Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Poor performance ? Help please!

Author Message
Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5753 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 16:18:04 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jan 2009 | 16:19:33 UTC

OK, so I bit the bullet and bought myself a 8600GT 265mb factory overclocked card (Galaxy) installed it and it is up and running. It's fitted in a Dell PC with a Pentium D 3.2Ghz twin core CPU and 1Gb ram.

The CPU is running two instances of Milky way and the third task is running as "GPU Grid Full Atom molecular dynamics 6.55 (cuda) and the status column says "Running 0.06 CPU's, 1 cuda"

Now the time to completion for the cuda task is looking like coming out at about 25 hours????? Surely something is a bit wrong here?

I'm using Boinc 6.4.5 and Nividia drivers 181.20. I set the card to performance rather than quality.

Help! at this rate it's not worth bothering with.....

Profile DoctorNow
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 07
Posts: 83
Credit: 115,790,582
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 5755 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 16:32:53 UTC - in response to Message 5753.
Last modified: 18 Jan 2009 | 16:37:33 UTC

OK, so I bit the bullet and bought myself a 8600GT 265mb factory overclocked card (Galaxy)

Nothing wrong on that unfortunately.
You got one of the slowest cards available, look in this post.
It only has 32 shaders and not even CUDA 2.0 compability. :-(
Should take even more than 25 hours because I with my 9600GT crunch a full task within that time, and this is a bit faster card with 64 shaders.
____________
Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5758 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 17:33:34 UTC - in response to Message 5755.

OK, thanks for the reply. I didn't pay much for it and I couldn't run anything faster as my PC power supply wouldn't have handled it. It has been an experiment to see what GPU computing is all about, but it seems unless you're into the high end cards its simply not worth bothering.

Kevin Erickson
Send message
Joined: 4 Jan 09
Posts: 13
Credit: 38,770,846
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 5762 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 18:33:16 UTC - in response to Message 5755.
Last modified: 18 Jan 2009 | 18:52:51 UTC

25 hours is slow?

My 9600m GT takes 68 hours.

Some of mine even time out because they expire before I can finish processing them.

32bit XP Pro SP3, 6.55 packets, BOINC 6.5.0, (Edit) driver 178.28, no other projects running.

Is this correct?

frankhagen
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 65
Credit: 3,037,414
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5763 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 19:04:17 UTC - in response to Message 5762.

25 hours is slow?
My 9600m GT takes 68 hours.


your 9600M GT has 32 shaders AND is running fairly slow.

9600GTs got at least 64 shaders and are running @ much higher clocks.

Kevin Erickson
Send message
Joined: 4 Jan 09
Posts: 13
Credit: 38,770,846
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 5764 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 19:33:10 UTC - in response to Message 5763.

Sigh....
I cant just specify seti cuda either....
ok, I'll just keep chugging along..

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5768 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 21:44:51 UTC

Well, I've downloaded Nvidia Ntune,and upped the GPU core to 656, the memory to 850, and the shaders to 1443. It all seems stable, so we will see if there is any extra performance to be had here. I'll report back.

Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 5770 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009 | 23:35:46 UTC - in response to Message 5768.

Well, I've downloaded Nvidia Ntune,and upped the GPU core to 656, the memory to 850, and the shaders to 1443. It all seems stable, so we will see if there is any extra performance to be had here. I'll report back.


Your first workunit queued is a GPUTEST unit. With the clocks you have you can expect to run in the 55-65 hour range (assuming no gaming or other significant GPU tasks). You may find that some types of work will exceed 70 hours by a bit, while other shorter work might go as low as about 40 hours (my estimates are based on my 9500GT which is also 32 shader, but with faster clocks than your card--I adjusted estimates down from mine a bit).

Unfortunately, the clock adjustments will result in only modest changes in times for the current GPUGRID applications. The shader followed by the core clocks have the most effect, adjusting memory clock has considerably less. You will also want to watch your work very closely given that you only have 256mb on the card; you will need all 256 at a minimum, otherwise your work will crash with an error.

Finally, how many watts is your PS? If you are over 300 watts, you can probably run other more powerful cards (e.g., 9600GSO/8800GS or 9600GT).


Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5775 - Posted: 19 Jan 2009 | 10:07:26 UTC - in response to Message 5770.

Hi Scott, thanks for the reply. I'm being told that I can overclock further to Core 693, memory 913, and shaders 1826. I might try that after a bit.

