Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 13 · Next

Author	Message
S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1275682 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 9:02:40 UTC - in response to Message 1275613.
	So ... what am I not doing correctly? (Yes, I stopped BOINC Manager before executing the performance utility). V 1.1 will have a lot more diagnostics. The files are copied C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\eFMer\SetiPerformance\slotx In that location the exe is started. Is it there? (You have to press start first to copy the files.) ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1275682 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1275716 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 11:31:38 UTC - in response to Message 1275565. Last modified: 26 Aug 2012, 11:32:15 UTC
	So I'm going to try 4 wu's each on my GPU's (no HT, 2 core's) 0.5 should be the best. Hi I´m a x41z user, your build works ok in some hosts but when i try to use in this host: 6690764 (with just one 590 EVGA) its give me 100 sec in all measures (1, 2 or 3 WU), and shows just 1 device (the 2 GPUs on the 590 works OK with Boinc processing 2x2WU at a time XP32 and no OC). Do you know anythink that could cause this? You can take a look in: C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\eFMer\SetiPerformance The applications are in slotx, but are removed after you press cancel. In the slot, check the application log for an error ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1275716 ·

juan BFB Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 2445 Credit: 151,663,645 RAC: 405,011	Message 1275727 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 12:27:07 UTC - in response to Message 1275716.
	Ok, i´m on XP so the path is little diferent but i foud. WHen runs this is the oputput: Starting automatic test: (lunatics_x41z_win32_cuda42.exe) 26 August 2012 - 09:17:24 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 26 August 2012 - 09:19:06 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 0, 101 seconds 26 August 2012 - 09:19:06 Device: 0, finished Ready --------------------------------------------------------------------- Results: Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 101, average time on device: 101 Seconds (1 Minutes, 41 Seconds) Next --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 August 2012 - 09:19:06 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 26 August 2012 - 09:22:31 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 1, 202 seconds 26 August 2012 - 09:22:31 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 0, 202 seconds 26 August 2012 - 09:22:31 Device: 0, finished 26 August 2012 - 09:22:31 Device: 0, finished Ready --------------------------------------------------------------------- Results: Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 202, average time on device: 101 Seconds (1 Minutes, 41 Seconds) The best average time found: 101 Seconds (1 Minutes, 41 Seconds), with count: 1.00 (1) Then on slot 0 an't open init data file - running in standalone mode Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode setiathome_CUDA: Found 2 CUDA device(s): Device 1: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 3, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz Device 2: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 4, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz In cudaAcc_initializeDevice(): Boinc passed DevPref 1 setiathome_CUDA: CUDA Device 1 specified, checking... Device 1: GeForce GTX 590 is okay SETI@home using CUDA accelerated device GeForce GTX 590 pulsefind: blocks per SM 4 (Fermi or newer default) pulsefind: periods per launch 100 (default) Priority of process set to BELOW_NORMAL (default) successfully Priority of worker thread set successfully setiathome enhanced x41z, Cuda 4.20 Legacy setiathome_enhanced V6 mode. Work Unit Info: ............... WU true angle range is : 0.775000 VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_DataArray, 1048576x 8bytes = 8388608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 8388608bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_ChirpDataArray, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825792bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825800bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_WorkData, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 27262984bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrum, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 31457288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_t_PowerSpectrum, 1048584x 4bytes = 1048608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 32505896bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_GaussFitResults, 1048576x 16bytes = 16777216bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 49283112bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoT, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 55574568bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoTPrefixSum, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61866024bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_NormMaxPower, 16384x 4bytes = 65536bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61931560bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flagged, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 66125864bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_outputposition, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 70320168bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrumSumMax, 262144x 12bytes = 3145728bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73465896bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_gauss_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=184, rtotal= 73474088bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_null_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482280bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_find_pulse_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_t_funct_cache, 1966081x 4bytes = 7864324bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 81346612bytes Thread call stack limit is: 1k cudaAcc_free() called... cudaAcc_free() running... cudaAcc_free() PulseFind freed... cudaAcc_free() Gaussfit freed... cudaAcc_free() AutoCorrelation freed... cudaAcc_free() DONE. Flopcounter: 12287736759182.770000 Spike count: 13 Pulse count: 1 Triplet count: 0 Gaussian count: 0 Worker preemptively acknowledging a normal exit.