Message boards : Number crunching : NATHAN_KID WUs
Author | Message |
---|---|
Saw some new NATHAN WUs coming through a couple hours ago and said OH BOY because the last NATHANs ran so well on all my cards. So I dumped the other projects from my GTX 460/768MB GPUs and grabbed the new WUs. Not sure if it's that they won't work properly on < 1GB or what, but they are SLOW and the projected time is well over 24 hours on all 4 GPUs. What happened? The previous NATHANs ran in 10-11 hours on the GTX 460/768MB. Ouch :-( | |
ID: 30168 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hm i will need around 14 hours on 570s with min. 96% gpu load. So these are really long units ^^ | |
ID: 30186 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I'm currently running one such on 660 Ti - 75% after 10 hours. | |
ID: 30189 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) | |
ID: 30197 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My results on 660 Ti (Boost @ 1228 MHz): | |
ID: 30200 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My first result on EVGA GTX 670 SC @ AMD 8150 (One Core reserved for the GPU): | |
ID: 30204 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Presently, the fastest single GPU card is the GTX680. Realistically, how many real world people are running the fastest GPU on the fastest but now unsupported (arguably obsolete) operating system? Only a few crunchers specializing in this one project. When they finally get the titan running are we going to see another huge leap in WU times? Wouldn't it be better for total work speed/throughput to include more crunchers and keep them happier? Keeping the WU sizes reasonable and perhaps relaxing the 24hr time a bit would go a long way towards doing that IMO. | |
ID: 30206 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Linux is the fastest OS, then XP. 11 of the top 20 machines use Linux or XP. So many of the top/elite crunchers appear to go out of their way to accommodate the project (and their credits). Perhaps this will continue. | |
ID: 30216 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
On XP the GTX680 takes the following times for different Long WU's: Then again, maybe the SDOERR WUs are actually longer than the NOELIAs but run more efficiently. Looking at my GPUs the NOELIA WUs are running at 88-89% usage and the SDOERR WUs are running at 92-94% usage. | |
ID: 30266 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Then again, maybe the SDOERR WUs are actually longer than the NOELIAs but run more efficiently. Looking at my GPUs the NOELIA WUs are running at 88-89% usage and the SDOERR WUs are running at 92-94% usage. That's the case; the more complex the model the less efficient it becomes. Of course the credit argument could be expanded to entail WU complexity, or lack of. Anyway, their model of assigning credit is reasonably accurate, ~14% difference throughout the range of long WU's, which includes 4 different research lines/models. ____________ FAQ's HOW TO: - Opt out of Beta Tests - Ask for Help | |
ID: 30273 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Or they could award credits alphabetically. | |
ID: 30283 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My last NATHAN_KIDc22 WU completed in 48,862 seconds: | |
ID: 30284 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
XP is 11% faster than Vista, W7 and probably W8 (though I haven't measured it). | |
ID: 30285 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
skgiven, do you maybe have an idea if the performance difference is project dependent? So do other projects (and other gpu projects) also run that much faster on XP, in which case it would be an OS issue (I know that Win 7 is in general a bit slower than XP), or does this only happen with GPUgrid? | |
ID: 30289 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
skgiven, do you maybe have an idea if the performance difference is project dependent? So do other projects (and other gpu projects) also run that much faster on XP, in which case it would be an OS issue (I know that Win 7 is in general a bit slower than XP), or does this only happen with GPUgrid? If I may jump in. Sometimes there is a small difference between XP and W7 on other projects, but generally not and the difference is not always in the favor of XP. Between Linux and W7: it's a mixed bag on other projects with W7 coming out on top as often as not. As far as the 25% listed above, no way IMO. You can generally tell the GPU efficiency by the percent of utilization (87-88% for me in W7-64 on NOELIA & NATHAN WUs). A 25% difference would most likely be due to something like an extreme OC on an exceptional card and perhaps good liquid cooling. Many other projects running CAL or CUDA run at 99% usage. OpenCL is often less and tends to need more CPU support than CUDA or CAL. | |
ID: 30297 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Beyond has covered the comparison to other projects. | |
ID: 30313 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Higher latency can be caused by WDDM, since drivers are split between kernel and user mode (unlike XP, where all drivers were in kernel only). But exact numbers depend on particular implementation (of CUDA especially). | |
ID: 30315 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I suspect it can be called a difference of "more closer to metal" with XP and Linux, whereas more abstraction in WDDM allows advanced features at the expense of performance. SK wrote: the more complex the model the less efficient it becomes I think it'S the other way around. That's why GPU utilization on short queue tasks drops. The more atoms / pixels the task contains, the easier it is to keep more shaders busy concurrently. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 30321 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Hi guys, | |
ID: 30414 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Received: 26 May 2013 09:50:00 UTC WU: I29R3-NATHAN_KIDc22_2-2-8-RND5999_2 Run Time: 81,103.17 Credit: 139,625.00 I've never seen that point award before for any NATHAN_KIDc22's, 135,000 is the amount I get for completing a SDOERR_2HDQd. That's strange, is it from the short queue perhaps? I haven't done any of those in quit sometime. Edit: I took a look at the wu and it was sent on the 25th, I thought you had still managed to complete it within the 24 hour bonus period, you made the 48 hour bonus though. | |
ID: 30415 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My runtime on a 650Ti (slightly OCed) is 76,764s, credit 167,550. | |
ID: 30416 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
I've never seen that point award before for any NATHAN_KIDc22's, 135,000 is the amount I get for completing a SDOERR_2HDQd. That's strange, is it from the short queue perhaps? I haven't done any of those in quit sometime. Yes, I figured that out myself after posting. I missed the 24h bonus by 2 hours. The WU had finished, but the client didn't report it in time.. Maybe the 0.2+0.2 cache rule is a bit on the edge for my 650Ti. I adjusted it to 0.12+0.28, let's see how that goes. The WU was from the long queue, I only take from the long queue. | |
ID: 30420 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My runtime on a 650Ti (slightly OCed) is 76,764s, credit 167,550. My 650Ti is stock-clocked. Can your OC be responsible for the ~4500sec difference? Not that I'm dieing to squeeze the latest ounce of performance out of the card, I just want it to perform as it should. | |
ID: 30421 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
That should do the trick, others say they set theirs to 0.1 and it works good too. The NATHAN_KIDc22 are the longest running at this time (for me anyway), so you should be able to do any of the 3 in under 24 hours with you're 650Ti. | |
ID: 30423 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
My 650Ti is stock-clocked. Can your OC be responsible for the ~4500sec difference? Indeed, it can. Moreover, the 650Ti is running on XP, which performs slightly better. | |
ID: 30425 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Message boards : Number crunching : NATHAN_KID WUs