GTX 260 to GTX 295 and only got 2,000 more RAC?


log in

Advanced search

Questions and Answers : GPU applications : GTX 260 to GTX 295 and only got 2,000 more RAC?

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile GTP
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 29
Credit: 39,066,907
RAC: 27,620
United States
Message 919780 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 18:23:35 UTC

I have been running this new card for 2 weeks now and only see 2k more RAC! What a waste of money! Can this be correct?

I went from 7,000 RAC to 9,000 RAC!

Bummed,
Aaron Lephart

www.smartcar451.com
____________

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5567
Credit: 51,649,943
RAC: 44,637
Australia
Message 919784 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 18:27:01 UTC - in response to Message 919780.
Last modified: 20 Jul 2009, 18:28:50 UTC

When upgrading hardware, or installing an optimised application, it can take a month to 6 weeks to show up in RAC values. And that's when the system isn't having issues coping with all the work being uploaded.
If the number of Work Units processed per hour increased by x%, then eventually that's roughly how much your RAC will increase (with it's usual ups & downs).
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Fred W
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 99
Posts: 2524
Credit: 11,954,210
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 919785 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 18:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 919780.

I have been running this new card for 2 weeks now and only see 2k more RAC! What a waste of money! Can this be correct?

I went from 7,000 RAC to 9,000 RAC!

Bummed,
Aaron Lephart

www.smartcar451.com

When things are stable my GTX295 is good for about 8000 RAC on its own to add to the 8000 RAC of my overclocked quaddie. Even when things are stable, it takes more than 2 weeks for RAC changes to settle down (check how your Pendings have jumped when we can see them again).

F.
____________

Profile GTP
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 29
Credit: 39,066,907
RAC: 27,620
United States
Message 919813 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 19:17:20 UTC

So was this estimate of 14-14k RAC wrong?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54386

All the best,
Aaron Lephart

www.smartcar451.com

Fred W
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 99
Posts: 2524
Credit: 11,954,210
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 919826 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 20:01:28 UTC - in response to Message 919813.

So was this estimate of 14-14k RAC wrong?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54386

All the best,
Aaron Lephart

www.smartcar451.com

Well mine has never got anywhere near that. It is running at stock clock and gives the figures I posted.

F.
____________

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 6974
Credit: 57,220,856
RAC: 22,265
Germany
Message 919850 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 20:59:53 UTC - in response to Message 919785.
Last modified: 20 Jul 2009, 21:01:50 UTC

When things are stable my GTX295 is good for about 8000 RAC ...
[...]
F.


Really? You let run the stock_CUDA_app or Raistmer's_CUDA_VLARkill_app?

One of my 4 OCed GTX260-216 make a ~ 8,000 RAC with Raistmer's latest app.

____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

zpm
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 08
Posts: 284
Credit: 1,187,501
RAC: 3,755
United States
Message 919851 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 21:03:00 UTC - in response to Message 919850.

pending credit page is still disable which is giving people false impressions about how much credit they are getting for work that is pending which they can't see. give it time and Patience!!!!

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 6974
Credit: 57,220,856
RAC: 22,265
Germany
Message 919852 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 21:10:41 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jul 2009, 21:12:15 UTC


I would recommend following manual for GPU CUDA user.

I would let run per GPU* one CPU-Core idle. Because of the BOINC client [boinc.exe] which have sometimes big CPU peaks. (depend of your WU cache size)
Because of this all other under 'normal' are involved/disturbed - CPU and GPU tasks. It could be that the CPU support of the GPUs would be stop and then the GPU calculation make a break.

That's why I don't crunch on the CPU of my GPU cruncher.
1 CPU-Core for boinc.exe and 1 CPU-Core for 'System' (what ever this is in TaskManager). And if two CUDA tasks stop similar, the new CUDA tasks can be prepared simultaneously on the CPU without disturbing the other two GPUs.
If 4 CUDA WUs finish simultaneously.. two GPUs idle to the time the other two CUDA WUs are prepared on the CPU. The CPU preparation on my GPU cruncher is ~ 12 sec./CUDA WU.
(AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE @ 4 x 3.0** GHz with 4 x OCed GTX260-216)


[* with the nVIDIA GeForce GTX2xx series]
[** for now stock speed, without OC]

____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Fred W
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 99
Posts: 2524
Credit: 11,954,210
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 919854 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 21:20:29 UTC - in response to Message 919850.

