Nathan's took a lot of time to complete on my old GTX285, but they did mostly without error or making the system in-responsive.

Now the last week I get Noelia's and that are realy long ones. Between 130000 and 156000 seconds. I just got one (my system went down when typing this) with a BOINC estimate of 46.33 hours (167400 seconds).
I hope my systems keeps running while I sleep...

---

Greetings from TJ

Today I found a new one:

e9s2_e7s22f278-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND8462_0 6447447 155969 19 Apr 2014 | 9:56:32 UTC 20 Apr 2014 | 7:21:34 UTC Completed and validated 73,494.64 70,408.88 217,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.15 (cuda55)

It took more then 20 hours to complete on my 660.
Now I have a second one running on the 780Ti, 49% done in 4h53m, but with steady GPU load of 87% on Win7, driver 331.82

---

Greetings from TJ

I have two GIANNI tasks running: over 23h run time at about 80% done on my 650Ti GPUs.

Too long....


e12s130_e10s3f209-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND2338
application Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)
created 20 Apr 2014 | 11:08:49 UTC

e12s12_e10s3f100-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND0090
application Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)
created 20 Apr 2014 | 11:08:45 UTC
minimum quorum 1

Good to see some bigger WU's in calculation time.

Name e12s105_e8s78f139-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND4498_0
Run time 41,158.44 (11.4 hours on a GTX680)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=9207233

Name e12s121_e8s78f200-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND5565_0
Run time 27,154.78 (7.5 hours on a GTX780Ti)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=9207254


Also, the NATHAN_RPS1 and SDOERR_BARNA WU's have been nice to see.

Hope all these WU's are giving you some fun and interesting data to work with. Keep them coming. :)

These "really long runs" are the ones the long queue is made for.
They live up to the term "Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)"
As the fastest card is the GTX 780Ti at the present time, and these workunits take ~7 hours to process on a GTX 780Ti this isn't abnormal at all.
I welcome that the project adapts the running time of the workunits to the latest GPUs. This could mean either larger molecules, longer simulation timeframe, or both at the same time.

Good to see some bigger WU's in calculation time.

Name e12s121_e8s78f200-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND5565_0
Run time 27,154.78 (7.5 hours on a GTX780Ti)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=9207254

Amazing Jeremy, we have the same OS, same GPU but yours is about 1.5 hours faster then mine. I have it now running with all settings from manufacturer, so not at piece of alternation software running (AfterBurner, GPUTweak etc). Even with 69°C it will not boost the clock, however it can if I use AfterBurner to tweak.

I don't mind these long runs, as long as the project can do its work I am happy. Just what I saw on the 660, means that card is almost to slow for these "long runs". Good on the 780Ti though.

---

Greetings from TJ

At present this only applies to the GIANNI_lig3 WU's. Also discussed in the 'GIANNI ligand3-0-1 bad batch?' thread.
The other 'Long' WU's are actually much shorter, but I guess it's better to put them into the Long queue than the short queue.

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

At present this only applies to the GIANNI_lig3 WU's. Also discussed in the 'GIANNI ligand3-0-1 bad batch?' thread.
The other 'Long' WU's are actually much shorter, but I guess it's better to put them into the Long queue than the short queue.

Indeed I saw that thread, my fault. But as mine did not error, I considered them as a "good batch" and did not post there.

---

Greetings from TJ

Good to see some bigger WU's in calculation time.

Name e12s121_e8s78f200-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND5565_0
Run time 27,154.78 (7.5 hours on a GTX780Ti)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=9207254

Amazing Jeremy, we have the same OS, same GPU but yours is about 1.5 hours faster then mine. I have it now running with all settings from manufacturer, so not at piece of alternation software running (AfterBurner, GPUTweak etc). Even with 69°C it will not boost the clock, however it can if I use AfterBurner to tweak.

I don't mind these long runs, as long as the project can do its work I am happy. Just what I saw on the 660, means that card is almost to slow for these "long runs". Good on the 780Ti though.

Jeremy's GTX 780Ti under Win7 is almost as fast as my slower GTX 780Ti (PCIe 2.0@4x, 2700MHz RAM clock) under WinXPx64.
I think his Core i7-4770K is overclocked to 4GHz or more, and maybe he has some faster RAM modules.
However, TJ, your Core i7-4771 is slightly slower than mine. Are you using the iGPU?

