Lol, well ok but you didn't say anything, you just didn't respond ;).
I work full time :P

Oh updated table, only my CPU time added.

Leonheart
CPU time is purely for comparison, I crunched MW on my CPU purely for benchmarking. When the WUs run out it'll be crunching A@H & LHC@H (when WUs are available).

Are you going to let my ~6yr old CPU sit at the top of the table? :D

******************************************************************************

Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds.
[update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered so far (17/2/14) you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU.

Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either.

Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ..................................... 80s Leonheart
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ..................................... 81s Mumak,
HD 7970 (stock) .................................................. 83s mikey
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 6 GHz,Cat 14.1 b) .... 87s Leonheart
HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ...................................... 90s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 6 GHz) ................... 95s Leonheart
HD 7870 XT (stock) ........................................... 120s Matt
HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) .................................... 121s salvordorhardin
HD 6950 (stock) ................................................ 176s Icecold
HD 5870 (stock) ................................................ 192s mikey
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) .................................... 210s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) .................................... 231s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) .................................... 245s salvordorhardin
HD 5850 1GB (stock) ......................................... 246s Assim1 (1st post)
GTX 780 Ti (stock) ............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc
GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ......................... 471s GleeM
HD 4870 1GB (stock) ......................................... 503s Assim1
GTX 570 (stock) ................................................ 520s - Linux biodoc
GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ..................................... 520s Dunx
HD 4850 1 GB (stock) ........................................ 553s wayliff
HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) ......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................... 724s Mumak
HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) .................................... 807s Deerslayer
GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ............................... 816s - Linux biodoc
GTX 560 Ti (stock) ............................................ 836s Deerslayer
GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ....................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6

Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey
AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey
AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey
AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey

OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown.

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Greetings, new MW cruncher here and reading thru the different posts saw this and thought I might add to it. I'm using a ASUS HD7950-DC2T Direct CUII "TOP" model 7950 running factory settings (900MHz GPU/5000MHz RAM)and Cat. 14.1 Beta driver. Card will be two yrs old next month and doesn't owe me penny, just a well built machine. I've been member of S@H for yrs but since the WU's are sorta scarce there atm, decided to join the MW@H team. So apologies for being long-winded but decided to share my results...

80.05,80.07,80.07,80.05,80.15 = 80.078 avg.

Regards,

Wes

---

2 WES
I have same card and almost same system sa yours, and can perform 80s result only with 1100Mhz core. You sure about 900Mhz?

[imgfile:///C:/Users/WES/Desktop/GPUZ%20screenie.gif][/img]


Hi well tried to post image of GPU-Z screenie but obvious doing something wrong but yes no need to OC this, not only temps go up so does electric bill :)

Wes

I had a look at your host WES and for the longer 213.76 credit WUs I saw 81-85 secs.

both WESand Leonheart appear to be using the same OS and video driver version, but WES is using BOINC v7.2.33, whereas Leonheart is using BOINC v7.0.64...now i can't imagine that has anything to do with the difference in run times, but maybe its worth looking into...

Yea, i was tried hard ) Memory OC isn`t important for crunching, and pretty unstable on high clocks. Really nice to see that 7950 can be faster than stock 7970 lol. But OC 280X will beat all variants.

don't be fooled by new nomenclature...the decisive advantage, if there is one, won't necessarily go to the 280X without question. it'll trade blows with the 7970/7970GE. you have to remember that a 280X is just a re-badged 7970 w/ a re-tweaked core clock (850MHz vs the 7970's 925MHz), memory clock (1500MHz vs the 7970's 1375MHz), and a boost clock (1000MHz vs the 7970's nonexistent boost clock). otherwise, they use the same 4.31 billion transistor chip built on the same 28nm manufacturing process based on the same GCN 1.0 architecture rated at the same TDP of 250W. they also have the same 3GB of VRAM and the same 384-bit memory bus. the only advantage a 280X seems to have over the 7970GE is a lower TDP (since the 7970GE's TDP is rated a bit higher than the reference 7970), while the 280X's VRAM clock is the same and its core clock and boost clock are slower.

i see that Mumak has a Gigabyte 280X on the way that's factory OCed, but if we're going to compare apples to apples, even that card doesn't have the distinct advantage over certain factory OCed 7970's/7970GE's. if you want something that'll substantially outperform a 7970/7970GE, you'll have to upgrade to a 290 or a 290X...don't get me wrong, the 280X is a great card...but if you're looking for an upgrade, and you've already got a 7970, the 280X would be a waste of money b/c you're paying more for a sometimes minimal, and other times nonexistent performance gain.

just some food for thought...

