Forum > GPU crunching
x38g reports
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: Jason G on 29 Jun 2011, 04:10:13 pm ---...
(Barring the mentioned reliability issues we're looking for, x38g & x39d/e should have matched one another in this case)
--- End quote ---
Claggy's x38g and x39e results did agree on the best_gaussian (and everything else) so can't explain why Perryjay's result didn't get strongly similar against Phud's.
I expect the x32f best_gaussian (which was one of the reported gaussians) is more likely to match CPU results, simply because it has a considerable history of few inconclusives.
Joe
Jason G:
--- Quote from: Josef W. Segur on 29 Jun 2011, 05:03:39 pm ---I expect the x32f best_gaussian (which was one of the reported gaussians) is more likely to match CPU results, simply because it has a considerable history of few inconclusives.
--- End quote ---
Well, testing that theory grabbing a AKv8b result to add to the collection (That's taking a while :D).
As no 'direct' Gaussian search modifications were made in x32f through 39e, I currently call the x38g chirp & some other kernels 'unstable' under some conditions on certain cards under as yet undetermined conditions. If it turns out something simpler then I'll be happy with that.
I haven't looked at the spikes' proximity to threshold, but given the known 6.03 limitations (which should show in my AKv8b result if a factor) then I think the 3-way circus on the live runs might go something like this:
x38g Vs 6.03 disagrees by spikes, with possible suspect chirp in x38g presenting effects
x39d Vs 6.03 disagrees by spikes
x38g Vs x39d, possible suspect x38g chirp (reliability)
So far we have seen mismatched gaussians between AKv8 & x32f, with a full length test task from your FG set, I'm putting forward that the accuracy of those in the x38g one is repaired to match CPU by the chirp, but that instability created an issue in the live result not seen under bench, and that the majority of the remaining disagreement comes from the spikes.
Claggy:
I've taken out my GTX460 and fitted my 9800GTX+ and i'm in the process of running a bench comparing x39d and x39e against x32f and x38g,
Claggy
Jason G:
OK, apart from the fix for the VRAM blowout, x39e is identical to x39d, so you could shorten your test by one build if you wanted, though I suppose the extra run couldn't hurt to see if remaining stability issues show up, despite that none seem to under bench (the frustrating part :))
Jason G:
------------
Running app : AK_v8b_win_x64_SSSE3x.exe -verb -nog
with WU : 27fe11ac.12560.9065.8.10.100.wu
Started at : 05:48:23.796
Ended at : 07:24:09.576
5745.740 secs Elapsed
5179.405 secs CPU time
Result : stored as ref for validation.
------------
Running app : Lunatics_x39e_win32_cuda32.exe -verb -nog
with WU : 27fe11ac.12560.9065.8.10.100.wu
Started at : 07:24:12.637
Ended at : 07:30:50.101
397.415 secs Elapsed
50.638 secs CPU time
Speedup : 99.02%
Ratio : 102.28 x
ref-AK_v8b_win_x64_SSSE3x.exe-27fe11ac.12560.9065.8.10.100.wu.res:-
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 99.74%
Attaching bench & result files for manual comparisons.... [Done, analysing]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version