Forum > GPU crunching
Latest drivers (NVidia and ATI)
Jason G:
Sorry Sutaru, normally If I don't answer something it's either because I don't know, or didn't understand the question. In this case probably a bit of both plus many questions at once.
I don't mess with priority, so don;t have answers for those as to what's best.
The test would be for V13 hybrid which seems to work well, but some minor issues are not well understood. It moves only the 'difficult' parts of pulsefinding to CPU, instead of rescheduling/killing VLArs. When I have some free time to look at tests, I will PM yourself at s@h. If it would work OK for you, then I would put it to beta soon.
Sutaru Tsureku:
Sorry, we misunderstood.
English isn't my motherlanguage. ;)
I posted my hardware for to show how I let run SETI@home.
I use TThrottle on the QX6700 + OCed GTX260-216 for to increase the CUDA priority (4x MB + 1x CUDA).
I don't know if it would be well (any profit) also for the GPU cruncher (4x OCed GTX260-216), for to let run 4x MB + 4x CUDA. (Because the GPUs would lose performance, and the CPU wouldn't have much for to compensate)
I calculated little bit around.. :-\
I have the following questions..
To hold it clear.. ;)
* You would use the current CUDA_V3.0_BETA ?
Because I see lot of people in the forum, which let run this.
Speed difference? Well for the opt._MB_6.08_V12_app ?
If ~ 2 % speed up, this would mean + ~ 1,000 RAC at my GPU cruncher. ;)
* I would see a speed difference between:
nVIDIA_driver_190.38 + CUDA_V2.3
and
nVIDIA_driver_195.62 + CUDA_V2.3
Normally nVIDIA release new driver for the gaming community.
The only CUDA community profit also from new driver versions?
(I don't mean, new driver for new CUDA version - this is clear.. ;))
Thanks! :)
Jason G:
--- Quote from: Sutaru Tsureku on 29 Nov 2009, 05:09:14 pm ---....
I don't know if it would be well (any profit) also for the GPU cruncher (4x OCed GTX260-216), for to let run 4x MB + 4x CUDA. (Because the GPUs would lose performance, and the CPU wouldn't have much for to compensate
--- End quote ---
Good. No Cpus probably would be good for the test I have in mind.
--- Quote ---* You would use the current CUDA_V3.0_BETA ?
Because I see lot of people in the forum, which let run this.
Speed difference? Well for the opt._MB_6.08_V12_app ?
,,,
--- End quote ---
First initial alpha test would be an existing 2.3 build , susbsequent tweaking would likely be v3.0 Beta.
--- Quote ---If ~ 2 % speed up, this would mean + ~ 1,000 RAC at my GPU cruncher. ;)
--- End quote ---
I dispute that the changes would amount to 2% consistently ... since Cuda tasks take such short time this 2% can be other natural variation. The tests were done with short synthetic tests, which typically vary as much as +/- 5% depending on machine state & how long windows has been running. There just aren;t any changes in cuda libraries we would use until fermi boards are available.
--- Quote ---* I would see a speed difference between:
nVIDIA_driver_190.38 + CUDA_V2.3
and
nVIDIA_driver_195.62 + CUDA_V2.3
Normally nVIDIA release new driver for the gaming community.
The only CUDA community profit also from new driver versions?
(I don't mean, new driver for new CUDA version - this is clear.. ;))
--- End quote ---
For the driver change alone, I don;t think a change would be as noticable as V13 test, which should take some hard work the GPU has trouble doing away, and puts it on the CPU, with AKv8 code (like reschedule internally only the hard parts), while the fast bits still process on GPU. That should make Mid-high angle ranges ~same speed to a tiny fraction faster elpased, with little/no extra CPU use, while VLAR can process ~2x speed of AKv8 (depending on GPU & CPU ratio).
Reason for test: There are some things I need to understadn how this would work on faster cards/machines, that none of us here have the hardware to test.
Be prepared though If you might lose some cache by accident :o
Jason
msattler:
I think we have determined that the 195.62 nvidia driver is not the best thing to run on pre-Fermi cards.
Has anybody determined if there is any performance difference between the 190.62 (which is currently working very well for me) and the last pre-Fermi update 191.07?
I hate to break anything that is working, unless somebody has noticed an advantage in doing so.
Pappa:
--- Quote from: msattler on 29 Dec 2009, 11:40:42 am ---I think we have determined that the 195.62 nvidia driver is not the best thing to run on pre-Fermi cards.
Has anybody determined if there is any performance difference between the 190.62 (which is currently working very well for me) and the last pre-Fermi update 191.07?
I hate to break anything that is working, unless somebody has noticed an advantage in doing so.
--- End quote ---
It appears to be working well on my 250 running over in Seti Beta... It is hard to say if it really has any "real" advanatage.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version