New beta application 6.18 for Windows

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

Author	Message
GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15711 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 \| 15:18:31 UTC
	This one should work. gdf
	ID: 15711 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

nenym Send message Joined: 31 Mar 09 Posts: 137 Credit: 1,308,230,581 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15716 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 11 Jul 09 Posts: 1627 Credit: 9,486,695,579 RAC: 10,740,337 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15717 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

SuperViruS Send message Joined: 18 Aug 08 Posts: 8 Credit: 127,707,074 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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. ____________
	ID: 15718 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15719 - Posted: 12 Mar 2010 \| 21:40:58 UTC
	What about its GPU performance? MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002
	ID: 15719 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

nenym Send message Joined: 31 Mar 09 Posts: 137 Credit: 1,308,230,581 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15720 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aardvark Send message Joined: 27 Nov 08 Posts: 28 Credit: 82,362,324 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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).
	ID: 15721 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

X-Files 27 Send message Joined: 11 Oct 08 Posts: 95 Credit: 68,023,693 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15723 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 \| 3:19:42 UTC
	Not good. It occupies 1 core. ____________
	ID: 15723 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 11 Jul 09 Posts: 1627 Credit: 9,486,695,579 RAC: 10,740,337 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15725 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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
	ID: 15726 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

MarkJ Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 24 Dec 08 Posts: 738 Credit: 200,909,904 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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
	ID: 15727 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15728 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 \| 11:45:36 UTC - in response to Message 15727.
	No the CPU usage is just unrelated. gdf
	ID: 15728 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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
	ID: 15730 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

SuperViruS Send message Joined: 18 Aug 08 Posts: 8 Credit: 127,707,074 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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 ^^ ____________
	ID: 15731 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Snow Crash Send message Joined: 4 Apr 09 Posts: 450 Credit: 539,316,349 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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
	ID: 15733 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Tom Philippart Send message Joined: 12 Feb 09 Posts: 57 Credit: 23,376,686 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15741 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

skgiven Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Apr 09 Posts: 3968 Credit: 1,995,359,260 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15746 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

skgiven Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Apr 09 Posts: 3968 Credit: 1,995,359,260 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	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,
	ID: 15751 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Bedrich Hajek Send message Joined: 28 Mar 09 Posts: 486 Credit: 11,434,876,508 RAC: 5,149,222 Level Scientific publications	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.
	ID: 15755 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Post to thread

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

	About	Science	Volunteers	Performance	Forum	Join us	Donate