I have just finished my first WU using SETI 4.05.
Not only it took 40% longer to process but the CPU ran
4°C warmer then before.

That is a fact. I have proved before on another thread
for those who remember, that I know my machine and I
monitor it's temperature very precisely.

It proves that there is defenitely something wrong with
that version. It seem that the CPU is actually wasting his
ressources on something that has nothing to do with "pure
SETI processing" like searching for
Gaussians, spike, triplets, etc.

Logicaly, an increase of CPU temperature means more
processing works, and therefore slower processing times.

Something is wrong here.

Marc

I'm now using 4.05 and my machine crunches at 97 - 98 percent (winXP with the task manager active). My CPU temperature is the same as with 4.03. I can't see how your temperature would increase 4 degrees C unless you were crunching a less than 97 - 98 percent CPU usage on 4.03.

CPU activity can't go above 100%, so you were either running under 97 -100 percent under 4.03 or you need to check your computer cooling.

Any other opinions?

My WUs take about 30-40% longger to finish too. Unfortunately, I didn't monitor temps closely on my BOINC boxes. I doubt that the client is more "efficient" if it takes longger to finish a WU. :(

> I'm now using 4.05 and my machine crunches at 97 - 98 percent (winXP with the
> task manager active). My CPU temperature is the same as with 4.03. I can't see
> how your temperature would increase 4 degrees C unless you were crunching a
> less than 97 - 98 percent CPU usage on 4.03.
>
> CPU activity can't go above 100%, so you were either running under 97 -100
> percent under 4.03 or you need to check your computer cooling.
>
> Any other opinions?

Thanks but I know that it can't go above 100% But it does not everything.
Threads are just one aspect of CPU usage. You can run program X at 100%
and having temperature higher or lower then program Z also using 100%
threads. Here SETI 4.03 was 99% and 4.05 is also 99%. To prove that try
different game for example. All the games I play, from RISK II to Unreal
tournement they all uses 99% but temperature varies from +/- 10°C
My computer cooling is working very well. I have cleaned it (laptop) last
week.

I have proved on this thread that the non linear processing time were also non linear
as for processing power usage. I will monitor the next units very closely.

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

> My WUs take about 30-40% longger to finish too. Unfortunately, I didn't
> monitor temps closely on my BOINC boxes. I doubt that the client is more
> "efficient" if it takes longger to finish a WU. :(
>
>

Quite likely the 4.05 client is performing more calculations that the 4.03 client. Back in the day on Classic Seti, the 3.x clients took about 75% longer to complete WU's than the 2.x clients - specifically because 3.x performed more science.


<a>

Well, if you are running a process just under 100 percent and the room ambient air temperature is constant, your CPU/computer should stabilize to a certain temperature. If you quit the processes you are running and run different one's (like 4.05 instead of 4.03 Seti) your CPU/computer temperature should be the same (as long as the room ambient temperature hasn't changed) and the processes run at the same percentile. From what I've seen, 40.3 and 4.05 run at the same percentile.

I'm no expert on this, so maybe someone else can help, but I think I'm correct.

> Well, if you are running a process just under 100 percent and the room ambient
> air temperature is constant, your CPU/computer should stabilize to a certain
> temperature. If you quit the processes you are running and run different one's
> (like 4.05 instead of 4.03 Seti) your CPU/computer temperature should be the
> same (as long as the room ambient temperature hasn't changed) and the
> processes run at the same percentile. From what I've seen, 40.3 and 4.05 run
> at the same percentile.
>
> I'm no expert on this, so maybe someone else can help, but I think I'm
> correct.

Well again one the point is missing. Different programs all running at
100% does not necessarely run at same temperature. Threads do not
represents all of what your CPU is doing.

RISK II 100% 68°C
SETI CALSSIC 100% 72°C
SETI BOINC 4.03 100% 62-64°C
SETI BOINC 4.05 100% 70-72°C
TRAIN SIM 100% 82°C
etc.

I was just finished with me last SETI 4.03 WU and temperature was 62°C
BOINC started the next one using SETI 4.05 and temperature rised up to
68 and increasing up to 72°C for the complete process. Now tell me what
changed in between these two WU ? Ambiant temperature was the same, My
cooling system didn't change, etc.

OK so we all now that WU takes longer to process with 4.05 and From what
I can see from here it also uses more CPU ressources and this resulting
in higher CPU temperature.

Does the 4.05 version is actually doing deeper math analysis ? I don't
know. Doest it have some debugging code that slows the process but also
makes it harder on the CPU ? I don't know. Did I've just happen to download
some funny WU that no others have had so far ? I don't know.

I am just relating facts that I can see here on my screen and that is
my CPU is working harder since it runs SETI 4.05

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

I got to thinking about this and while I haven't really noticed any temperature increases (I'll have to check when my CPDN gets pre-empted and SETI starts again), it does make sense to me how two processes that use 100% of the CPU could have different temperature results. The heat is generated by electrons whizzing around the various pathways in the chip. If one process uses more areas of the chip to do its thing, more heat will be generated.

I could see how a program that contains an infinite loop of adding and subtracting 1 from a value would generate less heat than a program that did more complicated mathematics utilizing more areas of the chip. Another thing that could cause a difference is how much interaction one program has with others areas such as RAM and Disks vs another.

Anyway, with my system, anything that runs the CPU at 100% seems to run it around the same temperature.

Mark H.

Wow. Mine is about 8 degrees hotter with setiathome 4.05.

Processing a work unit went from 3 hours 20 minutes for two (Hyperthreading) to 4 hours.

According to my Asus Probe utility:
Current CPU temp: 57C/134F
Current MoBo temp: 37C/98F
CPU fan speed: 4141-4166
Right now my ASUS bios is set to run the fan at 11/16 ratio. I'll keep a watch on the temp and see if I need to turn up the fan. Thanks for the heads-up, Marc.