-> called boinc_finish boinc_exit(): requesting safe worker shutdown -> boinc_exit(): received safe worker shutdown acknowledge -> on slot1 Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode setiathome_CUDA: Found 2 CUDA device(s): Device 1: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 3, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz Device 2: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 4, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz In cudaAcc_initializeDevice(): Boinc passed DevPref 1 setiathome_CUDA: CUDA Device 1 specified, checking... Device 1: GeForce GTX 590 is okay SETI@home using CUDA accelerated device GeForce GTX 590 pulsefind: blocks per SM 4 (Fermi or newer default) pulsefind: periods per launch 100 (default) Priority of process set to BELOW_NORMAL (default) successfully Priority of worker thread set successfully setiathome enhanced x41z, Cuda 4.20 Legacy setiathome_enhanced V6 mode. Work Unit Info: ............... WU true angle range is : 0.775000 VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_DataArray, 1048576x 8bytes = 8388608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 8388608bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_ChirpDataArray, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825792bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825800bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_WorkData, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 27262984bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrum, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 31457288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_t_PowerSpectrum, 1048584x 4bytes = 1048608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 32505896bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_GaussFitResults, 1048576x 16bytes = 16777216bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 49283112bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoT, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 55574568bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoTPrefixSum, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61866024bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_NormMaxPower, 16384x 4bytes = 65536bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61931560bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flagged, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 66125864bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_outputposition, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 70320168bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrumSumMax, 262144x 12bytes = 3145728bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73465896bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_gauss_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=208, rtotal= 73474088bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_null_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=56, rtotal= 73482280bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_find_pulse_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_t_funct_cache, 1966081x 4bytes = 7864324bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 81346612bytes Thread call stack limit is: 1k cudaAcc_free() called... cudaAcc_free() running... cudaAcc_free() PulseFind freed... cudaAcc_free() Gaussfit freed... cudaAcc_free() AutoCorrelation freed... cudaAcc_free() DONE. Flopcounter: 12287736759182.770000 Spike count: 13 Pulse count: 1 Triplet count: 0 Gaussian count: 0 Worker preemptively acknowledging a normal exit.-> called boinc_finish boinc_exit(): requesting safe worker shutdown -> boinc_exit(): received safe worker shutdown acknowledge -> setiathome_CUDA: Found 2 CUDA device(s): Device 1: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 3, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz Device 2: GeForce GTX 590, 1535 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768 computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 16 pciBusID = 4, pciSlotID = 0 clockRate = 1260 MHz In cudaAcc_initializeDevice(): Boinc passed DevPref 1 setiathome_CUDA: CUDA Device 1 specified, checking... Device 1: GeForce GTX 590 is okay SETI@home using CUDA accelerated device GeForce GTX 590 pulsefind: blocks per SM 4 (Fermi or newer default) pulsefind: periods per launch 100 (default) Priority of process set to BELOW_NORMAL (default) successfully Priority of worker thread set successfully setiathome enhanced x41z, Cuda 4.20 Legacy setiathome_enhanced V6 mode. Work Unit Info: ............... WU true angle range is : 0.775000 VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_DataArray, 1048576x 8bytes = 8388608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 8388608bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_cx_ChirpDataArray, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825792bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825800bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_WorkData, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 27262984bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrum, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 31457288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_t_PowerSpectrum, 1048584x 4bytes = 1048608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 32505896bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_GaussFitResults, 1048576x 16bytes = 16777216bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 49283112bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoT, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 55574568bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PoTPrefixSum, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61866024bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_NormMaxPower, 16384x 4bytes = 65536bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61931560bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_flagged, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 66125864bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_outputposition, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 70320168bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_PowerSpectrumSumMax, 262144x 12bytes = 3145728bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73465896bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_gauss_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=208, rtotal= 73474088bytes VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_null_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=56, rtotal= 73482280bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void) &dev_find_pulse_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482288bytes VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_t_funct_cache, 1966081x 4bytes = 7864324bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 81346612bytes Thread call stack limit is: 1k cudaAcc_free() called... cudaAcc_free() running... cudaAcc_free() PulseFind freed... cudaAcc_free() Gaussfit freed... cudaAcc_free() AutoCorrelation freed... cudaAcc_free() DONE. Flopcounter: 12287736759182.770000 Spike count: 13 Pulse count: 1 Triplet count: 0 Gaussian count: 0 Worker preemptively acknowledging a normal exit.-> called boinc_finish boinc_exit(): requesting safe worker shutdown -> boinc_exit(): received safe worker shutdown acknowledge -> no work was done for the 2 GPU or in the others slots. maybe?: Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode Any clue? Sorry to take your time. ____________
	ID: 1275727 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1275742 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 12:56:03 UTC - in response to Message 1275727.
	Any clue? Set devices to 2 and try again. It's one board but with 2 devices. For comparison I like to see the automatic test log. I have a 590 on a Win 7 system. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1275742 ·

