Seti at home 6.09 cuda 23

Forum > GPU crunching

<< < (2/4) > >>

Jason G:
I agree ;D, It's a long learning curve this GPU computing stuff ;)

Pepi:

--- Quote from: Jason G on 27 Feb 2010, 05:55:36 am ---I agree ;D, It's a long learning curve this GPU computing stuff ;)

--- End quote ---

I must add one word: VERY long ;D

BeemerBiker:

--- Quote from: Pepi on 26 Feb 2010, 10:17:49 pm ---This stock application is faster on my machine then opt app.
Difference is speed is from 10-15% per results with low credit ( fast result) to 1-5 % per result with high credits (aprox 110 credits)
It also seem that this stock app works better on my GT 240 compared to second comp with GT9800 ( or maybe it is driver thing ( 196.21 WHQL)

--- End quote ---

I see the same difference. Just eyeballing 5 similar tasks before and after, my 9800gtx and gts250 dualie seem to run slightly faster with the stock 6.09 app (10%). The real advantage with the opt seems to be that the low vlar's are discarded. Those easily up the time by 5x . I am running up enough points in colatz & milkyway ati that I am going to leave the stock seti app in tho I am open to doing any testing.

vista-64, 6.10.43, dual opteron 285, v12 tested, cuda 2.3

Sutaru Tsureku:
Hmm.. funny.. and I'm confused.. ;)
I was funny and made again a test, because I love it.. :D

I compared MB_6.08_CUDA_V12_VLARKill_FPLim2048 with setiathome_6.09_windows_intelx86__cuda23 .

The MB_6.08_.. with CUDA V2.3 .
The MB_6.09_.. with the orig. DLed CUDA 2.3 .

I had let run some bench WUs..
[fastest in yellow]

MB_6.08_CUDA_V12_VLARKill_FPLim2048.exe

TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.984 secs Elapsed 16.109 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43.672 secs Elapsed 16.219 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 31.266 secs Elapsed 15.094 secs CPU time

TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.688 secs Elapsed 16.328 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43.672 secs Elapsed 16.453 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 31.750 secs Elapsed 15.188 secs CPU time

TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.078 secs Elapsed 15.781 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43.594 secs Elapsed 16.344 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 31.688 secs Elapsed 15.172 secs CPU time

AVG:
TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.583 secs
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43,646 secs
TaskName: PG1327.wu 31,568 secs

setiathome_6.09_windows_intelx86__cuda23.exe

TaskName: PG0395.wu 48.172 secs Elapsed 17.953 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 42.516 secs Elapsed 17.078 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 33.047 secs Elapsed 16.906 secs CPU time

TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.891 secs Elapsed 17.703 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43.000 secs Elapsed 17.109 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 33.109 secs Elapsed 16.844 secs CPU time

TaskName: PG0395.wu 46.938 secs Elapsed 17.094 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43.563 secs Elapsed 18.078 secs CPU time
TaskName: PG1327.wu 32.781 secs Elapsed 16.688 secs CPU time

AVG:
TaskName: PG0395.wu 47,334 secs
TaskName: PG0444.wu 43,026 secs
TaskName: PG1327.wu 32,979 secs

I had let run some normal WUs and was surprised the stock 6.09 is faster than opt. 6.08 .
528 to 572 sec.
This mean ~ 8 % faster!

All 4 WUs with 0.422538 AR:

Opt. 6.08:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1566007975
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1566007971

Stock 6.09:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1566008022
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1566008020

Hmm.. the stock 6.09 is faster than opt. 6.08 ? Why?
Only at this AR, or maybe all others also?
O.K., the real WUs confirm the bench WUs, but.. maybe.. all ARs faster with stock 6.09 ?

Ahh.. on my OCed QX6700 @ 3.14 GHz with manufacturer OCed GTX260-216.
The CUDA WU preparation on CPU is ~ 14 sec for opt. 6.08 and ~ 16 sec. for stock 6.09 .
The opt. 6.08 use ~ 70 MB system RAM, stock 6.09 use ~ 100 MB system RAM.

BTW. Where I can DL stock SETI@home and SETI@home BETA apps?

EDIT: The upper test was with WinXP 32bit SP3. nVIDIA driver 190.38 .

BeemerBiker:
Your test is much more thorough than mine. I simply picked 5 wu's that are in the same range and compared against 5 from the stock app that also seemed to be in the same range. I did not want to process the same wu on different apps as I recall it was a PITA the last time I did that.

Anyway, besides the obvious angle, there is other differences that can affect the comparision. The system I ran the test on has 2 opteron dual cores but I set aside one of the cores for feediing my two gpu's. I doint think that Raistmer's needs to be fed because he has code that raises the priority. Perhaps on a system with all 4 cores allocated, raiising the priority can show a big improvement. I like to run that aqua and more recently the quantumfire and would rather have all 4 cores avaiilable for those projects.

I am also running crunch3r's seti linux cuda, tho right now, there are no wu's aviailable. That one uses 2.1 lib and I tried 2.2 but got an invalid signature. I didnt bother with 2.3.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version