Faster GPUs with Nvidia 310.70?

I am confused is Jason multibeam x41zb Cuda, supposed to replace the lunatics unified installer as if being faster or better than the lunitics?

There is no installer for it, but everything Jason does WAS Lunatics.....
Since his split with them over 'artistic issues', shall we say, he has been working as an independent.
So, you have to install it by hand, there is no automatic way to do so for now.

I am confused is Jason multibeam x41zb Cuda, supposed to replace the lunatics unified installer as if being faster or better than the lunitics?

There is no installer for it, but everything Jason does WAS Lunatics.....
Since his split with them over 'artistic issues', shall we say, he has been working as an independent.
So, you have to install it by hand, there is no automatic way to do so for now.

So I should run this now since lunatics no longer has a download for their versions. This is the first I have heard of multibeam x41zb from Jason. I realize it is a hand install. So this is what crunchers are using now?

I shall probably cut over to zb myself when I have the time to modify 9 rigs...probably over Christmas vacation in a couple of weeks.

I thought it was going to be a tedious task, but it wasn't time consuming. you just have to make sure you change the application markers in the app_info: (e.g for my GTX460 and GTX650 machines this is what changed in my app_info)
<file_name>Lunatics_x41zb_win32_cuda42.exe</file_name>
<file_name>cudart32_42_9.dll</file_name>
<file_name>cufft32_42_9.dll</file_name>

and of course make sure you copy and paste the appropriate files from Jason's x41zb folders.

a quick find and replace all did the trick for each one

msattler you can try directly x41zc_Winx64_cuda50 for my Quad GTX 295 cuda 50 is faster then 42 i have installed 310.70 driver too. I can say that with SetiPerformance64 stock work unit the difference is 8sec almost in favor of cuda50 and 310.70

i have also try the older version x41zb i can say that the x41zbcuda42 version is almost faster then the cuda50 of x41zc

I haven't try to to compare z41zbcuda50 and z41zccuda50, because i do not have z41zbcuda50.

and i can say that z41zbcuda32 is slower then others too and needs i do not know why more cpu %

I hope i have help't for your host of gtx's 295 :)
____________

I have been running driver 310.54 for sometime without any issues. I just installed 310.70 and x41zc CUDA 5.0 for my system with a single 680 clocked at ~ 1300 MHz. I am so far seeing processing time ranging from 59 - 331 seconds running 1 task at a time. GPU load is from 94-96%.
____________

Has anyone noticed that the Cuda _x41g tasks are processing faster under Nvidia beta driver 310.70 or is it just me? I have even increased my tasks per GPU for both the 1 x GTX660SC @ 2Gb and 1 x GTX460SE @ 1Gb from 2 to 3. Processing went from an average of 19-22 min to 15- 20 min. Temps for the GTX660SC remain below 67c & the GTX460SE below 57c.

Hello Jason, I got those .7z packages from the mentioned link:

I read the info files first:

x41zc_Winx64_cuda50.7z holds the same README_x41zc.txt as within the x41zc_Winx64_cuda42.7z : It doesn't mention anything specific on CUDA50. Could you please elaborate a bit on CUDA50? What generation of cards would benefit best from the CUDA50 files? I have GTX560,GTX580 & GTX680 cards at my disposal now.

This moment 310.70 x64 Gforce drivers are installed, the rigs run rock solid using the files from x41zc_Winx64_cuda42.7z, and indeed, they give a significant speedup over the lunatics version 3.2 that was included with their last release.

What interest me most is to know in what way CUDA50 differs from CUDA42 and if current (beta)builds are capable of using the improvements yet. At least if you can tell us a little about it in rather simple words that is.

In the meantime, keep up the splendid work, kind regards

Could someone post the manual install instructions for someone who is doing a fresh install? I just returned to S@H in the last few weeks and would like to run an optimized client.

Right now running Bionic version 7.0.28(x64).
I have a Kepler card with 310.70 drivers.

I have downloaded the x41zc files linked earlier in this thread.

Since I did not have a prior Lunitics version, I do not have the referenced files to copy and paste to.

Any help is appreciated.

Jason
Which version would you recommend for a mixed GPU machine. 2 x 580's and a 690?

Thanks
Andy
____________

Jason
Which version would you recommend for a mixed GPU machine. 2 x 580's and a 690?

Thanks
Andy

I have downloaded the x41zc files linked earlier in this thread.

Since I did not have a prior Lunitics version, I do not have the referenced files to copy and paste to.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks Guys!

I got it to work using the information in the link Jason provided and I was able to confirm my app_info.xml settings with the example Jeroen gave.

I do have another question, however. I understand the <count> parameter, currently I have mine set to "0.5" for two processes, but I am a bit unclear as to the <avg_ncpus> and <max_ncpus> parameters.

I am currently using the value of "0.040000" for each, but have seen other references using a value of "0.200000". I am hoping someone can shed a bit more insight into these two parameters and what changing the values will do.

Thanks!

...but I am a bit unclear as to the <avg_ncpus> and <max_ncpus> parameters.

I am currently using the value of "0.040000" for each, but have seen other references using a value of "0.200000". I am hoping someone can shed a bit more insight into these two parameters and what changing the values will do.

Thanks!