Lint trap Send message Joined: 30 May 03 Posts: 854 Credit: 20,168,285 RAC: 20,910	Message 1275767 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 14:28:14 UTC
	GTX 460 o/c'd, 1gb, 256-bit. XPP-sp3 32-bit, NV driver 301.42, system idle. Starting test: (lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32_perf.exe) Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 162, average time on device: 162 Seconds (2 Minutes, 42 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 317, average time on device: 158 Seconds (2 Minutes, 38 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 474, average time on device: 158 Seconds (2 Minutes, 38 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 635, average time on device: 158 Seconds (2 Minutes, 38 Seconds) I was surprised to see the 460/this system 'appears' to have more headroom available after posting identical averages for 2, 3, and 4 counts... Lt
	ID: 1275767 ·

msattler Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 34138 Credit: 343,495,344 RAC: 540,218	Message 1275769 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 14:35:19 UTC
	Just gotta say....... Fred, you are da man. Thank you for all your efforts indeed. I use your priority tool on all my rigs. I used your rescheduler all the time when it was still appropriate to do so. Now, not so much. I shall have to get my head around this new tool. Thank you again for all your tuning efforts for all on this project, Fred. ____________ ****** "Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty." As it is kitten, so shall it be done.
	ID: 1275769 ·

juan BFB Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 2445 Credit: 151,663,645 RAC: 405,011	Message 1275831 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 16:37:43 UTC - in response to Message 1275742. Last modified: 26 Aug 2012, 16:40:16 UTC
	Any clue? Set devices to 2 and try again. It's one board but with 2 devices. For comparison I like to see the automatic test log. I have a 590 on a Win 7 system. Hi this is what you need? Starting automatic test: (lunatics_x41z_win32_cuda42.exe) 26 August 2012 - 13:28:26 Start, devices: 2, device count: 1 26 August 2012 - 13:30:23 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 0, 114 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:30:23 Device: 0, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:30:23 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 0, 114 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:30:23 Device: 1, finished Ready --------------------------------------------------------------------- Results: Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 114, average time on device: 114 Seconds (1 Minutes, 54 Seconds) Device: 1, device count: 1, average time / count: 114, average time on device: 114 Seconds (1 Minutes, 54 Seconds) Next --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 August 2012 - 13:30:25 Start, devices: 2, device count: 2 26 August 2012 - 13:33:34 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 1, 184 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:33:34 Device: 1, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:33:48 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 0, 198 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:33:48 Device: 1, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:34:02 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 0, 212 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:34:02 Device: 0, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:34:02 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 1, 212 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:34:02 Device: 0, finished Ready --------------------------------------------------------------------- Results: Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 212, average time on device: 106 Seconds (1 Minutes, 46 Seconds) Device: 1, device count: 2, average time / count: 191, average time on device: 95 Seconds (1 Minutes, 35 Seconds) Next --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 August 2012 - 13:34:03 Start, devices: 2, device count: 3 26 August 2012 - 13:34:49 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 2, 38 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:34:49 ERROR: Device: 1, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:37:57 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 1, 226 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:37:57 Device: 1, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:37:57 Runtime: Device: 1, count: 0, 226 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:37:57 Device: 1, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:38:49 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 0, 278 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:38:49 Device: 0, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:39:17 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 2, 306 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:39:17 Device: 0, finished 26 August 2012 - 13:39:17 Runtime: Device: 0, count: 1, 306 seconds 26 August 2012 - 13:39:17 Device: 0, finished Ready --------------------------------------------------------------------- Results: Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 296, average time on device: 98 Seconds (1 Minutes, 38 Seconds) Device: 1, device count: 3, average time / count: 163, average time on device: 54 Seconds (0 Minutes, 54 Seconds) Next --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 August 2012 - 13:39:19 Start, devices: 2, device count: 4 ____________
	ID: 1275831 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1275840 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 17:00:13 UTC - in response to Message 1275831.
	Hi this is what you need? Yep, just go the 41z running on a 590 as wel, I see a 4% increase. Your last reading is highly suspicious, I expect the card to error out. In 1.1 almost ready, I added an error check on the result. You could check the count 3 and if you see the same difference investigate the stderr.txt to see if there is an overflow error. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1275840 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1275843 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 17:02:43 UTC - in response to Message 1275840.
	Under some conditions, the program may generate a virus scanner warning. I did sign the programs, if I didn't sign it, the program was shut down by my scanner almost at once. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1275843 ·

juan BFB Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 2445 Credit: 151,663,645 RAC: 405,011	Message 1275847 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 17:09:14 UTC - in response to Message 1275843.
	The only thing is because the problem only apears on this host, in all the others i tests runs ok (all runs XP32 but with different GPUs combinations). Just report to you as a contribution in the development, even if is faster i can´t run more than 2WU at a time per GPU because the memory limitation on XP32. ____________
	ID: 1275847 ·

spitfire_mk_2 Send message Joined: 14 Apr 00 Posts: 244 Credit: 8,651,517 RAC: 14,958	Message 1275852 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 17:25:39 UTC - in response to Message 1275613.
	Well, I can't get it to work. I have one NVIDIA GT 520 installed. When I run the program with the default "Devices 1", "Count 0.50", I get this: Starting test: (lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32_perf.exe) 25 August 2012 - 20:56:50 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 25 August 2012 - 20:57:07 Program failed to start on slot: 0 25 August 2012 - 20:57:07 Program failed to start on slot: 0 25 August 2012 - 20:57:08 Program failed to start on slot: 0 25 August 2012 - 20:57:08 Program failed to start on slot: 0 So ... what am I not doing correctly? (Yes, I stopped BOINC Manager before executing the performance utility). My guess is that your card has enough video RAM to run only one task. ____________
	ID: 1275852 ·

BMH Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 258 Credit: 60,200,888 RAC: 60,709	Message 1275873 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 18:00:44 UTC
	Running the tool alongside GPU-Z gives a nice visual indication of which is best. Although running three tasks on my 460 test system showed slightly more solid GPU usage according to GPU-Z, 2 tasks (as expected) was the optimum. ____________ Brian.
	ID: 1275873 ·

Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 523 Credit: 30,241,037 RAC: 131,183	Message 1275901 - Posted: 26 Aug 2012, 19:05:59 UTC - in response to Message 1275433.
	Any chance of adding 5 & 6 ? You can do that manually. (manual button) On auto mode the program tens to hang after 4 for sure. Probably out of memory, but doesn't exit. I could add a max in the config.xml. First, Thanks Fred, another really good tool! Now, If I set the count to 0.20 for a manual test it doesnt start... It shows a message saying that only valus of 1, 0.5, 0.33 and 0.25 are valid... May be instead of this message you could give a warning saying that it could fail with more than 4 instances per card giving the option to do it anyway or not on user choice... Another suggestion is to anchor the controls so they get resized/relocated when the users resizes the main window... Its just cosmetics anyway... (And I know that while this it's easy on .NET, it may be a lot of work if you are using the native SDK and C++) ____________
	ID: 1275901 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1276220 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 14:15:00 UTC - in response to Message 1275901. Last modified: 27 Aug 2012, 14:15:29 UTC
	The list so far, I hope there is no typo. As you can see the 590 still leads. But with Jason working on the 6xx, this will change soon. x41g 460 158 Sec / Wu Oc 560 150 Sec / Wu 295 130 Sec / Wu 670 129 Sec / Wu 680 107 Sec / Wu 480 100 Sec / Wu 690 58 Sec / Wu 590 53 Sec / Wu x41z 295 Not running stable 480 89 Sec / Wu 680 75 Sec / Wu cuda 5 590 53 Sec / Wu 690 44 Sec / Wu ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1276220 ·

