Message boards :
Number crunching :
Interesting difference on my hardware between operating systems.
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Todd Madson Send message Joined: 4 Aug 99 Posts: 71 Credit: 30,888,293 RAC: 15 |
I have played around a bit with running Seti on my i7 based machine in both MacOS and Windows and experienced very interesting differences in terms of what the benchmarker found: Hardware: 2.8 ghz Intel Corei7, 16 megs PC1333 ram, ATI Radeon HD 4850 with 512 megs video memory. Windows stats: Memory 16373.9 MB Cache 256 KB Measured floating point speed 2675.11 million ops/sec Measured integer speed 10577.69 million ops/sec MacOS stats: Memory 16384 MB Cache 976.56 KB Measured floating point speed 2968.24 million ops/sec Measured integer speed 4781.98 million ops/sec In looking at this purely black and white it implies windows mode is going to give me higher performance due to much more efficient integer speed but also on the Windows side I can use my Radeon 4850 to crunch milkyway @ home blocks (I can't seemingly crunch any seti units as the card may be too old to do anything on the seti side due to lack of OpenCL features). I also on the Mac side can't crunch anything using the video card due to lack of development for that feature on that platform. Thoughts? |
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4 |
In looking at this purely black and white it implies windows mode is going to give me higher performance due to much more efficient integer speed but also on the Windows side I can use my Radeon 4850 to crunch milkyway @ home blocks (I can't seemingly crunch any seti units as the card may be too old to do anything on the seti side due to lack of OpenCL features). If you enable Astropulse_v6 work fetch in your preferences you should be able to run the new Stock ATI OpenCL Astropulse app, Claggy |
arkayn Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 4438 Credit: 55,006,323 RAC: 0 |
In looking at this purely black and white it implies windows mode is going to give me higher performance due to much more efficient integer speed but also on the Windows side I can use my Radeon 4850 to crunch milkyway @ home blocks (I can't seemingly crunch any seti units as the card may be too old to do anything on the seti side due to lack of OpenCL features). On the Windows side for now. Eric is trying to build a Mac version at the moment. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
In looking at this purely black and white it implies windows mode is going to give me higher performance due to much more efficient integer speed but also on the Windows side I can use my Radeon 4850 to crunch milkyway @ home blocks (I can't seemingly crunch any seti units as the card may be too old to do anything on the seti side due to lack of OpenCL features). Or it implies that BOINC's benchmarking code is less than 100% consistent cross-platform. |
Ianab Send message Joined: 11 Jun 08 Posts: 732 Credit: 20,635,586 RAC: 5 |
Or it implies that BOINC's benchmarking code is more like a random number generator.... |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Yes I've been told by others that the benchmarking is more or less meaningless. the only way you can compare across platforms is to run both platforms for a period of time, and compare the cumulative results to one another. #resist |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
In Windows vs Linux testing I've done using the respective AKv8 CPU apps, given the same hardware I would say the difference in crunching time between any 2 OS's would only be a few percent. T.A. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20283 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Don't be mislead by the Boinc 'measurements'... The Boinc benchmarks and credits have been a long long story of controversy and confusion... Happy fast crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
I let BOINC run it's initial benchmark. Then I set the values to what they should be in the client_state.xml. After that I run BOINC with the skip cpu benchmarks command. I found in testing that different versions of BOINC will generate drastically different numbers. I think they use the same random number generator as they do in the credit granted code. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19059 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
The differences in benchmark numbers has been under discusion since, at least, msg 1819 25 Jun 2004 | 11:13:14 UTC. |
Todd Madson Send message Joined: 4 Aug 99 Posts: 71 Credit: 30,888,293 RAC: 15 |
Given that the windows side is the only side that currently allows video card crunching you would think it would actually provide better overall statistics. Thinking, thinking... |
BilBg Send message Joined: 27 May 07 Posts: 3720 Credit: 9,385,827 RAC: 0 |
Given that the windows side is the only side that currently allows video card crunching you would think it would actually provide better overall statistics. Thinking?? What "overall statistics"? Benchmarks are done by boinc.exe They are done only on the CPU BOINC do not know how to compute on GPU (= no code in boinc.exe to do GPU Benchmarks) And any external process (program) that is using the CPU at the time of Benchmarks affects the values. E.g. start compressing some big file/folder (WinRAR, 7-Zip, ...) (since you have many CPU cores you may need to start several WinRAR, I'm not sure how many cores it uses for a single process), [you may also just start WinRAR, press Alt+B (= WinRAR Benchmarks), select 'Multithreading'] [in 7-Zip it is Tools -> Benchmark, select 'Number of CPU threads:' to match your CPU] Run the BOINC Benchmarks (from menu), See the values. Â - ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :) Â |
Todd Madson Send message Joined: 4 Aug 99 Posts: 71 Credit: 30,888,293 RAC: 15 |
Statistics was probably the wrong work for it. I meant "more overall work produced". I was referring to the fact that if I run my system under windows I get: -8 Seti @ Home work units being crunched simultaneously plus -1 Milkyway @ Home work unit crunched. Versus MacOS side: -8 Seti @ Home work units being crunched simultaneously. Period. Mainly because to my knowledge there is no Boinc add-ons at this time to allow video card crunching on the Mac side. Yet. I haven't tried astropulse v6 workunits yet but it crunches a workunit for milkyway in 4-7 minutes(!) per workunit versus a couple hours on the actual CPU or on the i7 laptop I have that has a nvidia video card in it (and the cuda algorithm isn't as fast as that ATI card even though it's faster than the cpu as well). |
arkayn Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 4438 Credit: 55,006,323 RAC: 0 |
|
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.