At present this only applies to the GIANNI_lig3 WU's. Also discussed in the 'GIANNI ligand3-0-1 bad batch?' thread.
The other 'Long' WU's are actually much shorter, but I guess it's better to put them into the Long queue than the short queue.


Indeed I saw that thread, my fault. But as mine did not error, I considered them as a "good batch" and did not post there.
____________
Greetings from TJ

That batch was withdrawn, fixed, and re-released, and it's the only truly LONG run that GPUGRID presently has, though another batch comes close-ish - probably because that research line was started when the best GPU was a lot slower. Other threads exist on this general topic but it's often the case that new threads pop-up naturally that have been previously discussed and other threads naturally overlap, topics diverge and merge, and that's fine by me; nobody wants to trawl through a 300 post thread that was first brought up 4years ago and 90% of it is irrelevant. I was just making people aware of the other thread in case they missed it and because it's related ;)

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Good to see some bigger WU's in calculation time.

Name e12s121_e8s78f200-GIANNI_lig3-0-1-RND5565_0
Run time 27,154.78 (7.5 hours on a GTX780Ti)
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=9207254

Amazing Jeremy, we have the same OS, same GPU but yours is about 1.5 hours faster then mine. I have it now running with all settings from manufacturer, so not at piece of alternation software running (AfterBurner, GPUTweak etc). Even with 69°C it will not boost the clock, however it can if I use AfterBurner to tweak.

I don't mind these long runs, as long as the project can do its work I am happy. Just what I saw on the 660, means that card is almost to slow for these "long runs". Good on the 780Ti though.

Jeremy's GTX 780Ti under Win7 is almost as fast as my slower GTX 780Ti (PCIe 2.0@4x, 2700MHz RAM clock) under WinXPx64.
I think his Core i7-4770K is overclocked to 4GHz or more, and maybe he has some faster RAM modules.
However, TJ, your Core i7-4771 is slightly slower than mine. Are you using the iGPU?

Thanks for posting Zoltan. No I am not using the iGPU. I did with Einstein and saw a draw back on the 780Ti (is also discussed in Einstein that it does) and stopped using it. I will use AfterBurner again in a few days time to get the core clock a bit higher. I am happy with it results, running steady at 70-72­°C, sometimes 69°C and error free. But when I see better performance with others, then I am always thinking: "What am I doing wrong?".

---

Greetings from TJ

TJ,

This post was where I had ended up with my current configuration for the 780Ti (well until last night having to change the driver to avoid the errors with 8.40).

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3634&nowrap=true#35730

This was winter time when this post was done. Now with warmer days and the {NATHAN_RPS1, SDOERR_BARNA, GIANNI_lig3} WU's, the boost is getting throttled down (~1125) with the 72 temp limit I have on there. These WU's are now getting 87-90% utilization. Yeah!

As Zoltan noted, the CPU is running 4+ (flickers between 4.1-4.2). CPU speed dependency was a bit of a surprise to me. I seem to recall a post that some DP calculations were pushed off to the CPU so I guess that would be part of the reason.

What are your top boost speeds? There is definitely a dependency on clock speed. http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=1150&nowrap=true#33133

Regards,
Jeremy

Thanks for your answer Jeremy.
The highest I have seen was 1067MHz, but it is mainly running at 875.7MHz, even when temperature goes to 68°C it does not boost. I can use AfterBurner to let it boost, but when WU's switch from researcher, it goes to 875MHz again.

Well I am happy with the performance as it uses about 67% TDP, but I must admit I am jealous when seeing your times with the same OS. But your CPU is quite a bit faster as indeed explained by Zoltan.

---

Greetings from TJ

Thanks for your answer Jeremy.
The highest I have seen was 1067MHz, but it is mainly running at 875.7MHz, even when temperature goes to 68°C it does not boost. I can use AfterBurner to let it boost, but when WU's switch from researcher, it goes to 875MHz again.

Well I am happy with the performance as it uses about 67% TDP, but I must admit I am jealous when seeing your times with the same OS. But your CPU is quite a bit faster as indeed explained by Zoltan.

