Faster GPUs with Nvidia 310.70?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Faster GPUs with Nvidia 310.70?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author Message
Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5917
Credit: 61,700,020
RAC: 25,686
Australia
Message 1324824 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 7:22:36 UTC - in response to Message 1324817.

According to the boinc statistics graph mine were steadily losing ground crunching 2/gpu.

When did you start crunching 2 at a time?
End of October my RAC went in to a freefall due to the lack of work. Dec 26 it hit it's highest point since the end of October (but still less than what it was). Since Dec 26 it's dropped like a stone again, once again due to the lack of work. It's just the last 3 or 4 days it's started climbing again, but it has a long way to go to get to the pre October levels. A very long way.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1325170 - Posted: 6 Jan 2013, 5:28:06 UTC - in response to Message 1324824.

[quote]According to the boinc statistics graph mine were steadily losing ground crunching 2/gpu.

When did you start crunching 2 at a time?

I don't remember exactly when I tried now. It was probably late summer early fall.

I'll give it a try again after the outages and the scores stabilize. I only have the 1 560Ti that's rated as capable.

____________
Delta-V

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5917
Credit: 61,700,020
RAC: 25,686
Australia
Message 1325174 - Posted: 6 Jan 2013, 5:44:10 UTC - in response to Message 1325170.
Last modified: 6 Jan 2013, 5:45:11 UTC

When did you start crunching 2 at a time?

Probably over a year ago, although the way time's been flying it's probably more like a couple of years now.

I only have the 1 560Ti that's rated as capable.

My GTX 560Ti is running 3 at a time as i don't use that computer for anything other than crunching. My 460 runs 2 at a time- it is able to run 3, but with only 1GB of RAM the system comes to a sudden halt when doing other things that need plenty of video RAM, if it had 2GB i'd run 3 at a time on it also.
Both are running the optimised applications with 275.33 video drivers.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1326949 - Posted: 12 Jan 2013, 4:49:16 UTC - in response to Message 1325174.

Yesterday I updated the drivers on the GTX560Ti and the 2 GTX470s to 310.90 after which I ran Performance 64 again. The 560 and the 2 470s now are able to run 2 at a time. I set each to do just that. No difference yet.
____________
Delta-V

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5917
Credit: 61,700,020
RAC: 25,686
Australia
Message 1326958 - Posted: 12 Jan 2013, 5:09:55 UTC - in response to Message 1326949.
Last modified: 12 Jan 2013, 5:10:15 UTC

Yesterday I updated the drivers on the GTX560Ti and the 2 GTX470s to 310.90 after which I ran Performance 64 again. The 560 and the 2 470s now are able to run 2 at a time. I set each to do just that. No difference yet.

It would have been worth just running one at a time to see what effect the drivers had.
I did upgrade mine ages ago to the 300 series, but it actually slowed crunching down so i reverted to the 275.33 drivers.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

ClaggyProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4209
Credit: 34,469,766
RAC: 18,422
United Kingdom
Message 1327061 - Posted: 12 Jan 2013, 8:56:32 UTC - in response to Message 1326958.
Last modified: 12 Jan 2013, 8:57:07 UTC

Yesterday I updated the drivers on the GTX560Ti and the 2 GTX470s to 310.90 after which I ran Performance 64 again. The 560 and the 2 470s now are able to run 2 at a time. I set each to do just that. No difference yet.

It would have been worth just running one at a time to see what effect the drivers had.
I did upgrade mine ages ago to the 300 series, but it actually slowed crunching down so i reverted to the 275.33 drivers.

But did you try running a Cuda42 app to go with the Cuda42 or Cuda5 driver? I guess not, since you're still on x41g

Claggy

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5917
Credit: 61,700,020
RAC: 25,686
Australia
Message 1327088 - Posted: 12 Jan 2013, 10:57:18 UTC - in response to Message 1327061.

But did you try running a Cuda42 app to go with the Cuda42 or Cuda5 driver?

Nope, didn't try updating the application at the time.

____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1327310 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 7:46:04 UTC - in response to Message 1327061.