juan BFB Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 2445 Credit: 151,663,645 RAC: 405,011	Message 1276221 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 14:26:45 UTC - in response to Message 1276220. Last modified: 27 Aug 2012, 14:28:22 UTC
	I´m not shure but i think i see in some forum some special build for the 295 with x41z, maybe you could ask Jason about that. About the table, ok i could see lower is better, but what those number realy means? Just curiosity. ____________
	ID: 1276221 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1276222 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 14:31:36 UTC - in response to Message 1276221.
	I´m not shure but i think i see in some forum some special build for the 295 with x41z, maybe you could ask Jason about that. About the table, ok i could see lower is better, but what those number realy means? Just curiosity. There is, a cuda 3.2 version, but it errors out -9 overflow on one of them. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1276222 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1276223 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 14:35:11 UTC - in response to Message 1275901.
	Another suggestion is to anchor the controls so they get resized/relocated when the users resizes the main window... Its just cosmetics anyway... (And I know that while this it's easy on .NET, it may be a lot of work if you are using the native SDK and C++) I see, the resize is still on. Will move the buttons to the top, that makes the text resizable. You could move the buttons around as well, but very easy for something to mess things up. And on 125% and 150% this cause other problems. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1276223 ·

Russ Sheldon Send message Joined: 18 Jan 01 Posts: 371 Credit: 348,605,115 RAC: 27,101	Message 1276275 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 16:27:01 UTC - in response to Message 1276223. Last modified: 27 Aug 2012, 17:24:45 UTC
	Thanks Fred! Runs great with _g. Won't run with _z. Program failed to start on slot: 0 ____________ Now a proud GPU Users Group 10.1 percenter. Yes Tron, all your base are belong to us! Volunteer idiot. ********CAUTION! competitive jerk************
	ID: 1276275 ·

Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 523 Credit: 30,241,037 RAC: 131,183	Message 1276279 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 16:39:27 UTC Last modified: 27 Aug 2012, 16:39:46 UTC
	This are my results: Both tests on Win 7 Pro 32b. I7-3770 (3.5Ghz constant with turbo boosted) on z68 chipset. BOINC full stopped. Driver 301.42 GTX680 Default Clock (core at 1111Mhz -full boost-, Mem at 3004Mhz) Pcie3.016x Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 170, average time on device: 170 Seconds (2 Minutes, 50 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 244, average time on device: 122 Seconds (2 Minutes, 2 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 355, average time on device: 118 Seconds (1 Minutes, 58 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 477, average time on device: 119 Seconds (1 Minutes, 59 Seconds) The best average time found: 118 Seconds (1 Minutes, 58 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3) GTX680 OC'ed (core at 1215Mhz -full boost-, Mem at 3105Mhz) Pcie3.016x Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 163, average time on device: 163 Seconds (2 Minutes, 43 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 235, average time on device: 117 Seconds (1 Minutes, 57 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 340, average time on device: 113 Seconds (1 Minutes, 53 Seconds) Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 456, average time on device: 114 Seconds (1 Minutes, 54 Seconds) The best average time found: 113 Seconds (1 Minutes, 53 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3) Weird thing... my gtx680 seems to be slower than others, even OC'ed... And nothing else running on the host other than MSI afterburner and Process Laso to set the apps at normal priority... ____________
	ID: 1276279 ·

S@NL - eFMer - www.efmer.eu/boinc Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 7 Jun 99 Posts: 499 Credit: 111,474,864 RAC: 178,269	Message 1276313 - Posted: 27 Aug 2012, 17:32:50 UTC - in response to Message 1276279.
	Weird thing... my gtx680 seems to be slower than others, even OC'ed... And nothing else running on the host other than MSI afterburner and Process Laso to set the apps at normal priority... Yep seems to be on the low side. NVIDIA 3d setting->power management->max performance. What I've seen so far is that the 6xx series is slower than the 4xx and 5xx series. Probably something to do with optimizing. ____________ TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.
	ID: 1276313 ·

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 13 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.