Forum > Linux
SETI MB CUDA for Linux
pp:
Darn, darn, darn! ;D Well, I guess I have to let you hunt down Vyper by yourself then. I wish you luck. :D Would be nice with a Linux computer on top and a majority of them occupying the top 10...
b0b3r:
--- Quote from: pp on 30 Sep 2009, 09:56:40 am ---Darn, darn, darn! ;D Well, I guess I have to let you hunt down Vyper by yourself then. I wish you luck. :D Would be nice with a Linux computer on top and a majority of them occupying the top 10...
--- End quote ---
Thanks. I also wish you luck. :)
It's sad but I don't think that this host will beat Vyper's one. No at this time maybe someday. :(
It will be very nice to see many Linux hosts on the top computer list and to see generally more Linux hosts in boinc. :)
riofl:
i have been doing a lot of studying on the 285 vs 295 battle that has been going on in my brain. each element of the 295 is slower than the 285 by a reasonable margin (approx 160gflops difference.. 285=1062gflops while 295=894gflops per element). the thing the 295 has is 'density' to make up for it. so even if it takes longer to do a wu than the 285 does, it can do 2 of them in the same package in an attempt to make up for it which works ok.. wonder if there is an extended length motherboard out there that will take 8 pcie devices with a reasonable distance spread (at least 1/2 - 1 in between mounted devices)? there are cases available that can handle this, but i have not found a mobo that can.. for raw speed i would be more inclined to put 8 285 in something than 4 295. thoughts? i have a feeling i am not accounting for something here besides the obvious power requirements and cost savings of 1 295 vs 2 285...
maybe i should be looking into addon pcie density expansion like the nvidia supercomputer appliances do,putting 4 teslas into a single pcie slot.. wonder if empty appliance devices are available....
b0b3r:
--- Quote from: riofl on 01 Oct 2009, 08:56:50 am ---i have been doing a lot of studying on the 285 vs 295 battle that has been going on in my brain. each element of the 295 is slower than the 285 by a reasonable margin (approx 160gflops difference.. 285=1062gflops while 295=894gflops per element). the thing the 295 has is 'density' to make up for it. so even if it takes longer to do a wu than the 285 does, it can do 2 of them in the same package in an attempt to make up for it which works ok.. wonder if there is an extended length motherboard out there that will take 8 pcie devices with a reasonable distance spread (at least 1/2 - 1 in between mounted devices)? there are cases available that can handle this, but i have not found a mobo that can.. for raw speed i would be more inclined to put 8 285 in something than 4 295. thoughts? i have a feeling i am not accounting for something here besides the obvious power requirements and cost savings of 1 295 vs 2 285...
maybe i should be looking into addon pcie density expansion like the nvidia supercomputer appliances do,putting 4 teslas into a single pcie slot.. wonder if empty appliance devices are available....
--- End quote ---
You may also consider this card http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=3OXEUQmsHmmewEyu&templete=2 if you have enough money. ;D
But generally i observed that it's not so big difference in Seti speed between 260sp216 and 275 and 285 compared to difference in price. So if theoretical speed difference is about 20% you should be happy if you see only about half of that in Seti. That's because they are peak value of GPU capability, but real computation depends also on cpu, bus, memory speed and even more on application architecture.
riofl:
--- Quote from: b0b3r on 01 Oct 2009, 10:00:02 am ---
--- Quote from: riofl on 01 Oct 2009, 08:56:50 am ---i have been doing a lot of studying on the 285 vs 295 battle that has been going on in my brain. each element of the 295 is slower than the 285 by a reasonable margin (approx 160gflops difference.. 285=1062gflops while 295=894gflops per element). the thing the 295 has is 'density' to make up for it. so even if it takes longer to do a wu than the 285 does, it can do 2 of them in the same package in an attempt to make up for it which works ok.. wonder if there is an extended length motherboard out there that will take 8 pcie devices with a reasonable distance spread (at least 1/2 - 1 in between mounted devices)? there are cases available that can handle this, but i have not found a mobo that can.. for raw speed i would be more inclined to put 8 285 in something than 4 295. thoughts? i have a feeling i am not accounting for something here besides the obvious power requirements and cost savings of 1 295 vs 2 285...
maybe i should be looking into addon pcie density expansion like the nvidia supercomputer appliances do,putting 4 teslas into a single pcie slot.. wonder if empty appliance devices are available....
--- End quote ---
You may also consider this card http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=3OXEUQmsHmmewEyu&templete=2 if you have enough money. ;D
But generally i observed that it's not so big difference in Seti speed between 260sp216 and 275 and 285 compared to difference in price. So if theoretical speed difference is about 20% you should be happy if you see only about half of that in Seti. That's because they are peak value of GPU capability, but real computation depends also on cpu, bus, memory speed and even more on application architecture.
--- End quote ---
hmm yeah ... my basis is on integer gflops since i have not found double precision gflops comparisons. basing performance comparisons between my tesla at 933 integer gflops and my 285 at 1062 integer gflops, boinc displays them as 74 and 127 gflops respectively. now, considering the 295 is slower in integer gflops per processing system (894 each) than the tesla, i would expect it would display less than 74gflops each half.
which basically means that for a given card, a 295 using both halves will only give approximately 50-60% higher performance in total then a single 285 which makes me curious about its value other than accepting that 50% more per physical device is preferable. i just wonder if since the 295 is essentially supposed to be 2x 285 with slightly degraded performance why it is so? it has 4 less pixel shaders (28 vs 32) and smaller memory bus width (448 vs 512 which to me is the most major item). although these vary by mfgr, in general the 295 also has slower default clock speeds. admittedly lower clock speeds will help with eliminating heat buildup, but instead of using the same default heatsink assy, put a better designed one on to compensate and keep the performance up. guess i just wonder why its design doesn't make a lot of sense or maybe i am in wishful thinking mode that it 'should' be a 2x full 285 units when in fact it is 2x crippled 285 units.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version