I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT

No, your not, I found these 4 Wu's that erred out shortly after starting it looks like on 3 different x64 Box's:

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256186
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256301
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256073
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256045

I see 5 other 6.62 WU's on my Box's too, I'll try and get the Video Drivers Updated TO 180.22 before they run & see what happens ...

Add another 1 to the List http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256055it started & erred before I could get to it & change the Drivers, not sure if the will do any good anyway. I Suspended the rest so I can have a little time to Update the V-Drivers and will start them up after I do & see if they run longer.

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT

Hi.
Did you try 180.84 drivers (note .84, not .48)?
BR,

---

With the first runs it seems to be 17% slower. On Linux the performance seems to be better. More WUs out.

gdf

I guess that is my http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=19410]experience, because of the variability on the time for the tasks I can't say for sure. But I did two tasks, pretty easy to see which ones ... both validated ...

{edit Add} for my other computer has reported and validated its first 6.62 task with another in the queue behind 2 6.61 tasks (sigh) {/edit}

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ...

Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?

If it was merely "tuning" the polling loop, it might be useful to consider my suggestion that you allow a "Performance" setting to allow people that are GPU Grid only to allow for the higher CPU use to get the maximum GPU performance out of their systems. The 6.6.1 operation as presented would be the default which I would term "Nice" and even better if you added a third option between the two of "Hybrid" which would attempt to balance the two with a loss on the CPU side but an increase on the GPU side though not as much as with "Performance" ...

Personally I *LOVE* projects that allow me to choose how my systems are used so I can set things up to *MY* considerations and concerns ...

---

Is there any recommended driver for XP64, one which surely works?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ... Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?

What are you Smoking this morning Paul, how can you say that 17% slower is better for the same amount of Credit & that it's a Positive thing, not in my book it isn't. We already have had our Credits slashed here and now it looks like with a longer run time for the same Credit we will have it slashed again.

Is there any recommended driver for XP64, one which surely works?

MrS

180.84 doesn't work for 6.62 & Windows x64, at least not on my Box's anyway, the WU's error after 10-15 Minutes running time. The 180.84 Driver works okay with v6.61 though, I'm trying 1 now with the 181.22 Drivers, if that doesn't work I'll try & get a copy of the 180.48 Drivers & see what happens ...

The 181.22 Driver seems to be working on my Box's, I have 1 6.62 running for 65 minutes now without giving an error, if anything changes on it I Post it. The 181.22 Driver doesn't have any Memory issues either for me anyway.

It looks like about 1% to 2% CPU Usage, I've always ran 3&1 so when I finish a few that way I'll switch to 4&1 so I can see the difference in run times. I have a few 6.62's still that haven't started running yet so I can do that when the first ones finish for me.

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT

Hi.
Did you try 180.84 drivers (note .84, not .48)?
BR,

I have the 180.48 before trying to update, and since i just have 6.61, so right now i have the 180.84, but can't try the new app!

Jim PROFIT

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ... Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?

What are you Smoking this morning Paul, how can you say that 17% slower is better for the same amount of Credit & that it's a Positive thing, not in my book it isn't. We already have had our Credits slashed here and now it looks like with a longer run time for the same Credit we will have it slashed again.

Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...

Were I only interested in supporting GPU Grid I would be upset at the loss of 17% performance ... which is why I suggested the triple setting in preferences ... you would go for Performance to get the most GPU Grid throughput and I would opt for Nice to get the best system performance ... different strokes for different folks ...

You should know me well enough to know that I have always supported maximum possible options being made by the projects for the participants to be able to make the systems support the project the way the participant wants yet not degrade the project's ability to obtain their own goals ...

In my case, I can easily make deadlines with the new application even though my RAC and throughput will drop some because my other projects will not be affected... and to compensate I will go buy a second GTX 295 meaning that because the project responded to me desires to not impact other projects, in the long run they make out too because I get my cake and i can eat it too ... another project supported, higher numbers of tasks done and yet GPU Grid is not misusing my systems (at least not to my eyes... sorry, I feel a polling loop that is just doing idle checking of the GPU is a poor investment) ...

So, yes, GPU Grid losses some efficiency and processing speed and yet, I think, with lower CPU costs they will in the long run stand to gain more ... heck their load on the CPU is less than SaH ... and that would incline me to stay here ...

Besides, though I am as addicted to my credit score as the next fanatic (well, maybe not as much as some) for me it is about getting the science done and the credit is only the reflection of the fact that I have done the work... and as such, highest RAC/credit is not what I am about ... if it were, I would only be supporting those projects that pay the most ... and I would ignore the rest ... yet my signature shows that I am about supporting ALL science and to a lesser amount all projects ...

