[Minotaurtoo]

That's a Google sheet, so Vega 56 and RX Vega 56 are different GPUs.
The 5700XT are probably down in average ppd because there were a fair number of early WUs that had ppd that was under 800k. It has only been with some of the more recent WUs that ppd has gone up in the 1.2M+ average.

@Simmons572 I have a bunch of WUs that I can submit for Radeon VII, but I will probably submit them individually because there are 4 rigs and like 14 slots in my HFM log. :thumb:

oh... silly me... I did just notice though that the Radeon Vega 64 is below the Radeon Vega 56 where the RX variety is in the expected order. ... so still a bit of wonkyness there ... oh well.. no worries, I just thought something might have gotten broken all of a sudden

 

[Simmons572]

something seems to have went wonky, when sorted by PPD... vega 56 is above and below the radeon VII in the chart and the 5700XT PPD is way down on what it was before and even below what I usually see with my "efficient" profile with lower power limits.

Good catch, I will have that corrected.

That's a Google sheet, so Vega 56 and RX Vega 56 are different GPUs.
The 5700XT are probably down in average ppd because there were a fair number of early WUs that had ppd that was under 800k. It has only been with some of the more recent WUs that ppd has gone up in the 1.2M+ average.

@Simmons572 I have a bunch of WUs that I can submit for Radeon VII, but I will probably submit them individually because there are 4 rigs and like 14 slots in my HFM log. :thumb:

You explained it perfectly.

Up to you mate. Shoot me a PM, and we can work out the best course of action for this. :thumb:

 

[$ilent]

1.65M ppd on Vega 56, P14253 1:33 TPF

 

[Avacado]

On par with my 2060. Not bad :thumb:

 

[$ilent]

On par with my 2060. Not bad :thumb:

Is that in windows or linux? Good ppd for 2060 I didnt realise it was that high just checked though on paper as a whole 2060 is 17% better than V56.

 

[Avacado]

Windows, and again, each project is different, some WU's have the 2060 putting out 1.7, seen it as low as 1.1 mil. I have gotten more out of it with an OC, but the newer betas do NOT like OCs at all, so its running stock. I'd say a good average without failed WU's is around 1.5 Million.

 

[franz]

Windows, and again, each project is different, some WU's have the 2060 putting out 1.7, seen it as low as 1.1 mil. I have gotten more out of it with an OC, but the newer betas do NOT like OCs at all, so its running stock. I'd say a good average without failed WU's is around 1.5 Million.

What are your stock clocks, is it a Super? My 2060 is only around 1.2 average with 1950MHz core, also on Windows.

 

[Avacado]

What are your stock clocks, is it a Super? My 2060 is only around 1.2 average with 1950MHz core, also on Windows.

Yes, it is a super. Stock clocks. I had been running it @+100-125 core, but it just failed too many WU's.

 

[CptAsian]

Wow, I didn't realize newer cards had made such a jump in folding performance, even in the sort of mid-range of the lineup. My 1070 Tis stock make around 750-800K PPD and they're only a little bit behind on gaming performance and were only slightly cheaper when I got them on clearance. Interesting.

 

[Flyordie]

I've been fiddling with getting back into folding.. (I had to lay off of it due to stability with hardware and funds needed to fix the problem) but I've recently decided to figure out a way to get the stability issue clamped down enough to get GPU folding to work without issues.

My Vega 64 isn't too bad of a folder. 1.15Mil PPD average. The reason for biggest spike- After that 6 day lul of me working the stability problem.. I finally got it going and it actually finished WU's. Funny part is- thats with me gaming about 4hours a day on it.

 

[franz]

Added around 10 projects for the RTX 2060, non super variant. Nice little GPU that never goes below 1mil PPD and averages high 1.1mil PPD over multiple projects.

 

[Topinio]

Just submitted a RX 5700 XT result, and saw that the average in the Google sheet looks low at 1.069M for that card, because 1 result of the 3 is only 557k, while the other 2 average 1.325M - looks like one of the early WU results, and so is unrepresentative of performance now.

 

[Simmons572]

Great thanks for your submission. I will not be able to get those added immediately, but more data is always a good thing :thumb:

 

[CptAsian]

Was just checking some numbers and saw that the 1660 has one submission and it's with a PPD value of 542, and that can't be right. Is it possible to manually delete/manipulate that data somewhere?

 

[tictoc]

I just submitted 15 different WUs for a Radeon VII.

I do have one mistake in the units I submitted. P16916 and P16915, that I submitted, were actually from my 2080 Super. If someone could delete those submissions that would be great.

 

[Jpmboy]

can run on cool(er) days...

 

[Simmons572]

Was just checking some numbers and saw that the 1660 has one submission and it's with a PPD value of 542, and that can't be right. Is it possible to manually delete/manipulate that data somewhere?

I can take care of that once I get home from work.:thumb:

I just submitted 15 different WUs for a Radeon VII.

I do have one mistake in the units I submitted. P16916 and P16915, that I submitted, were actually from my 2080 Super. If someone could delete those submissions that would be great.

Gotcha. :thumb:

 

[Avacado]

can run on cool(er) days...

And on the 10th day god folded for the cure and it was good.

 

[BOB850123]

@Simmons572 I have ~2600 WU's worth of 2080Ti data to submit from HFM logs. I believe I recall you saying previously that you could support this, so please let me know how to proceed.

 

[Simmons572]

@Simmons572 I have ~2600 WU's worth of 2080Ti data to submit from HFM logs. I believe I recall you saying previously that you could support this, so please let me know how to proceed.

That's great! Shoot me a PM, and we can get this taken care of. :thumb: