A batch of 500 WUs *_TRYP_* have been sent and will take TWICE as much to compute than normal.We are talking of 10 nanoseconds of simulation per WU! (for what most people still use big fat supercomputers). We need them for a very interesting publication we are preparing related to this experiment. Many thanks for the effort!

So will take the 10 *meta_pYEEI*.

Link dont work. Link are:http://www."http.com//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4%22

Maybe you mean:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4

Link dont work. Link are:http://www."http.com//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4%22

Maybe you mean:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4

You mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4

The sad thing about these work units is the 56% GPU usage (on a GTX 480)

Link dont work. Link are:http://www."http.com//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4%22

Maybe you mean:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4

You mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjmHYUvFW4

The sad thing about these work units is the 56% GPU usage (on a GTX 480)

To url: Yes.

My gtx 460 gpu usage are 80 %

I have one that was already 25% done when I saw this post and turned HT off, shaders turned up to 1756 (mv 1138)... bring on ALL 10 ms WUs!!!
On WinXP Pro 32 - I am now getting 68% usage.

@TAPIO - I don't see any of these new TRYP type of WUs on your machine - what kind of WU are you talking about on the 80% usage?

---

Thanks - Steve

Different Task types utilize the GPU to different extents as the calculations differ. I have seen tasks from around 53% to as much as 93%.
The *_TRYP_* task I have used 66% GPU on a GTX260 when all 4 CPU cores were being used elsewhere. When I freed up one core to allow the GPUGrid task to run faster it only rose to 68% GPU utilization, but the CPU utilization only fell to 84%, not 75%. So the system and WU together are using about 9% of the CPU, or 36% of one core. Typically XP uses about 3% CPU, so the task is using about 24% of one core. When CPU competition is higher (contention) it slows the GPU tasks down; the GPU has to wait for the CPU to run some calculations, so it helps to have a core/thread free, but may not be seen looking at the GPU utilization alone. With the 8 or 12 threads on an i7 this is not as much of a CPU loss as with a Q8400, or a dual core. Obviously the bigger Fermi cards benefit more from a free core, as do systems with multiple GPUs. The *_TRYP_* task should take about 9h, all being well.

I've completed two new 'fatty' WUs on two different computers.
The first one finished in 9 hours 11 minutes (13.23ms/setp). (GTX 480 and C2Q 9550)
The second one finished in 9 hours 51 minutes (14.2ms/setp). (GTX 480 and C2Q 6600)
I realized how much these WUs CPU dependent. (I use the SWAN_SYNC=0 setting on both computers)
Both tasks were 2.5 millon steps.
But I don't understand how could these get the same credit as Snow Crash's 1.82 million step wu, which took only 6 hours 54 minutes (9.1ms/step). (GTX 480 and i7 920)
An i7 920 is faster than a C2Q 9550, but I think not that much. (especially the FP units almost the same fast)
I also don't understand the different GPU clock rates of Snow Crash's task. (1.59GHz, 1.40GHz, 1.74GHz, 1.40GHz, and 1.40GHz) (this computer have only one GPU, maybe the GPU clock changed while crunching this task, and restarted 4 times?)

I have one that was already 25% done when I saw this post and turned HT off, shaders turned up to 1756 (mv 1138)... bring on ALL 10 ms WUs!!!
On WinXP Pro 32 - I am now getting 68% usage.

@TAPIO - I don't see any of these new TRYP type of WUs on your machine - what kind of WU are you talking about on the 80% usage?

Oops. Sorry, i read wrong theard. :-) My WUs are IBUCH and these use 80% of gpu.

I like this wu:

http://img.lbzh.fr/images/capturexqx.png

it is not part of the 500 wus?

---

(boinc since 1/04/09), Alliance Francophone
GA-P55A-UD5, i7 860 2.8 Ghz, Win 7 64 bits, 8 g DDR3 de ram, 2 To DD + 750 ext, boitier Haf 922 + 2 ventilo 120 noctua, ventirad noctua NH-U12P SE2, GTX 470 zotac amp edition, écran 25"

It's not.

ok

---

(boinc since 1/04/09), Alliance Francophone
GA-P55A-UD5, i7 860 2.8 Ghz, Win 7 64 bits, 8 g DDR3 de ram, 2 To DD + 750 ext, boitier Haf 922 + 2 ventilo 120 noctua, ventirad noctua NH-U12P SE2, GTX 470 zotac amp edition, écran 25"

I've completed two new 'fatty' WUs on two different computers.
The first one finished in 9 hours 11 minutes (13.23ms/setp). (GTX 480 and C2Q 9550)
The second one finished in 9 hours 51 minutes (14.2ms/setp). (GTX 480 and C2Q 6600)
I realized how much these WUs CPU dependent. (I use the SWAN_SYNC=0 setting on both computers)
Both tasks were 2.5 millon steps.
But I don't understand how could these get the same credit as Snow Crash's 1.82 million step wu, which took only 6 hours 54 minutes (9.1ms/step). (GTX 480 and i7 920)
An i7 920 is faster than a C2Q 9550, but I think not that much. (especially the FP units almost the same fast)
I also don't understand the different GPU clock rates of Snow Crash's task. (1.59GHz, 1.40GHz, 1.74GHz, 1.40GHz, and 1.40GHz) (this computer have only one GPU, maybe the GPU clock changed while crunching this task, and restarted 4 times?)