---

Yes I took the 5 fastest times of completed WU's (validated) from yesterday now there are 700+ validations so the 80s recorded are near the end of the stack so to speak. No 80s recorded since yesterday and hey if ya's can't trust a retired mailman, who in blazes can ya trust lol. If someone would walk me thru posting a screenshot of my GPU-Z pic I'd be more than happy to share.

My sys...

MB-ASUS P8Z68-VProGen3
i7-2700K @ 3.5GHZ
1050W Thermaltake Toughpower Grand PSU
16GB GSkill PC3 12800 RAM
Zalman CNPS9900MAX-B 135mm CPU cooler
Samsung 256GB SSD
ASUS HD7950 CUII TOP 3GB
Thermaltake Armor+ case w/3 140mm fans,1 120mm and 1 200mm fan
ASUS Utility uninstalled

sys temps < 80F constant
cpu temps < 90F constant
gpu temps <125F constant (at full load)

---

Hi again folks, I just revisited the validation list and found and 80.04 recorded, so I investigated further the conical result of the WU and found that it list GPU at 925MHz!!! Yet, neither GPU-Z or SIV-64X both utilities I used for monitoring the system show 925MHz, they show only 900MHz! I will go back and check the conical results and see if indeed this is the case with other results I used...hmmm, I don't have OC enabled in Catalyst either so not sure what is going on here?

Regards
Wes

Well I jumped the gun will post WU# with times as this 925 MHz was wingman's pc...disregard info above on this post.

OK, I went back and found all times and here are WU#'s and correlating data...

WU-504486737 80.07 900MHz
WU-504422737 80.07 900MHz
WU-504396963 80.05 900MHz
WU-504396643 80.05 900MHz
WU-504316135 80.15 900MHz

...wow hope I did that right..

Wes

if you want something that'll substantially outperform a 7970/7970GE, you'll have to upgrade to a 290 or a 290X...

But not for MW@H (double-precision), since the 290 (Hawaii) has crippled DP performance. But this is something we all know...

WES - you can use HWiNFO and log all sensor values to see at which exact clock it is running.

if you want something that'll substantially outperform a 7970/7970GE, you'll have to upgrade to a 290 or a 290X...

But not for MW@H (double-precision), since the 290 (Hawaii) has crippled DP performance. But this is something we all know...

oops...you're absolutely right - i completely forgot about the crippled FP64 performance of the Hawaii chip...so yeah, even the 290 and 290X aren't as good as the 7970 for MW@H...

7970 FP64 performance: 925,000,000 cycles per second X 2 instructions per cycles X 2048 streaming processors X 0.25 FP64 ratio = 947.2 GFLOPs

R9 280 FP64 performance: 925,000,000 cycles per second (boost clock) X 2 instructions per cycles X 1792 streaming processors X 0.25 FP64 ratio = 828.8 GFLOPs

R9 280X FP64 performance: 1,000,000,000 cycles per second (boost clock) X 2 instructions per cycles X 2048 streaming processors X 0.25 FP64 ratio = 1,024 GFLOPs

R9 290 FP64 performance: 947,000,000 cycles per second (boost clock) X 2 instructions per cycles X 2560 streaming processors X 0.125 FP64 ratio = 606.08 GFLOPs

R9 290X FP64 performance: 1,000,000,000 cycles per second (boost clock) X 2 instructions per cycles X 2816 streaming processors X 0.125 FP64 ratio = 704 GFLOPs

---

I forgot to add, that some GPU monitoring tools tend to round-up the actual GPU clock (over a period of time) on some later AMD families. HWiNFO on the other hand reports the actual precise clock.