When things are stable my GTX295 is good for about 8000 RAC ...
[...]
F.


Really? You let run the stock_CUDA_app or Raistmer's_CUDA_VLARkill_app?

One of my 4 OCed GTX260-216 make a ~ 8,000 RAC with Raistmer's latest app.

I don't hold with VLARkill so I rebrand them running the stock CUDA app. Can't overclock the GTX295 because of heat (at the moment it is 20% UNDERclocked but the figures were from when it was running at stock speed). Initial load of a CUDA WU to the GPU takes about 25 sec of CPU time but the rest of the time that CPU core is crunching a 603 (I don't see any point in leaving it idle for the rest of the ~10 minutes on a 0.4x AR CUDA WU).

F.
____________

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 6974
Credit: 57,220,856
RAC: 22,265
Germany
Message 919861 - Posted: 20 Jul 2009, 21:41:29 UTC - in response to Message 919854.
Last modified: 20 Jul 2009, 21:53:11 UTC

I don't hold with VLARkill so I rebrand them running the stock CUDA app. Can't overclock the GTX295 because of heat (at the moment it is 20% UNDERclocked but the figures were from when it was running at stock speed). Initial load of a CUDA WU to the GPU takes about 25 sec of CPU time but the rest of the time that CPU core is crunching a 603 (I don't see any point in leaving it idle for the rest of the ~10 minutes on a 0.4x AR CUDA WU).

F.


Yes, O.K., it depend which kind of CPU and GPU. [ EDIT: And how much of it.. ;-) ]

One of my 4 OCed GTX260-216 make an AR=0.44x WU in 6:45 [m:s] and shorties in 2:30.

And I have big (25 % CPU, 100 % Core) and very long (~ 5 sec. every ~ 5 sec.) boinc.exe peaks because of small cache of ~ 4 days.. ~ 3,500 WUs.. ;-)

I had let run 4 CPU WUs and 4 GPU WUs.. and the performance of the GPUs were very very bad and the RAC would be much much less than like now.

So for my GPU cruncher (system) I need to let idle the CPU.

____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 6974
Credit: 57,220,856
RAC: 22,265
Germany
Message 919984 - Posted: 21 Jul 2009, 3:15:32 UTC


BTW.
If you don't want to let run CUDA_VLARkill_app.

Since short time the new CUDA_V12_app is available with and without VLARkill.

So your CPU preparation time would be ~ 50 % faster/shorter.

Also the GPU calculation would get a little booster.

In the Installer is the VLARkill_app.
But the nonVLARkill_app is available alone.
http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;catd=9

But you need also the CUDA_V2.2 (3 x .dll's) from the Installer.
So you could install in a temporary folder and take what you need.
I done it like this.. ;-)

____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Fred W
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 99
Posts: 2524
Credit: 11,954,210
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 920025 - Posted: 21 Jul 2009, 8:22:03 UTC - in response to Message 919984.


BTW.
If you don't want to let run CUDA_VLARkill_app.

Since short time the new CUDA_V12_app is available with and without VLARkill.

So your CPU preparation time would be ~ 50 % faster/shorter.

Also the GPU calculation would get a little booster.

In the Installer is the VLARkill_app.
But the nonVLARkill_app is available alone.
http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;catd=9

But you need also the CUDA_V2.2 (3 x .dll's) from the Installer.
So you could install in a temporary folder and take what you need.
I done it like this.. ;-)

Thanks, Sutaru. I am already running the CUDA v2.2 dll's so I will likely grab the updated nonVLARkill and see what that does.