But did you try running a Cuda42 app to go with the Cuda42 or Cuda5 driver? I guess not, since you're still on x41g

Claggy[/quote]

Where can the cuda 42 app be found?
____________
Delta-V

Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 2879
Credit: 6,453,015
RAC: 2,878
Bulgaria
Message 1327312 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 8:00:58 UTC - in response to Message 1327310.

Where can the cuda 42 app be found?

http://jgopt.org/download.html
http://jgopt.net/download.html
http://jgopt.info/download.html
http://jgopt.com/download.html


____________



- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)

mramakers
Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 04
Posts: 23
Credit: 2,893,209
RAC: 1,983
Netherlands
Message 1327320 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 9:37:07 UTC
Last modified: 13 Jan 2013, 9:38:25 UTC

I,ve just installed the 41zc drivers for cuda 5.0 and i see a big improvement in crunch times.
I use a factory overclocked gtx680, and my times went back from around 7 mins with cuda 3.2 to 5 mins for the last wu's using 5.0

Martijn

BTW: I,m using 310.90 x64 drivers.
____________

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1327368 - Posted: 13 Jan 2013, 15:52:53 UTC - in response to Message 1326958.

I did upgrade mine ages ago to the 300 series, but it actually slowed crunching down so i reverted to the 275.33 drivers.[/quote]

I did try the 301 drivers once & that's when my scores dropped a fair bit and I returned to the 275 drivers. On the plus side, all of my GTX machines are climbing nicely now with the 310 drivers and the change to 2 wu at a time after a brief 1 day drop. I'm afraid the climb won't last though as seti is out of work already right now right before the next planned 2 day outage.
____________
Delta-V

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1327692 - Posted: 14 Jan 2013, 15:37:13 UTC - in response to Message 1327312.

Where can the cuda 42 app be found?

http://jgopt.org/download.html
http://jgopt.net/download.html
http://jgopt.info/download.html
http://jgopt.com/download.html



Thanks for the links!

The file mbcuda.aistub lacks the statements that appear in the beginning of older version's app_info.xml that specify the path to run the seti 6.03 mb work units. Can it be added to the new versions app_info or is it incompatible with the new cuda 42?
____________
Delta-V

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1327696 - Posted: 14 Jan 2013, 15:50:34 UTC - in response to Message 1324793.
Last modified: 14 Jan 2013, 15:56:16 UTC

The x41g files are contained in Fred's performance64.zip but app_info is replaced by short config file. I can't remember where I found it now. I must have had an installer.exe file but don't have it now. I do have the installers for v0.37 thru v.040 for 32 & 64 bit windows.
____________
Delta-V

Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 2879
Credit: 6,453,015
RAC: 2,878
Bulgaria
Message 1327933 - Posted: 16 Jan 2013, 14:31:51 UTC - in response to Message 1327696.


If I understand you want CPU + GPU computing

If you have these files:
Lunatics_Win32_v0.40_setup.exe
Lunatics_Win64_v0.40_setup.exe

(exit BOINC first and)
run one of them and select only both CPU options (for AP and MB)
(there is a bug in the installer - you can't select only MB and nothing else)

Then put the files for/from x41zc_WinXX_cudaYY.7z
(if in the SETI directory there is old file MBCuda.aistub replace it with the new MBCuda.aistub from the above x41zc_WinXX_cudaYY.7z)

Run aimerge.cmd
(it will create new app_info.xml from all *.aistub files found in the directory)

Check (read) app_info.xml to see it is correct
Start BOINC


____________



- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)

Lee Gresham
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 03
Posts: 131
Credit: 102,081,345
RAC: 2,560
United States
Message 1328058 - Posted: 16 Jan 2013, 20:36:33 UTC - in response to Message 1327933.

Thanks BilBb, that clears up things a lot. I'll try after the server logjam clears.
____________
Delta-V

Profile Vipin Palazhi
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 08
Posts: 250
Credit: 109,083,049
RAC: 43,897
India
Message 1328551 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 8:00:09 UTC

Now that the servers are all back online and all my rigs are getting work, I am trying to replace the x41g with x41zc. The rig has a GTX260 and a GTX285, and is running nVidia driver version 285.58.
1. Arkayn's site shows many versions of the cuda file and I am not sure which one to use?
2. The x41zc_Winx64_cuda50 requires driver version 301.48 and higher, which presents me with another issue. The nVidia site gives two different downloads for the latest version 310.90 for GTX 260 and 285 (the last unified driver was 301.42). Can these two versions be installed simultaneously or will it cause any clash?

ClaggyProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4209
Credit: 34,469,766
RAC: 18,422
United Kingdom
Message 1328587 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 8:49:42 UTC - in response to Message 1328551.
Last modified: 18 Jan 2013, 8:51:41 UTC

Now that the servers are all back online and all my rigs are getting work, I am trying to replace the x41g with x41zc. The rig has a GTX260 and a GTX285, and is running nVidia driver version 285.58.
1. Arkayn's site shows many versions of the cuda file and I am not sure which one to use?

You can one use the ones that your drivers supports, 285.58 is Cuda41 i think, so you have a choise of Cuda22, Cuda23, and Cuda32,
the Cuda22 app is only really as a last resort if a GPU is stuck on an earlier driver or is short on memory,
Between the Cuda23 and Cuda32 apps, the Cuda23 app is slightly faster,
were you to upgrade to 301.48 and run the Cuda42 app you would find that a good bit slower than the Cuda23 or Cuda32 apps,
were you to upgrade to 304.xx drivers to get Cuda5 support, you would probably find the Cuda32 and Cuda42 apps get a further slowdown, the Cuda5 app is even slower,
while the Cuda23 app is uneffected (I've been only talking legacy pre-Fermi GPUs here),
so run the Cuda23 app (Note: the Cuda23 app can't be run on Fermis or Keplars so if you upgrade GPUs you'll need to change apps)

2. The x41zc_Winx64_cuda50 requires driver version 301.48 and higher, which presents me with another issue. The nVidia site gives two different downloads for the latest version 310.90 for GTX 260 and 285 (the last unified driver was 301.42). Can these two versions be installed simultaneously or will it cause any clash?

Are you sure? When i checked the downloads they give supported products for 310.90 as:

GeForce 200 series:
GTX 295, GTX 285, GTX 280, GTX 275, GTX 260, GTS 250, GTS 240, GT 240, GT 230, GT 220, G210, 210, 205


and the filenames don't seem to be any different.

Claggy

Profile ivan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 01
Posts: 639
Credit: 146,889,724
RAC: 80,133
United Kingdom
Message 1328588 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 8:50:51 UTC - in response to Message 1328551.
Last modified: 18 Jan 2013, 8:58:29 UTC

Now that the servers are all back online and all my rigs are getting work, I am trying to replace the x41g with x41zc. The rig has a GTX260 and a GTX285, and is running nVidia driver version 285.58.
1. Arkayn's site shows many versions of the cuda file and I am not sure which one to use?
2. The x41zc_Winx64_cuda50 requires driver version 301.48 and higher, which presents me with another issue. The nVidia site gives two different downloads for the latest version 310.90 for GTX 260 and 285 (the last unified driver was 301.42). Can these two versions be installed simultaneously or will it cause any clash?

1) Use the one that fits your processor, OS, and GPU. e.g. 64-bit, Win7, 200-series.
2) If I check for, e.g. 64-bit Win7, 2000 series on the Nvidia site it only offers one driver. Again, choose the one that suits your OS (32- or 64-bit).
Never install two drivers -- I doubt if you can anyway, the latest will always supplant the earlier.
____________

Profile Vipin Palazhi
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 08
Posts: 250
Credit: 109,083,049
RAC: 43,897
India
Message 1328603 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 9:22:57 UTC - in response to Message 1328588.

1) Use the one that fits your processor, OS, and GPU. e.g. 64-bit, Win7, 200-series.
2) If I check for, e.g. 64-bit Win7, 2000 series on the Nvidia site it only offers one driver. Again, choose the one that suits your OS (32- or 64-bit).
Never install two drivers -- I doubt if you can anyway, the latest will always supplant the earlier.


