I'm experiencing lower GPU usage (~87% on a Core i3-4130, GTX 980Ti, WinXPx64) by the GERARD_A2AR batch.
This batch is less GPU overclock tolerant as well.

Around 82 - 84% GTX 660 Ti GPU usage with AMD FX-8350 (Win 7 64).

WUs error almost immediately on same PC running Linux Mint 17 64 bit.

Seeing the same thing here ETA. Only 60% usage on 2 GTX 970s running on Xeon 2683 V3 and Win7 64 bit. Is running 2 at a time a possibility to boost the GPU load?

The GERARD_A2AR WUs are definitely slower than the other GERARD units. On my new windows 10 machine, they finish in about 7 to 8 hours versus about 6 hours or less for the other GERARD units. On my old windows xp machine, they finish in about 12 hours versus the same 6 hours or less average for the other GERARD units.


See link below:


https://www.gpugrid.net/hosts_user.php?userid=19626

The GERARD_A2AR WUs are definitely slower than the other GERARD units.

On my old windows xp machine, they finish in about 12 hours versus the same 6 hours or less average for the other GERARD units.

The GERARD_A2AR WUs are definitely slower than the other GERARD units.

I would say these need more DP operations (done by the CPU) than others.

On my old windows xp machine, they finish in about 12 hours versus the same 6 hours or less average for the other GERARD units.

The performance of the GTX980Ti in your host is significantly derogated by the lack of CPU power. While your host (Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ + GTX980Ti + WinXPx86) process a GERARD_A2AR_luf6806_b in 42.449 sec, my Core2duo E8500 + GTX980 + WinXPx64 process a GERARD_A2AR_luf6632_b in just 33.928 sec, while my i3-4160 + GTX980Ti + WinXPx64 process a GERARD_A2AR_luf6632_b in 22.385 sec. This derogation is in effect for other workunits as well, but less significantly. I would suggest you to cease any CPU crunching on this host to make the GPU crunch faster. Since it has 4GB DDR2 memory, it's probably in dual channel mode already, but it's worth checking by the CPU-Z utility.

Oh damn it, and this happens right after I switched to a non-overclockable Skylake!

I am not doing any CPU crunching on this host and the memory is in dual channel mode. I checked it with the CPU-Z utility.

This is just an old machine. That is still crunching.

Thanks, guys!

Running 2 WUs concurrently boosts the GPU utilization. I would say a bit less than 10% (depending on several factors, of course). The catch is that even after fixing my initial driver problem, I still can't hit the full bonus time running 2 of them on my overclocked GTX970. So overall it's counter-productive to do so.

MrS

I have made similar experience with GERARD_A2AR batches in the last few days.

GPU-Z shows some less GPU usage (between 84 and 87% of my GTX750Ti) than with other WUs before; and, a proof of more CPU usage seems to be that the acemd.848-65.exe uses some 365MB of RAM, which is significantly higher (at least on my host) that with other WUs before.

I fired up two GTX 750 Tis just to see what was going on. I am currently running:

GERARD_CXCL12_CCdimer3-0-1-RND1870_0
GERARD_CXCL12_DIM_APO_UNPROTO_adapt2-0-1-RND3277_1

One is using 75% GPU with 325 MB memory, and the other 80% GPU with 417 MB memory. This is on an i7-4770 board (Win7 64-bit) with a CPU core free for each GPU. So while the GPU usage is a little low, I think the variation in the CXL12s is across the board, though the A2ARs do take more time.

... though the A2ARs do take more time.

I am seeing 89% GPU utilization on a GTX 970 running a GERARD_CXCL12_TRIM_HEP_DIM2-0.

I am seeing 89% GPU utilization on a GTX 970 running a GERARD_CXCL12_TRIM_HEP_DIM2-0.

This is in a box ( https://www.gpugrid.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=257647 ) with the slowest, low power processor I can find and it is never leaving its lowest speed, lowest power mode ( Average Processor Power_0(Watt)=7.4779 ). Processor utilization in the underclocked mode is around 20%.

So I call the "you need a better CPU talk" FUD.

Hello everyone,

I'm a bit confused here as I read this thread.

So.. in order to have my gpu usage up to 100%, do I just have this project use my cpu as well (i don't now), or do I just need a better PC?

My pc is a business one in which I just upgraded for gaming, but now I no longer game so I just use it to donate.

Any more info needed please tell me, thanks.

That's because you don't use the swan_sync environmental variable to reserve a full CPU core, to maximize the GPU usage. (which is recommended for a GTX 980 Ti, especially for workunits like the GERARD_A2AR)

Your system is optimized for low power, not for performance. Your CPU has integrated PCIe controller (just as I suggested), and 6 years younger than the one which the "better CPU talk" regards.

I tried swan_sync a few years ago and it made no difference. I just tried it gain, setting both swan_sync and SWAN_SYNC since there is some confusion which to use, and it made no difference in either CPU usage or GPU usage.

I built this series of systems with the goal of optimizing GPU performance. Reduced power consumption is a freebe. Every test build that ran even a single CPU work no matter how many cores were available resulted in reduced GPU performance. The celeron with 0 CPU projects outperformed an i7 with one core reserved in every test. Reserving a core improved GPU performance. Reserving the entire processor improved it a little more.

I could just as easily have used an i7 as the celeron. The result would likely be the same. The processor is sleeping most of the time. A more modern processor has even more sleep states so would likely use even less power idling. But, why idle a 300 dollar processor when I can do the same job idling a 30 dollar processor. There may be some value in debating whether limiting boinc to 75% to reserve 2 threads is the same as reserving a core on an i7, or whether it is necessary to disable hyperthreading to guarantee an idle core.

Likewise there may be value in debating whether a more modern processor with a faster clock speed will do a better job when it actually runs than the old celeron. But I believe that gets pretty far down into the weeds.

I would get out and push if I thought it would make it go any faster, so no, I did not optimize for power. I optimized for performance.

And this GTX970 did better all alone on the celeron than it did fed by an i7 that had 75% of the cpu assigned to CPU tasks.

The point I tried to make, and apparently failed, is that the processor does not appear to be offloading any floating point work from the GPU as was suggested and thus a faster processor is unlikely to boost GPU utilization. At least, even if it is, any offload is easily performed by a 1.6 GHz celeron in its sleep.

Has anyone tested the SWAN_SYNC variable verses using an app_config file in the project folder to assign 1 CPU core per task?

I tried swan_sync a few years ago and it made no difference. I just tried it gain, setting both swan_sync and SWAN_SYNC since there is some confusion which to use, and it made no difference in either CPU usage or GPU usage.

When the SWAN_SYNC is in effect, the CPU time is near to the run time. If the CPU usage of the ACEMD app is lower than a full core (or thread), then the SWAN_SYNC is ignored for some environmental reasons.

Has anyone tested the SWAN_SYNC variable verses using an app_config file in the project folder to assign 1 CPU core per task?