Got one 6.11 task.
It's running at 91-93% GPU usage, and completed 50% in 52 minutes. (GTX480 stock clocking, SWAN_SYNC=0)
It's very promising.

Got one 6.11 task.
It's running at 91-93% GPU usage, and completed 50% in 52 minutes. (GTX480 stock clocking, SWAN_SYNC=0)
It's very promising.

Faster depends on what way you work it out!

For your two TONI tasks I make it 23% less time, which is 30% faster

My second 6.11 WU was a TONI too, and the speed was the same fast.
I'm very pleased with this performance.
Now I got two new TONIs, but I really like to have a GCY.

Does anyone finish a 6.11 WU under Win7?
I know that CUDA 3.0 tasks finish faster under driver 197.75 than under 257.xx. So I am hesitating to change drivers again. I'd be happy to read about your experience with CUDA 3.1 under Win7.

My card finish v6.11 under Win7
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2696901 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2692327 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.05 (cuda30)

roundup, I think it is worth a try; [...]

My card finish v6.11 under Win7
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2696901 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2692327 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.05 (cuda30)

Here's the first off my 1GB 460. Slower than I had hoped in Win7. GPU showed about 73% load during the task.

I am going to try some with Swan_Sync=0 now and see what happens.


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2697154

Swan_Sync=0 is showing an 80% GPU load with this KASHIF_HIVPR task compared to the 73% GPU load on the last KASHIF_HIVPR with no Swan_Sync.

So far, so good.
I've got one erratic task, which is failed 3 times already.

This task caused an "acemd2_6.11_windows_intelx86__cuda31.exe has stopped working" error, and I didn't click "OK", I restarted my pc instead. (I'm used to do that every time I see this error message, because if I click "OK" then the task will abort, and the processing time is lost)
After restart, the task is finished well, just like every other task with that error message (and restart).

That is almost 60% faster for the IBUCH tasks under Win7 using the 6.11 app.
[...]
roundup, I think it is worth a try; as long as you get plenty of IBUCH tasks, it should be a good improvement. If you get an even spread of tasks (with 10%, 30% and 60% improvement), it should cover the drivers losses (as long as it was not over 33%)!

Obviously driver 258.96 running CUDA3.1 tasks is much faster under Vista/7 than driver 257.21 running CUDA3.0 units - the difference is about 25% for the TONI tasks. With the former 257 driver it took an average of 16k seconds for a 5,965 credits task. Example (IBUCH): http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1713213.

Obviously driver 258.96 running CUDA3.1 tasks is much faster under Vista/7 than driver 257.21 running CUDA3.0 units - the difference is about 25% for the TONI tasks. With the former 257 driver it took an average of 16k seconds for a 5,965 credits task. Example (IBUCH): http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1713213.

I think you need to compare similar WUs. This computer shows 5 of the 6803 credit TONI_CAPBIND WUs. The 2 run under CUDA30 had times of 12,994 and 13905. There were 3 run under CUDA31, 2 successes with times of 10,330 and 10,076, and 1 failure with a time of 15,897. In the best of worlds nowhere near 25% and if you count the failure actually slower for CUDA31.

I know why there was a failure: My fault, when I tested with different BOINC and environmental settings.
Also the HIVPR units are much quicker: Now 8,759.88 seconds. I never delivered a HIVPR unit with less than 11k seconds before, not even on a different (and much faster) PC that also is equipped with a GTX470.

I have seen some very significant improvement in a few specific WUs.

However I thought I would post results from one of the seemingly least efficient WUs I have run: IBUCH_freebind_pYEEI_100706. This one only pushes my GPU usage into the 70 something percent.

2670817 16,609.06 16,413.48 7,954.42 11,931.63 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.05 (cuda30) 13.284 ms/step

2701432 15,484.38 15,454.58 7,954.42 11,931.63 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31) 12.385 ms/step

That's approximately a 7% improvement.

I saw these two KASHIF_HIVPR tasks, one using CUDA3.0 and then using CUDA3.1 (with the latest molecular dynamics app; v6.11). They ran on the same Vista system. The v6.11 app was 44% faster:

[...]
My task ran about 18% faster than yours, both using v6.11, but my system is overclocked to 704MHz (about 16% faster than stock), and I also freed up 2 cores on my i7-920.

Roundup, is your GTX470 at stock?
I'm asking because I am using XP x86!

I've got another "...cuda31.exe has stopped working" error (during watching some HD video), a failed task, and a task cancelled by server. This last thing is a novelty for me.

Looks like, my 480 cards running on Win 7, are around 30% to 40% faster on acemd2 611 compared to 605, which means that it is, on average, slightly faster than a 285 card running on win xp. This is a good improvement, but 480 should really be twice as fast as 285, since it has double the cores. So the drivers for these cards, still need to be updated.

