Hi Ross, Marek and all,
I obtained terrible results by GTX590 (two cards) using the unofficial 270.40 drivers:
Explicit solvent:
1) GTX590 DHFR NPT:
1GPU: 20.18 ns/day
2GPU 28.93 ns/day
4GPU 32.60 ns/day
(GTX470 18.82 ns/day)
2) GTX590 DHFR NVE:
1GPU: 23.45 ns/day
2GPU 33.54 ns/day
4GPU 36.91 ns/day
(GTX470 21.20 ns/day)
From the above results we can see that for very small systems GTX590 is only about 54-56% faster than GTX470. Thus, GTX590 has comparable to GTX580 result if the last is in reality 50% faster than GTX470 (I don’t have such card, if one has, please post some results here). As you can see the scaling is 1.43 between the cores and ONLY 1.13 (13%...) between the cards. So, if one plan to simulate only such small systems the choose is obvious…:)
In the realistic case (90 906 atoms) the things are more optimistic:
3) GTX590 FactorIX NPT:
1GPU: 4.10 ns/day
2GPU 6.66 ns/day
4GPU 7.42 ns/day
(GTX470 3.65 ns/day)
4) GTX590 FactorIX NVE:
1GPU: 6.53 ns/day
2GPU 9.66 ns/day
4GPU 11.01 ns/day
(GTX470 5.53 ns/day)
Here we have more than 1.6x scale between cores for NPT and 1.5 NVE, but again 1.11-1.14 between cards. Probably something wrong with my system… Thus, in that case GTX590 is about 75-81% faster than GTX470 and probably around 30% faster than GTX580, but not 50%. I have seen few percent differences between the drivers and especially in the case of 270 series (always bad results) thus one can expect additional few % after official driver realize and further improvements. Unfortunately the memory is insufficient for 400 000 atoms and two 3GB GTX580 (! if they scale well, I don’t believe that after today’s experiments and Ross’s comments, but some results are welcome) seems to be better choose for larger systems.
GB
5) GTX590 TRPCage:
1GPU: 354.77 ns/day
(GTX470 398.25 ns/day)
6) GTX590 Myoglobin:
1GPU: 49.42 ns/day
2GPU 62.82 ns/day
4GPU 79.09 ns/day
(GTX470 49.03 ns/day)
I think that the bad driver conclusion is supported by the above results, because even if only the speed play the major role here, GTX470 gives better results, which is I think impossible... In the case of Myoglobin the scale between cores is the same like two C2050 and similar between cards. Thus, I hope that with better drivers the numbers will be better in all tests.
I’d like to note that I observed similar scales with NAMD 2.7 and 2.8.
No problem with core temperatures (I don’t know what about VRM and all hysteria in that direction) - 62-65C under load and probably will reach 70-75C during long simulations, but don’t think more because of the GPU’s scales.
I also have to mention that have some problems with the BIOS versions - GPU1 and GPU 3 works with ASUS bios revision 2, but GPU2 and 4 with revision 1…I will solve that today. In general the driver is not good; I was not able to start some programs and also to follow up the GPU usages. How these problems, or other, relate to the above results I don’t know, but probably we can not expect much more from GTX590. Disappointed :(
I am not expert, but hope that CUDA 4.0 (created mainly for better parallel performance) may solve some of these problems, but as Ross informed today this will take time.
Regards,
Filip
--- On Fri, 4/8/11, Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz> wrote:
> From: Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz>
> Subject: Re: [AMBER] Amber CUDA calcualtion on GeForce GTX 590 ?
> To: "AMBER Mailing List" <amber.ambermd.org>
> Date: Friday, April 8, 2011, 3:53 AM
> Hi Filip,
> thanks for the info (I didn.t obtain any info from NVIDIA
> help desk till
> now).
> Anyway when you have the first Amber benchmarks with 590
> done I hope that
> you
> tell us here about your first impressions ...
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marek
>
>
>
>
> Dne Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:52:35 +0200 filip fratev <filipfratev.yahoo.com>
>
> napsal/-a:
>
> > Hi Ross and Marek,
> >
> > Marek I saw this evening that GTX590 was included in
> the new drivers
> > “Developer Drivers for Linux (270.40)” that comes
> with the new CUDA
> > 4.0RC2 release. There is still no access via the
> official Nvidia
> > website, but one can download them from developer
> zone:
> > http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit-40
> > I will test the drivers and hope finally to test
> GTX590 with Amber too.
> >
> > Ross I read your further comments about Cuda4.0, but
> regarding to our
> > last discussion about GTX590 GPU’s scaling, do you
> think that Cuda 4.0
> > can bring us some better performance for these cards
> compared to GTX295?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Filip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER mailing list
> > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
>
> --
> Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním
> klientem Opery:
> http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Fri Apr 08 2011 - 02:30:02 PDT