Thanks for the times WES :), their is generally some odd things going on with the times of all the 7900 cards! ;)
But yea your not supposed to cherry pick the 5 fastest WU times ;), to me your average looks more like 82s.
But 900 MHz on the GPU yea?

I don't suppose your card has a boosting facility does it?

280X (& 7970 GE) make 1 Teraflop! :)

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

If someone would walk me thru posting a screenshot of my GPU-Z pic I'd be more than happy to share.

The easiest way is to sign up for a free picture site like flickr available at http://www.flickr.com/

It uses your Yahoo username and password, I think, and then you can link the picture here. To do save the picture on your pc, click the mini camera in the upper right of the gpu-z screen, save it, then upload it to flickr and then link it here.

WES
You said you haven't overclocked it yourself yet Asus's page for it shows a default clock of 800 MHz for the GPU https://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/HD7950DC23GD5/#specifications

I've got the right card haven't I?
It doesn't particularly matter seeing as you've told us 900 MHz anyway, I just wondered :).

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

I've got the right card haven't I?

no, his is either the HD7950-DC2T-3GD5 or the HD7950-DC2T-3GD5-V2 (different display output arrangement, same everything else).

---

Ah ok thx Sunny :)

Updated table, new times.

Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds.
[update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb. ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered so far (17/2/14) you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU.

Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either.

Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

HD 7970 (GPU 1150 MHz) ....................................... 75s Sunny129
HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 80s Leonheart
HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 81s Mumak,
HD 7970 (GPU 1050 MHz) ....................................... 81s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 900 MHz) ......................................... 82s WES
HD 7970 (stock) .................................................... 83s mikey
HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz) ....................................... 85s Sunny129
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz,Cat 14.1 b) . 87s Leonheart
HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ......................................... 90s Sunny129 (same time when RAM u/c to 800 MHz!)
HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz) ................ 95s Leonheart
HD 7870 XT (stock) .............................................. 120s Matt
HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 121s salvordorhardin
HD 6950 (stock) .................................................. 176s Icecold
HD 5870 (stock) .................................................. 192s mikey
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 210s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz, RAM u/c 500 MHz) ............ 211s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) ...................................... 231s Assim1
HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 245s salvordorhardin
HD 5850 1GB (stock) ........................................... 246s Assim1 (1st post)
GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc
GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ........................... 471s GleeM
HD 4870 1GB (stock) ........................................... 503s Assim1
GTX 570 (stock) .................................................. 520s - Linux biodoc
GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 520s Dunx
HD 4850 1 GB (stock) .......................................... 553s wayliff
HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post)
HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ........................ 724s Mumak
HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) ..................................... 807s Deerslayer
GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ................................. 816s - Linux biodoc
GTX 560 Ti (stock) .............................................. 836s Deerslayer
GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ......................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6

Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :-

Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey
AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey
AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey
Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey
AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey

OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown.

******************************************************************************

So no one else fancy posting any CPU times?

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Oh btw folks, still after more benchmarks, would be nice to see more 6900s, 5800s stats & to see any 3800 & 4700 stats!
As well as more NVidia & CPU stats :)

---

Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG

Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit
2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7

Hi yes the vid card I have is the first Direct CUII model that first appeared Jan 2012 with factory setting 100MHz (900MHz) above reference model (800MHz). Version 2 came out late spring/early summer in 2012. AFAIK the first 7000 series models did not appear with the boost OC that appeared on 7000 series models some months later.

Yea Yahoo is a place I don't frequent on the web so guess the screen shot thing will have to wait and I checked out the HWinfo site but it's not updated as frequently as GPU-Z or SIV64X but thanks for the tips guys.

And forgive the cherry picks guess I didn't understand the "average of 5 WU times" or "average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only" parts completely, though its nice to see I can get occasional results matching cards with up to 200MHz higher OC.

Regards,
Wes

and I checked out the HWinfo site but it's not updated as frequently as GPU-Z or SIV64X but thanks for the tips guys.

What?! I released a new version a week ago and will release a new Beta tomorrow ;-)