If you look at the difference between your Q9550 and Q6600 you will get an idea of the importance of the CPU; 40min less on the faster CPU.

The different GPU clock rates are as a result of changing the clock speed.

hello to all ;)

i have 3 questions atm:

1.)
why i only get applications for cuda ( 6.05 ) and my card is ready for cuda 3.1 ?
win7 x64
gtx 260


2.)
why are so lees wu´s on the server and only 2 WU´s maximum ???

3.) can you optimize the apps to more gpu usage ?

lg
Norman

If you look at the difference between your Q9550 and Q6600 you will get an idea of the importance of the CPU; 40min less on the faster CPU.

I realized this difference. I concluded this project should renamed to GPUCPUgrid :)
I have an idea: GPUgrid should be a multi CPU threaded project. In this way a GPUgrid task would get the sufficient CPU power when needed, because GPUgrid runs at higher priority than my other project (Rosetta). Maybe we shouldn't dedicate one CPU core to each GPU then. But if we have to, and the credit gain is more than my other CPU project can earn, I will detach from the other project.
As far as I can recall, other kinds of WUs do not depend on the CPU speed to this extent.

hello to all ;)

i have 3 questions atm:

1.)
why i only get applications for cuda ( 6.05 ) and my card is ready for cuda 3.1 ?
win7 x64
gtx 260


2.)
why are so lees wu´s on the server and only 2 WU´s maximum ???

3.) can you optimize the apps to more gpu usage ?

lg
Norman

The apps are mostly compiled using cuda (2.3 from memory). The fact that you have a more up to date driver that supports up to cuda 3.1 means its also backwards compatible.

The main changes for cuda 3.1 are targeted to the fermi-based cards (GTX4xx) and don't offer any advantage to the older cards such your GTX260. There is no reason to recompile them for cuda 3.1 if its not going to use any of the new features and still work on older cards. There is a cuda 3.1 app for the fermi-based cards.

There are only a few wu available at the moment as the project is switching to a new type of work unit. See the news item on the front page for more details about that.

The specific limit of 2 wu is so the project can get results back quickly. They use the results from one set of wu to generate the next set, so unless they come back quickly it holds things up. It also stops people hogging the work units and allows more people to get some.

As for optimising the guys do that regularly. If you run a tool call GPU-Z it will show you how hard the graphics card is working. Typically this is quite high. As they say on the home page we are doing work that normally is run on a super computer.

---

BOINC blog

You should adjust bonus lines accordingly if you know something like this is coming. The 'sophisticated' BOINC management makes sure at times my 9800GT will get those monster WUs while the GTX 295 crunches usual WUs.

Difference: 21,239.74 vs 17,699.78 (just because I managed to swap cards somehow by snooze GPU). Otherwise probably just: 14,159.83.

I do not like to see being punished for adding more computing power to the project.

---

OK, thank you Mark !

what is with open-cl support to bring up the ATI-power to the project ?

here is a post from timo strunk about open_cl ( developer poem@home ):

Hi everybody,

So, first of all: We will not use CUDA in our app. OpenCL can do everything CUDA can do and there's really no need to use it anymore (however that's my opinion). Apart from that we are working hard to get everything to work in Single Precision. So far our forcefields are exact in single precision with the exception of our Solvent Accessible Surface Area term, which will be deployed on the CPU for the moment. The new SASA forcefield is about 7 times faster than the old one on the CPU already though and during the next time somebody will be working to deploy it also on GPUs.

So the GPU part will be single precision and OpenCL; there's also no question whether we release first ATI or NVidia - these two releases won't be more than 1-2 days apart for sure, because the code is not different apart from optimization parameters. Personally I use the ATI Stream SDK on CPU for debugging bugs usually.

As to release dates: Well we were a bit off, when we estimated POEM++ to be done for the end of CASP, therefore at the moment we are hesitant to specify an immediate release date. The CPU part however is done and we are thinking to release it first, because it also gives already quite a speedup.

Best,
Timo

I completed one of the _revlo_TRYP_ Work Units on my GTX470:
2889900 1844414 28 Aug 2010 8:02:33 UTC 28 Aug 2010 21:44:16 UTC Completed and validated 38,875.28 38,863.08 14,159.83 21,239.74 ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.11 (cuda31)

These were actually a bit shy when it came to the points:
If my Fermi just crunched these tasks it would only bring 47K per day. Most other tasks get around 60K per day and one or two task types better that. My Fermi's RAC is about 62K despite the shortage and the odd slower task.
It's the same story for the other cards; my GTX260 and GT240 both got less points crunching these _revlo_TRYP_ tasks than the other types.
Anyway, there was not too many of them, and it was for a good cause - to get a publication out.

ignasi,
ftpd had a failure running a _revlo_TRYP_ task on a reliable GTS250:
2891437 1845526 28 Aug 2010 20:18:12 UTC 30 Aug 2010 15:36:28 UTC Error while computing 128,347.85 15,342.13 14,159.83 --- ACEMD2: GPU molecular dynamics v6.05 (cuda)

The failure occurred close to the expected finish time,
The system cannot find the path specified. (0x3) - exit code 3 (0x3)
Run time 128347.851675 (35h+)
CPU time15342.13
Outcome Client error
Client state Compute error
Validate state Invalid
This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.