Anyway, that is why I proposed that the project consider the compromise application so that you and I can both be happy here ... if they go back to only a high performance option then I will only be here for the time it takes for a project like Einstein to come along with a GPU application (or Milky Way if you have seen the news, though the first cut looks to be a version of ATI cards) and then I will leave if other projects offer lower CPU loads ... in any case, if the load goes back up to levels I consider rediculous I will certainly not be adding more GPUs until I can use them and my CPUs efficiently ...

Just my opinion, long winded as usual ... :)

---

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish

Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...

Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...

Maybe GDF can slow them down another 88% & that would give you 88% more Performance for your Precious i7 ... :P ... The Option is already there if you want more Performance for your GPU WU's or the Regular WU's, just run 3 & 1 for GPU Performance or 4 & 1 for Regular WU Performance so there's no need or reason to make them run longer just so they use less CPU% ...

First 6.62-WU finished (257219), unusual slow 47,7 ms (GTX 260/216), but maybe GPU usage overlapped with crunching a WU for folding@home.

Windows XP users please report if it works, as last time we had problems.

gdf

I have an eye on it, three WUs (hostID 23101, GTX 260/192) are in queue, calculation time with manager 6.4.5 seems to be (too) long (22h, 25h, 49h).

Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...

Maybe GDF can slow them down another 88% & that would give you 88% more Performance for your Precious i7 ... :P ... The Option is already there if you want more Performance for your GPU WU's or the Regular WU's, just run 3 & 1 for GPU Performance or 4 & 1 for Regular WU Performance so there's no need or reason to make them run longer just so they use less CPU% ...

Hate to accuse you of not reading my posts, but, you didn't read it carefully.

I feel that a 21% CPU load is too high and the exchange of 21% drop in CPU load for a 17% drop in GPU performance is a good trade-off for *ME* because I now have only a 1% CPU load per core on both my systems instead of a complete waste of 21% for 3 cores on the i7 to support 3 GPU cores and 22% on the Q9300 to support only one core.

The *IDEA* of GPU processing is that it would be in parallel with CPU processing with minimal impact on normal system processing. The old GPU application had a very high load, one which my memory says that you objected to also ...

We can debate the consequences of the change and how we would prefer the system to operate and again, this is the point of having OPTIONS ... were I desireous of maximum GPU Grid performance I would also agree with you that this is a bad change, or at least I am interpreting what you are saying is that this is a bad change ... but, I think that this is a good change. Again, were we to have the option you could run the application as 6.61 where you have the 17% GPU performance because you don't mind the impact on the CPU side ... and I would be able to run it as 6.62 because I do not think that the performance loss is necessacerily that bad.

Especially because it is entirely possible that they can take another step forward and still keeping the CPU load low that they can regain part or all of that performance loss ...

---

On another note I had a weird screen come up and it is unclear if it is my LCD dying or the GPUs going out to lunch, or something completely unrelated ... scary though ...

---

I feel that a 21% CPU load is too high and the exchange of 21% drop in CPU load for a 17% drop in GPU performance is a good trade-off for *ME* because I now have only a 1% CPU load per core on both my systems instead of a complete waste of 21% for 3 cores on the i7 to support 3 GPU cores and 22% on the Q9300 to support only one core.

Run in Linux then & you don't get any Performance loss, Oh thats right you don't do Linux :P hahahaha J/K ... ;)

I am having a weird problem when running 6.62 apps- the other project running as 4+1 will not fetch new work until the very last of it's WU's has completed... then it fetches the max number possible and then runs them all down to zero and repeats...this happens on all quads (XP Home)... as soon as a 6.61 WU runs the other project fetches work normally... I run the same preferences on all machines- network connection set to '0' and .5 day cache...

The *IDEA* of GPU processing is that it would be in parallel with CPU processing with minimal impact on normal system processing.

If it reduces CPU load to 1% but takes 17% longer to run, I'd rather stick with 6.61. My GPU's crank out way more work than my CPU's - so I say screw one core and run the GPU's fast until we can find a fix that doesn't slow them down.

Paul, any chance you can reduce the size of your sig? It's a PITA when trying to read threads cause you post it every time.

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish

Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...

Heck, I thought 180.84 was the sweet driver (for XP64) until this. Will try 181.22 or newer.
BR,

---

some shredded 6.62 WUs here:

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=258055

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=258049

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=257563

XP x64 with 180.84 beta drivers, made no changes to system, suddenly produced this errors

Paul, any chance you can reduce the size of your sig? It's a PITA when trying to read threads cause you post it every time.

Don't get your hopes up. He just about had an aneurysm trying to get someone to fix the site so he could post that sig...

---

Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.