@ Ivan
I am not sure why, but when I search for 64bit XP drivers for GTX 260, the only supported devices shown are GeForce GTX 275 and GeForce GTX 260. If I use GTX 285 in the search term, the devices shown are GeForce GTX 295, GeForce GTX 285, GeForce GTX 280, GeForce GTS 250, GeForce GTS 240, GeForce GT 230, GeForce GT 240, GeForce GT 220, GeForce G210, GeForce 210, GeForce 205. This is what lead me to the conclusion that, although the driver version is the same for both (310.90) there might be some differences in them.

I performed an automatic driver detection which also gave me two different download options. I do see that you are using the uk site, which is obviously giving a different result.

@ Claggy
I suppose cuda23 would be the best option for me at this moment. May I also ask what would be the best choice for my GTX480, as you mentioned that cuda5 app is the slowest?

ClaggyProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4209
Credit: 34,469,766
RAC: 18,422
United Kingdom
Message 1328606 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 9:34:28 UTC - in response to Message 1328603.
Last modified: 18 Jan 2013, 10:03:56 UTC

@ Claggy
I suppose cuda23 would be the best option for me at this moment. May I also ask what would be the best choice for my GTX480, as you mentioned that cuda5 app is the slowest?

I was only talking about legacy GPUs there, for a GTX480 you'll probably find the Cuda42 app fastest (that reminds me, i need to do a few more Cuda benches now i'm on 310.90, results shortly)

Edit: Here's the v6 Bench results for my factory overclocked GTX460 on 310.90 drivers, with Cuda42 being fastest, Cuda5 2nd fastest, and Cuda32 3rd fastest:

------------
Quick timetable

WU : PG0009.wu
setiathome_6.03_windows_intelx86.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 291.206 secs
CPU 289.085 secs
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda32.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 153.489 secs, speedup: 47.29% ratio: 1.90x
CPU 2.153 secs, speedup: 99.26% ratio: 134.27x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda42.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 152.131 secs, speedup: 47.76% ratio: 1.91x
CPU 1.981 secs, speedup: 99.31% ratio: 145.93x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda50.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 152.771 secs, speedup: 47.54% ratio: 1.91x
CPU 2.044 secs, speedup: 99.29% ratio: 141.43x

WU : PG0395.wu
setiathome_6.03_windows_intelx86.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 397.083 secs
CPU 395.041 secs
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda32.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 29.453 secs, speedup: 92.58% ratio: 13.48x
CPU 2.402 secs, speedup: 99.39% ratio: 164.46x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda42.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 27.440 secs, speedup: 93.09% ratio: 14.47x
CPU 1.778 secs, speedup: 99.55% ratio: 222.18x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda50.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 28.033 secs, speedup: 92.94% ratio: 14.16x
CPU 2.075 secs, speedup: 99.47% ratio: 190.38x

WU : PG0444.wu
setiathome_6.03_windows_intelx86.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 339.112 secs
CPU 337.071 secs
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda32.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 24.742 secs, speedup: 92.70% ratio: 13.71x
CPU 1.966 secs, speedup: 99.42% ratio: 171.45x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda42.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 22.511 secs, speedup: 93.36% ratio: 15.06x
CPU 1.825 secs, speedup: 99.46% ratio: 184.70x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda50.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 22.979 secs, speedup: 93.22% ratio: 14.76x
CPU 1.669 secs, speedup: 99.50% ratio: 201.96x

WU : PG1327.wu
setiathome_6.03_windows_intelx86.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 190.726 secs
CPU 188.699 secs
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda32.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 15.226 secs, speedup: 92.02% ratio: 12.53x
CPU 2.153 secs, speedup: 98.86% ratio: 87.64x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda42.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 15.304 secs, speedup: 91.98% ratio: 12.46x
CPU 1.654 secs, speedup: 99.12% ratio: 114.09x
Lunatics_x41zc_win32_cuda50.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 15.522 secs, speedup: 91.86% ratio: 12.29x
CPU 1.388 secs, speedup: 99.26% ratio: 135.95x

------------


Claggy

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Faster GPUs with Nvidia 310.70?

Copyright © 2014 University of California