Force Max Boost, and be done with it.
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3647&nowrap=true#36320

Thanks for your answer Jeremy.
The highest I have seen was 1067MHz, but it is mainly running at 875.7MHz, even when temperature goes to 68°C it does not boost. I can use AfterBurner to let it boost, but when WU's switch from researcher, it goes to 875MHz again.

Well I am happy with the performance as it uses about 67% TDP, but I must admit I am jealous when seeing your times with the same OS. But your CPU is quite a bit faster as indeed explained by Zoltan.

Force Max Boost, and be done with it.
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3647&nowrap=true#36320

I will try, but two questions. In my PC is a GTX770 and runs at max boost 1150MHz at 68-69°C. I didn't make any settings or changes with a program (AfterBurner, GPUTweak etc.). And there is a GTX780Ti in it. Also made no changes, it runs at 68-70°C and starts at 1060MHz with a new WU and after a while it runs at 875.7MHz which is its base clock. Is this because it are different types of GK's?

Secondly, running a GPU at max boost for 24/7 has that a (huge) influence of the longlivety of the card?

---

Greetings from TJ

In my PC is a GTX770 and runs at max boost 1150MHz at 68-69°C. I didn't make any settings or changes with a program (AfterBurner, GPUTweak etc.). And there is a GTX780Ti in it. Also made no changes, it runs at 68-70°C and starts at 1060MHz with a new WU and after a while it runs at 875.7MHz which is its base clock. Is this because it are different types of GK's?

The base clock rates differ for different types of GPU, and manufacturers can alter this, so there are Factory OverClocks (FOC) models and reference models.

The GPU is not boosting due to a bug in the driver. 337.50 might fix that, or at least improve things, or you could use Jacob's fix.

Secondly, running a GPU at max boost for 24/7 has that a (huge) influence of the longlivety of the card?

Larger cards go a long way towards looking after themselves, but I prefer to take measures to decrease temperature (usually increase the GPU fan speeds and add system fans/leave the case door off, use a water cooler for the CPU...). If the GPU is being throttled because of the temperature it's probably worse than boosting to a higher clock, staying below the temperature point where it gets throttled, and only being throttled due to the Voltage cap.

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Set a custom fan curve in Precision-X such that the fan goes to Max fan, 1 degree before thermal limiting might happen. For me, that means 80% (Max Fan for a GTX 660 Ti) at 69*C (sine 70*C is the start of thermal limiting for a 600-series GPU). The yellow dotted line shows you Min/Max fan, and for your GPU the thermal limiting might not start until 80*C.

Yes, the 780Ti does not seem to throttle itself until it reaches 80C. It's been warm here the last few days and even with maxed out fans my cards have been running at 75C while staying at full boost when I have the temp target set that high. I like to keep them a bit cooler, though, so I usually set the temp target for 72C with 100% fan speed at 71C.

A bit off-topic, but I don't think that the 780Ti will not boast has anything to do with the driver. I have 331.82 and saw it running at more than 1000MHz a few times before.
But I was about going to try the latest beta drivers and I set BOINC to not accept new work. Eventually Rosetta on 5 CPU threads where gone and the GPUGRID WU on the 770 was ready too. So only one WU (Gianny ligand) is still running on the 780Ti and at 1102MHz at 70°C. Max boost is 1131HMz per nVidia Inspector.

When I let some Milkyway WU's run on the 770, the clock from the 780Ti went gradually down to 940MHz at the moment (927.9MHz while typing this post, oh and up to 940.9 again)). While temperature is still constantly at 70°C.
My 770 does run at Max Boast almost all the time despite temp. is going to 70-74°C.

---

Greetings from TJ

The best way to determine Max Boost, in my opinion, is to run GPU-Z, click the question mark at the middle right, and start the render test, then click Sensors and look at the GPU Core Clock value.

Any "pre-reported" boost value, is just a "typical boost" value, not a "Max boost" value.

For reference, for my GTX 660 Ti, on the first tab of GPU-Z, it says my card has rated GPU Clock of 1046 Mhz, with a Default Boost clock of 1124 Mhz, yet I know from testing that my Max Boost is 1241 Mhz.

So, I set for Max Boost, and it works wonderfully, even when the drivers would otherwise stupidly downclock due to supposed low utilization. Forcing Max Boost works wonders.
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3647&nowrap=true#36320