This one should work.

gdf

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.

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.

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.

---

What about its GPU performance?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

"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.

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).

Not good. It occupies 1 core.

---

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.

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

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

No the CPU usage is just unrelated.

gdf

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

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 ^^

---

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

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.

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.

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,

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.