F.
____________

Profile Sterling_Aug
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 54
Credit: 14,105,725
RAC: 0
United States
Message 921686 - Posted: 27 Jul 2009, 16:36:09 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jul 2009, 16:36:45 UTC

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=4578997

My dual quad core Xeon workstation with a GTX295 CUDA card is getting almost 14,500 RAC. Before I had a CUDA enabled card, I was getting around 5,000 RAC.
____________

Profile Sterling_Aug
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 54
Credit: 14,105,725
RAC: 0
United States
Message 921983 - Posted: 28 Jul 2009, 22:27:39 UTC

That same PC is now up to almost 15,400 RAC and still not showing any signs of leveling off any time soon.
____________

Profile Sterling_Aug
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 54
Credit: 14,105,725
RAC: 0
United States
Message 922483 - Posted: 30 Jul 2009, 18:43:48 UTC - in response to Message 921983.
Last modified: 30 Jul 2009, 18:45:02 UTC

That same PC is now up to almost 15,400 RAC and still not showing any signs of leveling off any time soon.


It is now almost 16,750 and moving up the list of top computers. #11 and about to move into the top 10. I was only getting about 5,000 RAC prior to adding the GTX295 CUDA card.
____________

Profile Sterling_Aug
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 54
Credit: 14,105,725
RAC: 0
United States
Message 923783 - Posted: 5 Aug 2009, 16:25:29 UTC

20,800 RAC and still climbing.
____________

Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3232
Credit: 31,585,541
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 923909 - Posted: 5 Aug 2009, 22:29:20 UTC - in response to Message 923783.

Hi, CUDA enabled cards have 'extreme' computation way's (SSSE3) and very little 'other' things to do, except putting a few pixels on your screen .

They have enormous calculatin capabilies. But they are 'simple', like OpenGL and DIRECT X9/10.
In whitch, f.i. memory-faults, only show up, like a 'pixel' is NOT in place, not really something to worry about.

But when it's used to calculate certain calculations, it's possible that a fault can make an WU INvalidate.

Probably ONLY TESLA_CARDS/SYSTEMS are safe on the long run!

I don't mean to scare off people, who are running CUDA -Devices.
I think they can add a lot (of necessary) processing to the project.

____________


Knight Who Says Ni N!, OUT numbered.................

Profile Westsail and *Pyxey*
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 338
Credit: 20,538,216
RAC: 4
United States
Message 923971 - Posted: 6 Aug 2009, 1:53:13 UTC - in response to Message 923909.


Probably ONLY TESLA_CARDS/SYSTEMS are safe on the long run!

Could you please elaborate what has led you to draw this conclusion? Also, what exactly is different about the Tesla cards vs. Geforce cards?

P.S. On a side note, glanced at your hosts and wanted to ask if your X9650 was OC'ed?
Thanks, Keep Crunching!
____________
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov

Profile Sterling_Aug
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 54
Credit: 14,105,725
RAC: 0
United States
Message 926069 - Posted: 14 Aug 2009, 18:14:51 UTC

Bouncing between 23,500 and 23,800 RAC now with the GTX295.
____________

Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3232
Credit: 31,585,541
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 926233 - Posted: 15 Aug 2009, 9:46:11 UTC - in response to Message 926069.
Last modified: 15 Aug 2009, 9:54:19 UTC

Probably ONLY TESLA_CARDS/SYSTEMS are safe on the long run!


Could you please elaborate what has led you to draw this conclusion? Also, what exactly is different about the Tesla cards vs. Geforce cards?

P.S. On a side note, glanced at your hosts and wanted to ask if your X9650 was OC'ed?


Hi, @ Westsail & *Pyxey* , yes, I have the QX9650 running @ 3,5GHz, now.
(Backed off during the heat, from 3,65GHz).

My 'worries', since I've blown a few cards, cheap ones, are the temps on some cards and the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures).
Geforce cards are made for graphics and there is little known about them running at full speed, all the time and doing computations.
TESLA cards are made for computing. {Don't know how 'much' is in a name :)}
IMHO, I do think, only time (& OC ), can tell.
BTW, sorry for my late reply.
____________


Knight Who Says Ni N!, OUT numbered.................

1 · 2 · Next

Questions and Answers : GPU applications : GTX 260 to GTX 295 and only got 2,000 more RAC?

Copyright © 2014 University of California