Looks like, my 480 cards running on Win 7, are around 30% to 40% faster on acemd2 611 compared to 605, which means that it is, on average, slightly faster than a 285 card running on win xp. This is a good improvement, but 480 should really be twice as fast as 285, since it has double the cores. So the drivers for these cards, still need to be updated.

Looks like, my 480 cards running on Win 7, are around 30% to 40% faster on acemd2 611 compared to 605, which means that it is, on average, slightly faster than a 285 card running on win xp. This is a good improvement, but 480 should really be twice as fast as 285, since it has double the cores. So the drivers for these cards, still need to be updated.

Apples to oranges
You can't really make a comparison to a new card running on Win7 to an older card running on WinXP

The drivers on Win7 don't need to be "updated" M$ needs to abandon WDDM which has unacceptable overhead that directly and significantly affects performance.

IMHO

Uups!!
And what about Kubuntu? On one of my systems I could run the required apps in a VM under linux.

Regards,
Alexander

One question, just to make it clear:
If a HW-monitor says, GPU is running at ~95% on Win7, does that mean, that it is as efficient as running at 95% on XP ? Currantly I do not own a Fermi-card (only an GTX260/192), but I plan to buy a GTX460 and it would make only little problems to swich back to XP.

Regards,
Alexander

Thanks a lot for your answers.

My main system has to run under an 64Bit OS due to mem requirements, and it must be windows. Since XP64 is no option, I have to use Win7. (Once upon Vista I had a working system ;-)

My other system is dual boot XP/Win7. I can check the speed difference there. Its not necessary to run Win7 all days.
My idea was to install Kubuntu and run the two most used windows-apps in a VM under linux. These apps are tested and work fine in a VM. But will that bring an remarkable increase in speed?

Regards,
Alexander

My other system is dual boot XP/Win7. I can check the speed difference there.

I tested it overnight. Since GPUGRID fails on my GTX260/192, I had to test it with Einstein and Milkyway. And YES, you're absolutely right, its pretty much faster! I don't have exact numbers, but it seems to be in the range of 20%.

No, the posted difference referes to the E@H app. I wanted to take further tests, but currently two wu faild after ~75 min.
This is the reason why I want to replace my unloved GTX260.
Anyway, nice to hear that there is no difference with the ATI cards. I cannot test that since my ATI-System is not dual boot and I don't want to do too many experiments with it; I need this system correct running.

It's really interesting, that so many issues regarding nVidia seem to be not existend on the ATI-side. Lets see what's coming up with the OpenCL apps.

Alexander

Hello everyone,

after my FERMI GTX 480 finally seems to really having picked up the pace on XP X64 with Swan_Sync=0, I have some questions though:
1. Why is this performance not possible until now under Linux X64? Is this solely because the drivers aren't so well-crafted for Linux? Used the newest available from NVidia and the one coming from Linux itself.

2. Now under XP, BOINC suddenly reports 1345 GFlops peak, instead of 778 GFLops before. The latter can't simply be driver overhead on Win 7 X64, can it?

3. Why does a WU running XP X64 crash seriously like this one? Just thought I'd contact you as the stderr output says to do so. Annoying, as it was nearly finished...

Thx and cheers,

Hi skgiven!

1. Yeah, I only ran two tasks under Linux X64 and I know that is not representative at all. But I was fairly disappointed with the performance, that's why I tried XP instantly. I hate to contradict you, but I used both the generic drivers (later and not at the same time) and NVidia's 256.44 first, cause i knew that the Fermi has a performance boost with new drivers.
I tend to look first, if there's a new driver for any of my hardware. Both were disappointing, to say the least.

2. To be honest, I'm not a Linux geek, more a Linux newbie. So I didn't figure, how to install the newest BOINC for Linux AND getting it to run. The manual to install on Linux from the BOINC website wasn't helpful at all for me.
And I did have my GTX 480 running under Win 7, because I don't have any other performant NVidia-Graphics-Adapter aside from an ION, that crunched exactly a single WU, but then was too slow to report a second WU in time.

3. I hope, that this is helpful in further development; so no prob and you're welcome!

Cheers,
Christopher

Hi Christopher Herr,

I made this N00B guide, I use it myself when I install/reinstall or upgrade Mint Linux 8 (Ubuntu 9.10). If UR using a higher version of Mint or Ubuntu, the Nvidia driver upgrade steps won't work, but the steps to upgrade BOINC still works. I myself can't get higher versions of Mint/Ubuntu to run stable on my hardware. I'm told that the steps I use are time consuming, (but it's just clip n paste so it's not that time consuming).
____________

Hello liveonc,

Thanks a lot! Will try that the next time I tinker with a full Linux install.

All the best,
Christopher
____________