Faster GPUs with Nvidia 310.70?

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Paul D Harris
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1122
Credit: 33,600,005
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1315395 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 2:25:48 UTC - in response to Message 1315391.  

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?
ID: 1315395 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1315398 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 2:31:53 UTC - in response to Message 1315395.  
Last modified: 15 Dec 2012, 2:32:13 UTC

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 have been running x41z for some time, but that was not public beta.
The zb version is newer, and has been released for public beta by Jason.
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.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1315398 · Report as offensive
Profile Manuel Palacios

Send message
Joined: 2 Nov 99
Posts: 74
Credit: 30,209,980
RAC: 56
Venezuela
Message 1315608 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 16:41:05 UTC - in response to Message 1315398.  


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
ID: 1315608 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1315612 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 16:49:08 UTC - in response to Message 1315608.  
Last modified: 15 Dec 2012, 16:49:49 UTC


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

Yes, I have done it many times.
Just takes a bit when you have 9 rigs to do. I just download the apps on my daily driver and put them on a thumb drive to transfer the correct app to each one. Some are 64 bit, some are 32 bit, some are Fermi, some are pre-Fermi. So I have to get the right app on each one, and then make sure I do the edits correctly...
And then do the same with the new drivers....which also take a bit of time on each one to update.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1315612 · Report as offensive
SupeRNovA
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 04
Posts: 131
Credit: 12,741,814
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1315743 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:20:48 UTC
Last modified: 15 Dec 2012, 21:23:00 UTC

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 :)
ID: 1315743 · Report as offensive
Jeroen
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 01
Posts: 13
Credit: 8,155,940
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1315805 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:42:05 UTC - in response to Message 1314696.  

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%.
ID: 1315805 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill G Special Project $75 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 01
Posts: 1282
Credit: 187,688,550
RAC: 182
United States
Message 1315834 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 0:44:50 UTC - in response to Message 1315392.  

None of my video cards are really great but I have switched to the new drivers and every one of my computers seems to be doing more......take a look at me and my computers.

What apps are you running when you see this improvement?

Lunitics installer.....that is what I have at present. (the one no longer publicly available)

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours
ID: 1315834 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65690
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1315876 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 4:43:24 UTC - in response to Message 1315743.  

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'm using x41zc, so far so good on the ol 590 and 306.97 x64 under Win7 Pro x64.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1315876 · Report as offensive
Maximus13

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,729,694
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316538 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 20:30:38 UTC

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.
ID: 1316538 · Report as offensive
Sp@ceNv@der Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Jul 05
Posts: 41
Credit: 117,366,167
RAC: 152
Belgium
Message 1316797 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 12:22:17 UTC - in response to Message 1314753.  

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
To boldly crunch ...
ID: 1316797 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1316863 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 17:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 1316797.  
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 17:30:33 UTC

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


Hi,
Cuda 5 embeds native Kepler & Kepler 2 class code. I'm not using the added dynamic parallelism & other K2 features yet as such, but the native compiler & libraries benefit the Keplers by some small amount.

For the time being there will be some small performance benefit mostly on Kepler class ( e.g. GT 680 ) if you use the Cuda 5.0 build. That's mostly related to the build having embedded Compute capability 3 binaries, and use of Cuda 5's Kepler specific libraries & compiler... IOW natively it'd be a slightly better match for these cards. On similar lines the Cuda 4.2 build will probably remain preferable for Fermi Class cards at least for the time being.

That Cuda version dependance with GPU generation could be anywhere from splitting hairs to noticeable, and mostly ties to underlying driver, compiler and library technology changes (that are ongoing). At some point in the future I intend to replace the FFT library used, but for the short to medium term that will be the dominant source of version performance variation under Cuda.

Jason
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1316863 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1316868 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 17:38:08 UTC - in response to Message 1316538.  

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.