I may have spoke to soon about my CPU temp. I looked into things further and found my CPU fan runing at a lower speed than it should be. I'll have to check it out tomorrow.

I haven't noticed any increase in Mnementh's cpu temps between clients. Iv got a P4 3.06 GHZ overclocked to 3.4 GHZ on a 1/2 watercooling setup. My temps run;
CPU 39C/100F
MB 28C/82F

A really important factor to consider is the ambient room temp, for me, running at a constant 68-70F.

With CPU at no usage, temps are;
CPU 33C/91F
MB 26C/78F

> I haven't noticed any increase in Mnementh's cpu temps between clients. Iv
> got a P4 3.06 GHZ overclocked to 3.4 GHZ on a 1/2 watercooling setup. My
> temps run;
> CPU 39C/100F
> MB 28C/82F
>
> A really important factor to consider is the ambient room temp, for me,
> running at a constant 68-70F.
>
> With CPU at no usage, temps are;
> CPU 33C/91F
> MB 26C/78F

Thanks Lord but once again you have just proved to me that people just don't
read the threads before replying. Regarding ambiant room temp, please read
again what I have posted.

""I was just finished with me last SETI 4.03 WU and temperature was 62°C
BOINC started the next one using SETI 4.05 and temperature rised up to
68 and increasing up to 72°C for the complete process. Now tell me what
changed in between these two WU ? Ambiant temperature was the same, My
cooling system didn't change, etc.""

It doesn't seem to me that the ambiant temperature had much time to
change in the half a second it takes to start a new WU !!!

You seem to have a very good cooling system there, I wish I could have
have the same in my laptop. OH ! Did I've mentionned it was a laptop...
Yes I did.

Anyway since It seems to be that I am the only one who have notice that
I must be crunching some weird WU. I have also notice that the game
I use to play with BOINC running at the same time started to act funny.
I will reset and reinstall boinc and see what happen.

Thanks to all
Marc

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

> > My WUs take about 30-40% longger to finish too. Unfortunately, I didn't
> > monitor temps closely on my BOINC boxes. I doubt that the client is more
> > "efficient" if it takes longger to finish a WU. :(
> >
> >
>
> Quite likely the 4.05 client is performing more calculations that the 4.03
> client. Back in the day on Classic Seti, the 3.x clients took about 75% longer
> to complete WU's than the 2.x clients - specifically because 3.x performed
> more science.
>
>

SETI "Classic" was blazing the trail for this type of scientific work though. You would think that the BOINC SETI Client would have already been coded for the same processing as the v3.x "Classic" client was. All I can figure is that the processing may have evolved beyond v3.x "Classic", causing still longer processing times in BOINC. My WUs are now running longer than when I was using my P4 1.6 Ghz CPU with 256 KB L2 cache and 400 Mhz FSB. My current CPU is a P4 2.8 Ghz with 1 MB L2 cache and 800 Mhz FSB. We just need something, anything from the dev team to briefly explain the longer processing time. Is it really so much to ask for?

EDIT: To follow this thread, my CPU is running 100%, 100% of the time when running BOINC, which happens to be 24/7. I haven't really observed the temps, but mine seems to be running normal temp wise. Also, BOINC is always running even when I'm using my PC for, this for example or for printing from my office suite or anything else I do with it.

OFF TOPIC: I have seen this since moving to v4.09 CC and v4.05 SC. I can run 3 WU at once now and when up/downloading, I can do 3 at once also. I watched while I was downloading more WUs, one had finished and uploaded at the same time as 2 were downloading. Must be SUPER Hyper-Threading.... ;-) Has anyone else noticed this?

L8R....

---




Rick A. - BOINCing right along now.... It can only get better!

"There is no fate except that which we create for ourselves."

Live Long and Prosper....

God knows what was wrong and what I was crunching but I have reinstall
everything from scratch and it is now running at normal CPU temperature.

Thanks for your participation. Problem is fixed now.
(but still take longer to process)

marc

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

When SETI Classic was in use CPU speeds where lower. To make it realsitc time for wu to complete not every thing was proberley done in anlysing of the wu. But now that CPU speeds are getting faster more things can be analysied, in a reason amount of time.


It's Out there........

> TRAIN SIM 100% 82°C

Which Train sim? (I'm also a TS fan :) )

> God knows what was wrong and what I was crunching but I have reinstall
> everything from scratch and it is now running at normal CPU temperature.
>
> Thanks for your participation. Problem is fixed now.
> (but still take longer to process)
>
> marc

Still it brings up an interesting question. I tight loop of ten minutes worth of a simple integer count verses a more intense calculation for the same amount of time and compare temperatures. Or run Seti Classic and then switch to Boinc Seti 4.05.

I downloaded motherboard monitor because I wanted access to the cpu temperatures without rebooting and going into the bios. But then found out I didn't know the brand of motherboard in my Dell 600m notebook nd couldn't find out anything in the Dell documentation or a google search. I'll have to wait until I can get to my desktop and then breakout my c++ and do a bit of experimenting.

I would still be surprised to get a 4 degree difference from two "near 100 percent" processes, but it does make sense the a complex CPU instruction(s) would generate more heat than a simple instructions.

> > TRAIN SIM 100% 82°C
>
> Which Train sim? (I'm also a TS fan :) )
>

MS Train simulator (2002 I think) with a few patchs (TGV, Sandpatch)
I have uninstalled it a few weeks ago because It starded to act funny.
I am still in the process of learning how to creates tracks, very
complicated... I run it on my Laptop Presario 2800
P4m 1.4 GHz / 512 DDR 266 / Radeon 7500 32 Mb RAM
Results are good but machine is "working hard" !!!

Regards
Marc