"You should fine tune your system (for example: leave a core free for GPUGrid), because 5pot's GTX780 finished a similar workunit in 4200 seconds, while it took 5000 seconds on your Titan."

Its GeForce 780 is overclocked, I've tested the overclock on my GeForce 570, which is dead. I did not want to suffer the same fate in my Titan.

@+
*_*

---

Thats its default boost clock. Different cards have different boost clocks depending on the quality of the chip.

"You should fine tune your system (for example: leave a core free for GPUGrid), because 5pot's GTX780 finished a similar workunit in 4200 seconds, while it took 5000 seconds on your Titan."

Its GeForce 780 is overclocked, I've tested the overclock on my GeForce 570, which is dead. I did not want to suffer the same fate in my Titan.

Thanks to the detailed debug info, I've noticed the overclocking of the GTX780 too, still your running times should be less (even less than that overclocked GTX780's running times).
I'll explain why:
The GTX 780's clock rate is higher by 16.457% (1019/875) than your Titan's, but your Titan has 16.666% (2688/2304) more shaders (CUDA cores) than a GTX780.
In other words:
If we multiply the number of shaders and their frequency the result is a theoretical performance index:
Your standard GTX Titan: 875MHz*2688=2352000
The overclocked GTX780:1019MHz*2304=2347776
As you can see, in theory your GTX Titan should be a little (by 1.8%) faster than the overclocked GTX780.

Possibly the GPUGrid application can't feed that much CUDA cores. The question is why can't the application do that?
Maybe your CPU is too busy to do that;
Or this is software-related.

To 5pot:
Please share your secret with us:
How could your overclocked GTX780 be faster than a factory clocked GTX Titan?
What is the exact type of your GTX780? Are they water cooled?

No secret. I do a lot of research before I spend this type of $$$. Best GPU I've found, and apparently others have as well is the EVGA 780 ACX.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130918

Stock boost on this card is 1020MHz, however, I apparently managed to get some pretty nice binned ones. My default boost is 1100MHz for one, while the other is 1123Mhz.

When running these tasks, at 92% GPU usage, I get a steady 70C with 75% fan speed, which is beautiful. These cards have ball bearing fans as well, so they increase their lifetime. This was, believe it or not, a factor in purchasing these cards. Quiet too.

FWIW, my TITAN does them in 4300-4600 with no threads reserved. I will try reserving a thread to see if there is any difference. This is not in the DP-enhanced mode. So it will automatically OC up as must as temps allow.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I check my Titan, the fan was full of dust is running at 836 Mhz, once cleaned, the card now runs at 928 MHz, the performance should be better.

@+
*_*

---

Should make quite a large difference. Please post a new update with latest times.

Gainward GTX 780 Phantom (GLH)
Coreclock 1189 (oc´d factory oc)

Similar times to 5pot

In the last 24 hours my GTX660 got 10 ACEMD v8.00 WU´s and they all finished fine.
Then it got a Nathan LR with v6.18 (cuda42) and that errorred out again. This is way:
Stderr output

<core_client_version>7.0.64</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
(unknown error) - exit code -1 (0xffffffff)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
MDIO: cannot open file "output.restart.coor"

</stderr_txt>
]]>

---

Greetings from TJ

That's not a beta app

FWIW, my TITAN does them in 4300-4600 with no threads reserved. I will try reserving a thread to see if there is any difference. This is not in the DP-enhanced mode. So it will automatically OC up as must as temps allow.

After more testing, I see that my TITAM takes 4520 seconds with or without a reserved thread. No difference at all.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

That is good news. I have done the same test with my 660 and saw the GPU load fluctuating from 88% to 1-3% and longer run time.
But the 660 is in no way a Titan.

---

Greetings from TJ

Correct!
But I hope that MJH´s 8.00 version soon will be used with the other WU´s so that my error-rate on the 660 drops significantly.
That´s why I posted it here and hope the MJH will read it, so he sees the error of the other WU´s (not his tests ones).

---

Greetings from TJ

FWIW, my TITAN does them in 4300-4600 with no threads reserved. I will try reserving a thread to see if there is any difference. This is not in the DP-enhanced mode. So it will automatically OC up as must as temps allow.

After more testing, I see that my TITAN takes 4520 seconds with or without a reserved thread. No difference at all.

That's goos news.
Zarck's Titan still needs 4700 secs. Then maybe the AMD architecture is to blame for that. The AMD FX CPU don't have integrated PCIe controller, it uses a Hypertransport link to the North Bridge. The AMD 990FX NB has "only" 2x PCIe 2.0 x16 support, while the Intel i7-3770 and 4770 has (only one) integrated PCIe 3.0 x16. The PCIe 2.0 x16 is quite enough for the GK104 (up to the GTX 680 and 770), however it could be hindering the performance of the GK110 based cards (GTX780 and Titan), because they have 50% and 75% (respectively) more CUDA cores than a GK104 based card.

Can we continue the discussion about CPU Integrated controller vs AMD chipset/CPU in the CPU Comparisons - general open discussion thread?
I think it's worth exploring in its own right and might detract from this beta application thread. Thanks,

---

FAQ's

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

I've had 4 NATHAN_s1p_test_titans2 errors on a GTX660Ti and 2 successes. Errors are of the form,

Name I2R11-NATHAN_s1p_test_titans2-10-50-RND9096_0
Workunit 4720185
Created 25 Aug 2013 | 10:30:21 UTC
Sent 25 Aug 2013 | 10:33:41 UTC
Received 25 Aug 2013 | 12:01:26 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Computation error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -97 (0xffffffffffffff9f) Unknown error number
Computer ID 139265
Report deadline 30 Aug 2013 | 10:33:41 UTC
Run time 4,874.18
CPU time 4,809.04
Validate state Invalid
Credit 0.00
Application version ACEMD beta version v8.00 (cuda55)
Stderr output

<core_client_version>7.0.64</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
(unknown error) - exit code -97 (0xffffff9f)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# GPU [GeForce GTX 660 Ti] Platform [Windows] Rev [3170M] VERSION [55]
# SWAN Device 0 :
# Name : GeForce GTX 660 Ti
# ECC : Disabled
# Global mem : 2048MB
# Capability : 3.0
# PCI ID : 0000:05:00.0
# Device clock : 1110MHz
# Memory clock : 3004MHz
# Memory width : 192bit
# Driver version : r325_00
# Simulation has crashed.

</stderr_txt>
]]>

---

FAQ's

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

The Beta app is now live as ACEMD-Short. Version 800

MJH

Sweet! Did you get the "Driver version" thing figured out so that it'll show 326.80?

The Beta app is now live as ACEMD-Short. Version 800

MJH

Super. My Titan is crunching first Nathan's.

Did you get the "Driver version" thing figured out so that it'll show 326.80?

Not yet. That'll follow later.

MJH