You are now picking them up. Just let them run. You have driver 25896, which is good. For some reason you aborted one 6.36 Beta? Anyway hope the next one works for you.
PS. It's CUDA 3.1 (3010), not to be confused with CC2.1.

SLI stock 460's; currently running DNETC while waiting for GPUGrid. Cuda 3.1 WU's complete in 13 min (win7 x64.)

That's running both GPUs in tandem on one WU? They're now running at around 21:50 on my single GTX 460.

Thats with both GPU's working on one WU, so your output from one card is better than my SLI setup. I'll test it on the grid and see if I should go back to using 2 cards for 2 WU's.

a question: Are the ACEMD beta version v6.36 a bit so little? my gtx460 do it in 15 min and I can't download more than 1 or 2. I need more units or the biggest units

The full tasks are now available for your GTX460. They are called, ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31).
The Betas were called ACEMD beta version v6.36 (cuda31)

The full tasks are likely to take several hours, perhaps about 4h (just a rough guess) on a GTX460.

My 2 460's were crunching the new 3.10 app WU's when I last checked them. They were saying ~6 hours for each WU on Win 7. I haven't seen the complete by now so i'm guessing my computer crashed :(

Is there any way to keep from downloading 3.0 tasks (which won't run) and only download 3.1 tasks?

Is there any way to keep from downloading 3.0 tasks (which won't run) and only download 3.1 tasks?

No. There use to be, but the techs had to change the setup when Fermi arrived.

trn-xs, the best thing you could do is use XP or Linux. If you cant do that then make sure your system has at least one free CPU and use the swan_sync=0 variable.

[quote]
trn-xs, the best thing you could do is use XP or Linux. If you cant do that then make sure your system has at least one free CPU and use the swan_sync=0 variable.

Thanks, I plan to move these 460's to a dedicated crunching computer with Win XP x64 when I return home. I'm away from my crunchers now and all I have is a Win7 computer :( I've enabled swan_sync=0 and left 2 threads open.

Unfortunately once I added my 460's my system has become unstable. I'm not quite sure why, I've reinstalled Nvidia reference drivers and upped my fan speed to 70% with no overclock. Its not just a GPUgrid, I had crashes with DNETC also.

Is there any way to keep from downloading 3.0 tasks (which won't run) and only download 3.1 tasks?

If you a fermi and a 3.1 driver you should be downloading only 3.1 tasks. Isn't it the case?

gdf

trn-xs now has driver 25896 on Win7 x64 and is using a 6 core i7.
Yesterday morning he was downloading 6.05 Work Units. They all failed (obviously). Since the evening he only downloaded 6.11 and Beta tasks. He now has 3 tasks in progress, so I expect he removed one of his GTX460's, which would remove the possibility of power draw issues (not enough Amps). All Betas ran well, but the only 6.11 that was returned failed,

2696618 1716552 20 Jul 2010 9:03:03 UTC 21 Jul 2010 3:25:49 UTC Error while computing 9,380.86 8,030.28 4,428.01 --- ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31)

trn-xs, there seems to be lots of task restarts, so perhaps it is worth checking your Boinc settings - Perhaps you selected to not use the card when the user is active? Such start/stop/start/stop running slows the tasks down, a lot, and increases the chance of failures.

trn-xs now has driver 25896 on Win7 x64 and is using a 6 core i7...

Excellent detective work SK! I was having lots of stability issues, I've pulled my 2nd GTX460 and so far so good. All the restarting was due to the crashing, and the cuda 3.1 non beta WU that failed was due to crashing also.

Also, as soon as the Cuda 3.1 app went into production I never received another 3.0 WU.

I think you may be right about the amps on the PSU. I have a Corsair HX850 running a mildly overclocked 980x, was trying to run 2 gtx460's, 4 hds, 1 ssd. Wattage wise that should draw ~550 under load. CPU usage didn't seem to affect my crashing, under full load or idle I would still lock up. I'm also running on 220v (if that matters for internal computer amperage?)

*Edit, HX850 has 70A on the 12v rail, that ought to be about double what is needed to run 2 gtx460's.

It's possible that one of the cards is error prone, or is just running too hot, but it is more likely that the buildup of heat in the case is causing overheating on other components. Did you check the card, case and CPU temperatures?
When one of these cards is in a system, it runs nice and cool, but when you pop two in, they reportedly start to get very warm (over 90degC), unless you manually turn the fan speeds up. The card nearest to the Northbridge tends to be hotter.
If your system was stable before you installed the cards and is stable now with one card, then the instability was probably down to using two cards; increased stress on system components causing crashes.

Still, it was a good idea to separate them. If you run one card for a day or two at stock, and then the other there are two likely outcomes:
- One card causes errors, in which case return it.
- Both run fine, in which case your hardware configuration was not up to the task.

If both work separately, its best to start by setting default clocks and improving the cooling; keep an eye on the temperatures and turn up the fan speed on the cards. You might well need another extractor fan, as these cards dissipate heat back into the case.

If that does not stabilize your system, look at other parts; check the PSU, RAM, for read/write issues.

