 cores would still beat it hands down.

A pity I don't know anyone who uses that kind of workstation - I'd persuade them to rip it out and send it to you for a couple of days so you could run a comparison. I'm sure they'd be willing if they could find out they could potentially increase performance for almost a £1,000 saving per card. There must be someone out there...

 

That's a reason I stopped using what would have been folding overkill before the GPU clients. I nearly doubled my electric bill and that was in the winter when I could use it to help heat my place

Are there options for a system that only have x8 physical slots, and how does scaling the links down translate into how the GPU can do?