Sentinel, would you substitute Nvidia cards with CPU's?
When I asked what would have the best PPD/W with the big WU's I was told:
The only NVIDIA cards which doesn't lose too much is the GTX 2xx series with 192-240 shaders. the more shaders = the merrier.
As for bang for the buck, we need to redo the calculations with those new proteins but I still think the 8800GS/9600GSO is a good value even if they can do only 2500-3000 ppd with the largest WU. With the 973 atoms ones, it float between 3500-4000 ppd compared to 4500-5000 with the smaller ones.
So it might be that the change wasn't big enough to change the relative value of the cards.
I run 3 9600gso overclocked gpu and here is how they perform on various wu I have seen
in the last week:
WU PPD Watts Temp© Atoms
5749 2943 230 83 1392
5756 2963 235 84 1392
5751 2983 233 83 1392
5757 3903 227 84 973
5506 5120 218 80 576
5014 5184 210 80 576
5754 2983 232 83 1392
5753 3003 233 84 1392
5758 3813 226 81 973
5016 5135 219 80 576
5761 3813 229 82 973
5760 3903 223 83 973
5752 2943 234 83 1392
5763 3903 226 83 973
PPD were measured with FAHmon using "all frames".
Watts are measured at wall socket with Kill-A-Watt, and when FAH
is not running, it shows 168 Watts.
So it looks like the new wu with 1392 atoms
drop my 9600gso from 5100 to 3000 ppd, and
the 973 atom wu drop my cards from 5100
to 3900 ppd.
When all of the wu were 576 atoms, I was getting ~13,500 ppd,
but with the wu mix today I get ~10,500 ppd with my three 9600gso gpu.
These measurements are from the Overclocking FAH web page.
If the 9600gso ever sell for $50 again, they are probably still the most
cost effective ppd/$, but cards with more shaders may be more
cost effective in the future as prices go down. Who knows, ATI cards
may even take the lead? We need updated statistics on prices and ppd.