Even though 220V is at the low end, that is a high end PSU designed to run GPUs. So 70A should be enough; at stock the cards will only draw about 27Amps between them running flat out(324W).

Is there any way to keep from downloading 3.0 tasks (which won't run) and only download 3.1 tasks?

If you a fermi and a 3.1 driver you should be downloading only 3.1 tasks. Isn't it the case?

gdf

The tasks seem to working correctly now.

When the small sized (187 point) beta work units first came out the GTX-460 computer #75987 was downloading both the CUDA 3.1 beta tasks and CUDA 3.0 work units as well. The CUDA 3.0 tasks would fail straight away.

Take a look:

http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=75987

Anyhow the tasks seem to be working fine now...

That graph style is Anandtech, but I can't find any GP-GPU stuff in the 2 launch day reviews. Where is it from? I thought it was unsatisfying to bench games only, as there's not much to see there anyway..

MrS

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/16

Switched cards around so now the GTX 460 is running in XP64. GPU utilization went up from 49% to 95%. Times look to be much faster than before but still slower than my GTX 260. One would think that a more advanced 336 shader card should be faster than an old 216 shader card. The GTX 460 is also looking to be less than twice as fast as the 96 shader GT 240. Think there's still much work to do on the new app.

As a comparison with another client, Collatz is almost 3 times faster on the GTX 460 than on the GTX 260 and almost 5 times faster than on the GT 240. Of interest in terms of power draw, in the same machine the total draw is 175 watts with the GT 240 and 239 watts with the GTX 460, both running Collatz at 99% GPU.

Switched cards around so now the GTX 460 is running in XP64. GPU utilization went up from 49% to 95%. Times look to be much faster than before but still slower than my GTX 260. One would think that a more advanced 336 shader card should be faster than an old 216 shader card. The GTX 460 is also looking to be less than twice as fast as the 96 shader GT 240. Think there's still much work to do on the new app.

As a comparison with another client, Collatz is almost 3 times faster on the GTX 460 than on the GTX 260 and almost 5 times faster than on the GT 240. Of interest in terms of power draw, in the same machine the total draw is 175 watts with the GT 240 and 239 watts with the GTX 460, both running Collatz at 99% GPU.

This is interesting information. We suffer the fact that multiprocessors went down from G200 to GF100/104. It is probably the same problem that we have with ATI cards, very fat multiprocessors.

gdf

Switched cards around so now the GTX 460 is running in XP64. GPU utilization went up from 49% to 95%. Times look to be much faster than before but still slower than my GTX 260. One would think that a more advanced 336 shader card should be faster than an old 216 shader card. The GTX 460 is also looking to be less than twice as fast as the 96 shader GT 240. Think there's still much work to do on the new app.

As a comparison with another client, Collatz is almost 3 times faster on the GTX 460 than on the GTX 260 and almost 5 times faster than on the GT 240. Of interest in terms of power draw, in the same machine the total draw is 175 watts with the GT 240 and 239 watts with the GTX 460, both running Collatz at 99% GPU.

What a leap in GPU utilization! Do you think the GTX470 might get the same kick in performance as the GTX460 if running XP 64bit? Skgiven said he had an XP 64bit somewhere & he has a GTX470 but didn't think that it was worth giving a try if he had to get more RAM & possibly a new license. How much RAM do you have & what CPU was used?

---

What a leap in GPU utilization! Do you think the GTX470 might get the same kick in performance as the GTX460 if running XP 64bit? Skgiven said he had an XP 64bit somewhere & he has a GTX470 but didn't think that it was worth giving a try if he had to get more RAM & possibly a new license. How much RAM do you have & what CPU was used?

I'm running XP 32-bit and it seems to be working at about the same speed as XP 64-bit. 15,913.17 seconds for a GTX-460 to complete a 4,535.61 / 6,803.41 point work unit on an old AMD 4000+ system.

As I recall XP-64 bit was a pain in the neck (at least it was when it first came out), YMMV.

Bigtuna, your GTX 460 with 768MB using the 25896 driver and XP x86, is doing quite well for some tasks:
This TONI_CAPBIND for example took 15906 sec (6,803.41). Faster than this task, 17150 sec.
The more recent task is only 5% slower than a similar task, on my GTX260-sp216, 15095 sec.

My GTX260-sp216 is slightly factory overclocked and I have my shaders at 1525MHz, about the same as yours. My card is also on XP, and is supported by a Q6600 CPU and 4GB RAM. I have 1 CPU free and I am using swan_sync. So it is reasonably well optimised for GPU crunching.

Are you also using the swan_sync environmental variable, and do you have a core free?

I noticed earlier that there was a 10% difference between the 1GB and 768MB version you have. So what I am saying is that on XP a reference 1GB version might be slightly faster than a reference GTX 260 crunching TONI_CAPBIND tasks (about 5%). Dont know about the other tasks yet. Also your overclock from 1350MHz is not quite as much of a leap as mine, from 1242.

It would be nice to see a 1GB GTX460 on XP at 1600MHz, to see what they can really do.