Hi,
Being beta/advanced user software at this time, I'd advise waiting for an installer/release/update, especially If you are unfamiliar with the app_info.xml file configuration. I'm not sure when Lunatics will provide one though, if you feel adventurous the anonymous platform mechanism is documented at http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Anonymous_platform. You would basically need to splice the provided appinfo stub content into app_info.xml, along with entries for any other applications you'd be using (such as CPU apps & Astropulse)

Jason

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1316868 · Report as offensive
andybutt
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Mar 03
Posts: 262
Credit: 164,205,187
RAC: 516
United Kingdom
Message 1316875 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 18:09:03 UTC - in response to Message 1316868.  

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

Thanks
Andy
ID: 1316875 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1316899 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 22:38:54 UTC - in response to Message 1316875.  
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 22:39:41 UTC

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

Thanks
Andy


On the one hand for simplicity I'd say Cuda 4.2 will do fine, but probably in splitting hairs territory with gains in one type offset by marginal reduction in the other. IOW, in total throughput & other characteristics you'd have trouble telling the difference without looking quite deep.

On the other hand you could say Cuda 5.0, & associated drivers & libraries, are likely to still mature a bit further, and seem to be quite good under system contention etc already.., so it'll just depend on personal preference & whatever else you might be using the machine for.
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1316899 · Report as offensive
Jeroen
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 01
Posts: 13
Credit: 8,155,940
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316927 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 0:57:33 UTC - in response to Message 1316538.  
Last modified: 19 Dec 2012, 0:59:03 UTC


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.


Here is the app_info.xml that I made for running x41zc and the Astropulse GPU application that downloads by default from the Seti project servers if this project and GPU support are enabled. Both apps are running good for me via my GPU. The file does not have any CPU apps in it currently.
ID: 1316927 · Report as offensive
Maximus13

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,729,694
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316946 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 2:04:36 UTC

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!
ID: 1316946 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1316966 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 3:12:49 UTC - in response to Message 1316946.  

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!

I'm pretty sure, but don't quote me unless it is confirmed, that it is to reserve part of the cpu so that it can do the management on data transfers et.

But due to the powers of the GPU's and the relative lower power of the CPU cores these days. I just restrict my CPU processing by one core. e.g. on Quad in BOINC preferences I set "On mltiprocessor systems, use at most 75.00 % of the processors"
ID: 1316966 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1316977 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 3:49:01 UTC - in response to Message 1316966.  

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'm pretty sure, but don't quote me unless it is confirmed, that it is to reserve part of the cpu so that it can do the management on data transfers et.

But due to the powers of the GPU's and the relative lower power of the CPU cores these days. I just restrict my CPU processing by one core. e.g. on Quad in BOINC preferences I set "On mltiprocessor systems, use at most 75.00 % of the processors"

Those numbers are used by the scheduler as a reference of how much CPU is needed by the GPU app but it doesnt limit the CPU usage of the GPU apps.
The scheduller adds all the CPU fractions (of the running GPU apps) togheter and the result trimmed to the least integer is the number of cores that will be "reserved" for feeding GPUs... For these calcs it uses the avg_ncpus, Im not sure for what is used the max_ncpus, so I set both to the same value, just in case...

This could be used to reserve extra cores dinamycally based on the running apps, for example I have the AP apps set to 0.7 CPU and the MB to 0.25, as I run 3 concurrent WUs, if there is 3 APs running BOINC will leave 2 extra free CPU cores, if there is 3 MB running it wont be "reserving" any extra core, and in the other cases it will reserve 1 or 2 depending on which combination of apps are running... (the APs need more CPU support due to something related with the "high CPU usage" bug in the implementation of newer versions of OpenCL).
ID: 1316977 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316978 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 4:05:40 UTC - in response to Message 1316946.  

...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!

BOINC uses the avg_ncpus value to decide whether to free CPU cores to support GPU processing or not. If avg_ncpus multiplied by the number of GPU tasks running is 1.0 or more it will start one less CPU task, etc. Obviously the max_ncpus should be equal or greater than avg_ncpus, but it isn't really used so that would just be protection against some future version of BOINC where the logic changes.

