Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : New beta application 6.18 for Windows

Author Message
Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 15711 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 15:18:31 UTC

This one should work.

gdf

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,212,810,943
RAC: 190
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15716 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 19:39:13 UTC - in response to Message 15711.
Last modified: 12 Mar 2010 | 20:11:29 UTC

The first observation
http://photo.uloziste.com/?fotka=ba59aa18c336fa66.jpg&d=3a43210e71c8c82b&size=0
ID 3129 XP x_64, GTX260-65nm, one of these unhappy ones crashing units until 185.xx drivers. 100% one core load, 31 min 12% progress.
Link is to screenshot GPU-Z + CUDA-Z + task manager.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 1451
Credit: 3,575,929,351
RAC: 310,964
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15717 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 21:21:44 UTC

Similar observation. A26-TONI_KKBETA2-0-100-RND8274_4 (I seem to be the fifth to try it) is running, but using 100% of a CPU core: after 40 minutes (5%), CPU time is only one second less than elapsed time. Because BOINC sets GPU 'feeder' tasks at a higher priority than pure CPU tasks, it's stealing time from all four of the other BOINC tasks on this quad.

SuperViruS
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 127,707,074
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15718 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 21:31:55 UTC

The new application load 100% one core....

Intel i7-920, GTX 275 (OC 700/1552/1134), driver 195.62, Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Screenshot task manager, 12% equals a one core.



Bye.
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15719 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 21:40:58 UTC

What about its GPU performance?

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,212,810,943
RAC: 190
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15720 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 | 22:15:54 UTC - in response to Message 15716.

"nenym" wrote:
ID 3129 XP x_64, GTX260-65nm, one of these unhappy ones crashing units until 185.xx drivers.

Two task crashed, the first after 6,425s (GPU little OCed), second after 3,762s (factory clock settings). Hmm...that weird 65nm GPU is still unusable for GPUGRD. Switching to Seti.

Profile Aardvark
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 82,362,324
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15721 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 0:22:39 UTC - in response to Message 15711.
Last modified: 13 Mar 2010 | 1:17:22 UTC

Looks good

12 Mar 2010 16:23:54 UTC 12 Mar 2010 22:36:47 UTC Completed and validated 17,086.48 16,753.04 4,535.61 6,803.41 ACEMD beta version v6.18 (cuda).

as compaired to (typical values)

1 Mar 2010 5:48:44 UTC 1 Mar 2010 18:41:37 UTC Completed and validated 23,123.93 3,017.39 4,535.61 6,123.07 ACEMD beta version v6.10 (cuda)

Uses 1 multithread CPU core per GPU ( 2X GTX260, 55nm, XFX factory OC).

That's about 26% faster......

Boinc CPU tasks in progress at same time. (8 tasks shared over 6 threads).

Profile X-Files 27
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 95
Credit: 68,023,693
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15723 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 3:19:42 UTC

Not good. It occupies 1 core.
____________

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 1451
Credit: 3,575,929,351
RAC: 310,964
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15725 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 9:20:25 UTC - in response to Message 15719.

What about its GPU performance?

MrS

Not good on a 9800GT. Maybe 5% faster than v6.03, but at the expense of taking an entire CPU core - over 40K seconds taken away from other projects.

But at least it finished and validated.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 15726 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 9:44:05 UTC - in response to Message 15725.

The 100% CPU core is a not intended and will be removed. Don't know why is there. This application is 30-40% faster on newer cards only based on G200 chip. For older cards, it will be the same speed of the current main application.

gdf

MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 738
Credit: 200,909,904
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15727 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 11:33:52 UTC
Last modified: 13 Mar 2010 | 11:37:47 UTC

Got this one. Its certainly was quicker but as the other guys have said uses a heck of a lot of CPU to get there. Was run on a GTX295.

I notice its got lots more device info in the messages, but still doesn't say which device its running on.
____________
BOINC blog

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 15728 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 11:45:36 UTC - in response to Message 15727.

No the CPU usage is just unrelated.

gdf

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15730 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 12:06:57 UTC - in response to Message 15726.

This application is 30-40% faster on newer cards only based on G200 chip.


Wow 30-40% faster on G200+ is just great! This should also help the GT240, which is already quite popular for GPU-Grid. Seems like the enhancements in the new architecture are finally paying off.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

SuperViruS
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 127,707,074
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15731 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 12:33:50 UTC

Beta 3 units completed and properly validated.

Compared with the current version took about 4000 seconds less, accounting for my GTX 275 performance increase of 35%

Good job ^^
____________

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 450
Credit: 539,316,349
RAC: 0
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15733 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 15:16:25 UTC
Last modified: 13 Mar 2010 | 15:16:49 UTC

GDF ... you guys are GOOD !!!
I just processed my first beta from this round on a dual card GTX295 in 3.25 hours.
I see now why you are talking about increasing WU size :-)
____________
Thanks - Steve

Tom Philippart
Send message
Joined: 12 Feb 09
Posts: 57
Credit: 23,376,686
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15741 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 20:14:34 UTC

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=1984108

my first beta WU, ran successfully and with a nice speedup, as reported before, the cpu usage was for me 100% too.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15746 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 | 22:29:12 UTC - in response to Message 15741.

25% complete for a Beta 6.18 on a GTX260sp216 (Phenom II 940) and it already looks much faster. Estimated time to finish is 4h 30min. The last 6.03 task on same system took 5h 50min. The 6.03 prior to that was 5h 56min.101. Did not get any on my GT240's.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15751 - Posted: 14 Mar 2010 | 10:57:12 UTC - in response to Message 15746.

Took about 33% less time to complete one 6.18 task than a 6.03 task, albeit at the expense of CPU time (required a full CPU). Again, I am quite happy with this as GPU work should be prioritised in whatever way required, but others might go on about it. Thanks,

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 411
Credit: 6,063,938,459
RAC: 14
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 15755 - Posted: 14 Mar 2010 | 20:12:48 UTC - in response to Message 15711.

I downloaded 2 of these units. They each took a little more than 3 hours to complete with a GTX 285 card, as oppose to over 4 hours for the ACEMD 6.03. The only downside is that it also uses up 100% of one my CPU's time. Over all, this is very good.

Post to thread

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : New beta application 6.18 for Windows

//