I've had two tasks crash out already, but the machine is a 24/7 cruncher with no games or other use. The CPU's are running Milkyway. The power supply is 350W, all the higher cards need 450w minimum that is why I had to stick to the 8600GT. I'd like a 9600GT but I dont think I can run it.

This really is just an experiment at the moment and from what I am seeing at the level of card I'm at, really isn't worth the hassle. I'll let it run for a bit but I think I will wait until I can afford a quaddy with a decent top end card and try again.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 5776 - Posted: 19 Jan 2009 | 11:10:43 UTC

It coiuld still very well be the PS ... if it is close to its actual draw, or if it is simply a cheap design the PS can generate noise and ringing signals on the power rails which will drive some components nuts ...

I am not saying that this is the case here ... but it is a possibility to consider.

Or, the card may just be "silently" over-heating and dropping the task with errors because the card does not stay cool enough. You can use external fans to try to see if that is the cause also ...

Or, as you say, wait until you can afford a better card ... :)
____________

Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 5778 - Posted: 19 Jan 2009 | 13:23:41 UTC - in response to Message 5775.

The power supply is 350W, all the higher cards need 450w minimum that is why I had to stick to the 8600GT. I'd like a 9600GT but I dont think I can run it.


The manufacturer ratings for needed PS are typically very conservative. At most, a 9600GT would use in the 100-105 watt range. The GPUGRID app does not max-out a card. With a 350W PS, you should be able to run a 9600GT, and could definitely run the 84W 9600GSO card. I have been running the latter on a stock DELL 375W PS in an old Pent D 3.0Ghz since November.

OC'ing the shaders from 1443 to 1826 is only going to give a modest boost in GFLOPS with the 8600GT (1.443*32*3 = 138.5 GFLOPS vs. 1.826*32*3 = 175.3 GLOPS compared to the 9600GT and 9600GSO which are in the 300-400 range with stock clocks). The higher clocks that you posted are almost where my 9500GT is clocked. On it, the longest workunit so far (from the JAN4 series) has taken about 56 hours.



Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5781 - Posted: 19 Jan 2009 | 16:12:46 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jan 2009 | 16:25:09 UTC

Hi Paul and Scott, thanks again for the help. GPU-Z says the card is running at 53C with the fan at 30% so Its definitely not being pushed any! I believe I'm correct in saying that the 8600GT was a particularly low power card anyway which is probably helping.

9600GT Thermal and Power Specs:
Maximum GPU Temperature (in C) 105 C
Maximum Graphics Card Power (W) 90 W
Minimum System Power Requirement (W) 400 W
Supplementary Power Connectors 6-pin


I have got a Dell 9100 which has a 350W PSU.

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5815 - Posted: 20 Jan 2009 | 10:59:10 UTC

Interim update. The first workunit is still running with these results

24 hours - 43%
37 hours - 65%

Extrapolating forward gives a finish time of about 56 hours which is what was suggested. My original figure of 25 hours came from the time elapsed figure which is counting up at half speed. The time left figure appears about right.

Kevin Erickson
Send message
Joined: 4 Jan 09
Posts: 13
Credit: 38,770,846
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 5822 - Posted: 20 Jan 2009 | 15:41:59 UTC - in response to Message 5815.

Ted,

Mine is right around the same speed.
Just keep crunching!

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 5826 - Posted: 20 Jan 2009 | 19:06:31 UTC - in response to Message 5815.

My original figure of 25 hours came from the time elapsed figure which is counting up at half speed.


This is the CPU time. Luckily you don't need the CPU all the time while the GPU is crunching..

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 5837 - Posted: 21 Jan 2009 | 16:02:46 UTC

Well, we finally got there with the first workunit finished! Took a total of 56 hours, a reported CPU time of 32.7 hours, and a credit of 3232. All apparently about right for an 8600GT. I'll leave it running for another unit then try and tweak the card some more.

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6352 - Posted: 3 Feb 2009 | 16:50:24 UTC

Well, I've downloaded Nvidia Ntune,and upped the GPU core to 656, the memory to 850, and the shaders to 1443. It all seems stable, so we will see if there is any extra performance to be had here. I'll report back.


We got as far as

GPU 694
Memory 910
Shaders 1527

All seems to work.....

Post to thread

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Poor performance ? Help please!

//