I imagine you'll be running multiple GPU tasks on your 660 Ti, you might consider setting avg_cpus to 0.5 so whenever there are 2 or more GPU tasks running one CPU core would be freed. But if your cache ever got down to one or less GPU tasks all CPU cores would also be doing tasks. With the current limits, that's a fairly likely scenario if the project has another server problem.
                                                                  Joe
ID: 1316978 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65690
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1316990 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 5:38:22 UTC
Last modified: 19 Dec 2012, 5:42:45 UTC

I've noticed that x41zc and I think any x41(g or zb) for that matter will suddenly slow down crunching all on their own, temps are low, fan is at max 100%, the card is clean and was cleaned very recently, as was the whole PC, temps are between 66C(slow) and 76C(fast, when the heater was on, 4C less after a bit as the room cools off some, it's 5C or 41f outside currently, the heater heats the house to 78f while the gas heater is on), yet If I suspend those 4 wu's that are performing at a really slow rate, like ones that have been running for 20 minutes, instead of 10-12 minutes on the GTX590 Classified at 630MHz(stock speed for a classified 590), the next seti wu's speed up, then I resume the suspended seti wu's and wonder of wonders the wu's start crunching faster again. Why this happens? I don't know, I just thought this was strange, I'd have posted this earlier, but I just thought some one else would notice this and report this, is this important? I don't know... I don't know if this will be taken seriously or not, but I mentioned it at least.

SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.6366.140733193388035.10.190_0 00:10:05 (00:00:41) 12/18/2012 12:36:19 AM 12/18/2012 12:39:27 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.78 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.12273.67449.140733193388039.10.189_2 00:10:27 (00:00:39) 12/18/2012 12:29:27 AM 12/18/2012 12:34:52 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.22 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.5139.140733193388035.10.185_0 00:10:05 (00:00:40) 12/18/2012 12:29:19 AM 12/18/2012 12:34:52 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.61 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.12273.67858.140733193388039.10.167_2 00:10:08 (00:00:37) 12/18/2012 12:27:15 AM 12/18/2012 12:29:19 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.09 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 29my10aa.21553.16845.140733193388043.10.198_2 00:09:35 (00:00:39) 12/18/2012 12:26:11 AM 12/18/2012 12:29:19 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.78 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.186035.140733193388035.10.113_1 00:02:35 (00:00:13) 12/18/2012 12:19:14 AM 12/18/2012 12:23:53 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 8.39 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.186035.140733193388035.10.18_0 00:02:35 (00:00:13) 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 12/18/2012 12:23:53 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 8.39 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.12273.67858.140733193388039.10.42_2 00:00:05 (00:00:01) 12/18/2012 12:17:03 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 20.00 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.184808.140733193388035.10.109_1 00:02:09 (00:00:12) 12/18/2012 12:16:59 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 9.30 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.184808.140733193388035.10.144_1 00:02:14 (00:00:12) 12/18/2012 12:16:37 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 8.96 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.184808.140733193388035.10.130_1 00:02:13 (00:00:12) 12/18/2012 12:16:37 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 9.02 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.3503.140733193388035.10.49_0 00:20:40 (00:01:11) 12/18/2012 12:16:37 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 5.73 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.184808.140733193388035.10.204_0 00:02:16 (00:00:13) 12/18/2012 12:15:55 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 9.56 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.3503.140733193388035.10.77_0 00:20:16 (00:01:11) 12/18/2012 12:14:22 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 5.84 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.3503.140733193388035.10.85_1 00:20:48 (00:01:09) 12/18/2012 12:14:06 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 5.53 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.184808.140733193388035.10.218_0 00:02:39 (00:00:12) 12/18/2012 12:13:38 AM 12/18/2012 12:18:58 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 7.55 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21fe11ai.32368.3503.140733193388035.10.99_1 00:20:46 (00:01:10) 12/18/2012 12:10:54 AM 12/18/2012 12:13:06 AM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 5.62 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.5793.140733193388038.10.125_1 00:06:12 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 11:54:32 PM 12/17/2012 11:59:15 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.45 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.5793.140733193388038.10.131_0 00:06:00 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 11:54:01 PM 12/17/2012 11:59:15 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.67 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.5793.140733193388038.10.146_1 00:06:05 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 11:53:17 PM 12/17/2012 11:59:15 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.58 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.17100.140733193388035.10.217_0 00:00:04 (00:00:01) 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 25.00 Missed GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 25no12ac.4735.18063.140733193388045.10.63_2 00:10:12 (00:00:39) 12/17/2012 11:50:00 PM 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.37 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.13317.140733193388035.10.28_1 00:09:49 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 11:48:17 PM 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.45 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.12649.24811.4.10.252_0 00:02:33 (00:00:12) 12/17/2012 11:47:59 PM 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 7.84 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12ad.20178.1294.140733193388035.10.58_3 00:03:03 (00:00:13) 12/17/2012 11:47:08 PM 12/17/2012 11:51:50 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 7.10 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 27no12aa.16952.13317.140733193388035.10.61_0 00:10:03 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 11:45:27 PM 12/17/2012 11:47:08 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.30 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 22dc09ac.17056.163940.140733193388035.10.229_2 00:02:33 (00:00:12) 12/17/2012 11:44:05 PM 12/17/2012 11:47:08 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 7.84 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.16572.73584.140733193388038.10.52_2 00:10:37 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 11:41:29 PM 12/17/2012 11:47:08 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 5.97 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.223_0 00:16:39 (00:01:00) 12/17/2012 11:39:49 PM 12/17/2012 11:41:29 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.01 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.24016.66222.140733193388040.10.202_2 00:10:05 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 11:38:28 PM 12/17/2012 11:41:29 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.28 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.231_0 00:16:34 (00:01:02) 12/17/2012 11:35:22 PM 12/17/2012 11:37:26 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.24 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 29no12ac.17525.4975.13.10.112_2 00:02:37 (00:00:14) 12/17/2012 11:30:52 PM 12/17/2012 11:32:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 8.92 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.19801.140733193388037.10.132_1 00:02:20 (00:00:12) 12/17/2012 11:28:22 PM 12/17/2012 11:32:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 8.57 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.19801.140733193388037.10.138_0 00:02:22 (00:00:13) 12/17/2012 11:28:14 PM 12/17/2012 11:32:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 9.15 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.235_1 00:16:35 (00:00:59) 12/17/2012 11:25:59 PM 12/17/2012 11:32:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 5.93 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.237_0 00:16:37 (00:01:01) 12/17/2012 11:25:51 PM 12/17/2012 11:32:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.12 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.241_1 00:16:35 (00:01:00) 12/17/2012 11:23:06 PM 12/17/2012 11:25:59 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.03 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.243_0 00:16:39 (00:01:02) 12/17/2012 11:18:45 PM 12/17/2012 11:20:49 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.21 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.249_0 00:16:39 (00:01:01) 12/17/2012 11:09:23 PM 12/17/2012 11:11:28 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.11 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.253_1 00:16:41 (00:01:01) 12/17/2012 11:09:11 PM 12/17/2012 11:11:28 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.09 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.28069.2521.140733193388038.10.255_0 00:16:12 (00:01:01) 12/17/2012 11:06:31 PM 12/17/2012 11:11:28 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.28 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 23fe11ad.24276.19658.140733193388041.10.10_2 00:13:16 (00:00:48) 12/17/2012 11:02:09 PM 12/17/2012 11:06:19 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.03 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.7940.140733193388037.10.125_1 00:06:08 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:52:43 PM 12/17/2012 10:58:23 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.52 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.7940.140733193388037.10.131_1 00:06:04 (00:00:25) 12/17/2012 10:52:31 PM 12/17/2012 10:58:23 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.87 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.7940.140733193388037.10.137_0 00:04:41 (00:00:18) 12/17/2012 10:50:44 PM 12/17/2012 10:58:23 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.41 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.7940.140733193388037.10.155_1 00:06:05 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:48:49 PM 12/17/2012 10:50:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.58 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 26se12ac.28714.299068.140733193388035.10.10_2 00:13:29 (00:00:50) 12/17/2012 10:46:32 PM 12/17/2012 10:50:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.18 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.7940.140733193388037.10.161_1 00:05:53 (00:00:25) 12/17/2012 10:46:24 PM 12/17/2012 10:50:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 7.08 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.23584.140733193388036.10.37_1 00:06:03 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:45:36 PM 12/17/2012 10:50:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.34 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 28no12ab.7286.65673.140733193388045.10.233_2 00:10:05 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 10:42:42 PM 12/17/2012 10:45:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.28 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.23584.140733193388036.10.43_0 00:05:54 (00:00:25) 12/17/2012 10:40:26 PM 12/17/2012 10:45:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 7.06 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.23584.140733193388036.10.49_0 00:06:10 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:39:29 PM 12/17/2012 10:45:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.22 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.19903.140733193388036.10.149_1 00:02:27 (00:00:12) 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 12/17/2012 10:39:29 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 8.16 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.19903.140733193388036.10.179_1 00:02:36 (00:00:13) 12/17/2012 10:33:16 PM 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 8.33 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.2214.140733193388037.10.131_1 00:06:04 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:33:03 PM 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.32 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 11no12aa.22977.66485.140733193388035.10.220_1 00:10:24 (00:00:38) 12/17/2012 10:32:35 PM 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.09 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.2214.140733193388037.10.61_1 00:06:09 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:32:03 PM 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.23 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.5800.2214.140733193388037.10.66_1 00:06:11 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:30:38 PM 12/17/2012 10:34:35 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.20 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.109_0 00:06:05 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:26:57 PM 12/17/2012 10:29:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.58 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.110_1 00:06:02 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:25:53 PM 12/17/2012 10:29:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.63 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.111_1 00:05:58 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:24:27 PM 12/17/2012 10:29:44 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.42 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.127_1 00:05:54 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:22:09 PM 12/17/2012 10:24:10 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.78 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.143_1 00:05:55 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:20:52 PM 12/17/2012 10:24:10 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.48 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.149_1 00:05:55 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:19:51 PM 12/17/2012 10:24:10 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.76 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.158_1 00:05:54 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:18:29 PM 12/17/2012 10:19:51 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.50 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.165_1 00:05:53 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:16:14 PM 12/17/2012 10:19:51 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.80 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.169_0 00:05:54 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:14:55 PM 12/17/2012 10:19:51 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.78 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.172_0 00:05:53 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:13:56 PM 12/17/2012 10:19:51 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.80 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.175_1 00:05:52 (00:00:25) 12/17/2012 10:12:34 PM 12/17/2012 10:13:56 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 7.10 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.181_1 00:05:51 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:10:20 PM 12/17/2012 10:13:56 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.55 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.187_1 00:05:53 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 10:09:00 PM 12/17/2012 10:13:56 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.80 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.195_0 00:05:54 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:07:59 PM 12/17/2012 10:09:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.50 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.200_0 00:05:53 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:06:37 PM 12/17/2012 10:09:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.52 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.201_1 00:05:52 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:04:27 PM 12/17/2012 10:09:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.53 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.205_1 00:05:53 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:03:02 PM 12/17/2012 10:09:00 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.52 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.208_0 00:05:54 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 10:02:06 PM 12/17/2012 10:03:02 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.50 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.212_0 00:05:52 (00:00:22) 12/17/2012 10:00:44 PM 12/17/2012 10:03:02 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.25 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.218_1 00:05:54 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 9:58:34 PM 12/17/2012 10:03:02 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.78 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.231_0 00:05:52 (00:00:24) 12/17/2012 9:57:12 PM 12/17/2012 9:58:34 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.82 Reported: OK * GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.9025.12030.140733193388036.10.236_1 00:05:34 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 9:56:08 PM 12/17/2012 9:58:34 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.89 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 21no12aa.26698.17654.140733193388035.10.182_1 00:05:50 (00:00:23) 12/17/2012 9:54:51 PM 12/17/2012 9:58:34 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.57 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 26no12ac.3006.6611.140733193388042.10.165_1 00:10:14 (00:00:40) 12/17/2012 9:52:38 PM 12/17/2012 9:58:34 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d0) 6.51 Reported: OK GALACTICA
SETI@home 6.10 setiathome_enhanced (cuda_fermi) 26no12ac.3006.6611.140733193388042.10.198_1 00:10:11 (00:00:40) 12/17/2012 9:51:15 PM 12/17/2012 9:52:38 PM 0.04C + 0.50NV (d1) 6.55 Reported: OK * GALACTICA

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1316990 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

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


 
©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.