NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

---

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Then maybe if the AP could runs on CUDA we could get a big jump in our production too? Or i´m wrong? Ok that´s for another thread.

OK Sten i see your point about the cores, i stil use Q8200 on 2 of my hosts and not allow it runs any CPU WU or the entire host will be slower, but i remain on 12000 feet.

---

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Sure not.

Its all host depended.
It might be true for some but not all.

I`m running at 18K without AP`s and 23K with AP`s.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

where you see 2:1 for nvidia?
on my gt630 rev 2 i see about 20 GFLOPS performance on MB ( lunatics, cuda), and about 80 on AP ( also lunatics for nvidia).
80:20 hardly seems to be 2:1, i think...

---

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

where you see 2:1 for nvidia?
on my gt630 rev 2 i see about 20 GFLOPS performance on MB ( lunatics, cuda), and about 80 on AP ( also lunatics for nvidia).
80:20 hardly seems to be 2:1, i think...

I was replying to Juan, who had just posted "40 - 50%" - or between 2:1 and 2.5:1

As Mike says, there will be a lot of system dependency in the mix as well.

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Sure not.

Its all host depended.
It might be true for some but not all.

I`m running at 18K without AP`s and 23K with AP`s.

But you have a much more powerful ATI GPU card than I have, haven't you. So why does your AP output only top off at 23K, when my ATI HD7870 can reach almost 36K on AP?

One reason is i ballance it out.
I dont get enough AP`s to run full bore.
Of course i could if i really wanted but since i`m Lunatic i dont do that anymore.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

[I was replying to Juan, who had just posted "40 - 50%" - or between 2:1 and 2.5:1

As Mike says, there will be a lot of system dependency in the mix as well.

I could only speack for my NV´s hosts (high end NVs powered by slow CPU´s and non dedicated and most 2xGPU´s hosts), for the same crunching time on average WU and on the same host, the number 40-50% is real, i reported it several times with examples on the forums, that could be totaly diferent on other NV´s hosts as allways YMMV due the diferences on configuration. But the soul of the problem is the same, AP paids 2x-2,5X more than MB on the same NV host.

Sure Mike has a lot more experience and examples on ATI than me, so he could give us betters numbers on ATI configs, but i´m sure the roule still in place there, AP paids a lot more than MB on the same host. That´s why Sten needs a big parachute!

---

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Do you have any links demonstrating CUDA superiority in any field other than SETI? Seems to me if CUDA was that much more efficient, nVidia would be ranting about it everywhere. As far as I know, SETI is the only area where CUDA has such an advantage. Too bad we can't have AMD code an OpenCL SETI MB App the way nVidia coded the first CUDA SETI MB App. I have a feeling the AMD coded App would be much more efficient than the current AMD MB App.

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Do you have any links demonstrating CUDA superiority in any field other than SETI? Seems to me if CUDA was that much more efficient, nVidia would be ranting about it everywhere. As far as I know, SETI is the only area where CUDA has such an advantage. Too bad we can't have AMD code an OpenCL SETI MB App the way nVidia coded the first CUDA SETI MB App. I have a feeling the AMD coded App would be much more efficient than the current AMD MB App.

IIRC NVIDIA basically wrote the original CUDA app. So any tricks they knew to boost the efficiency were taken advantage of. Apparently ATI/AMD contributed by sending a card or two for development & pointing to their SDK.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

NV scores about 40-50%, that´s incredible (i know you tell the true and the graph crearely shows that) and give another reason why they need to fix creditscrew. I review my guess to 12000 feets (with MB he could release some cores to crunch too).

Some of the difference between 2::1 for NV, and 4::1 for ATI, is that with ATI you're crunching MB with an OpenCL application, but with NV you're using a CUDA application.

That probably says a lot about the efficiency of OpenCL as a platform.

Do you have any links demonstrating CUDA superiority in any field other than SETI? Seems to me if CUDA was that much more efficient, nVidia would be ranting about it everywhere. As far as I know, SETI is the only area where CUDA has such an advantage. Too bad we can't have AMD code an OpenCL SETI MB App the way nVidia coded the first CUDA SETI MB App. I have a feeling the AMD coded App would be much more efficient than the current AMD MB App.

Well, I also crunch for GPUGrid (currently an NVidia-only project), and I read their forums daily: the same sort of question crops up there periodically. It's hard to find a recent quote to link, but this one - from 2009, but by the lead project scientist, Gianni, the guy HTC brought on to the platform in Barcelona for the recent Android launch - gives a flavour of the much repeated response:

Hi,
don't get us wrong, we do care, but unfortunately our complex application is not portable on ATI with their current software support.

gdf

Different projects require different branches of mathematics to perform the work that they need to do. Collatz is at one end of the spectrum, requiring only integer (whole) numbers, albeit very large ones. Projects like GPUGrid, Einstein and SETI rely heavily on a mathematical technique called 'FFT' (Fast Fourier Transform): NVidia have provided, and keep improving, FFT libraries specifically written for their GPUs, which is possibly one reason why the projects with those specific mathematical requirements have tended to favour NV.

[/quote]
Different projects require different branches of mathematics to perform the work that they need to do. Collatz is at one end of the spectrum, requiring only integer (whole) numbers, albeit very large ones. Projects like GPUGrid, Einstein and SETI rely heavily on a mathematical technique called 'FFT' (Fast Fourier Transform): NVidia have provided, and keep improving, FFT libraries specifically written for their GPUs, which is possibly one reason why the projects with those specific mathematical requirements have tended to favour NV.[/quote]

Are there different versions of FFT libraries when using Lunatics apps?

I'm using AMD and FFTW is installed by Lunatics installer.
Fastest Fourier Transform in the West.

Since the transition to SETI 7 the performance has lowered dramatically, both for GPU and CPU.
As far as I can tell there are no optimisation for GPU's in FFTW for any GPU.

Since the transition to SETI 7 the performance has lowered dramatically, both for GPU and CPU.
As far as I can tell there are no optimisation for GPU's in FFTW for any GPU.

It's not the performance that has lowered, it's that the typical MB WU does more work ("autocorrelation") and Credit New doesn't recognize it (in addition to other problems with CN), so a typical MB WU takes longer AND gets less credit. Quite a neat trick!

---

It's not the performance that has lowered!

Well it has too, because of the added autocorrelation searches, at least for the Cuda apps, and especially for the VHAR Wu's since the autocorrelations made the biggest impact on them,
About two years ago I was running the x41 apps on my 9800GTX+ at Seti Beta, I noted that the APR fell when doing VHAR tasks, and rose when back up when Normal AR tasks were done,
more recently we worked out why, the autocorrelation searches send thousands of small results across the PCIe bus, and does it particularly inefficiently, slowing the x41zc Cuda app (reduced GPU load),
x42 is being designed so as to not be limited by this problem.

On the i7-2600K/GTX460/HD7770 on PCI-e 2.0 x8:

bandwidthTest.exe --memory=pinned  --mode=shmoo
[CUDA Bandwidth Test] - Starting...
Running on...

 Device 0: GeForce GTX 460
 Shmoo Mode

................................................................................
.
 Host to Device Bandwidth, 1 Device(s)
 PINNED Memory Transfers
   Transfer Size (Bytes)        Bandwidth(MB/s)
   1024                         350.4
   2048                         624.7
   3072                         852.4
   4096                         1047.8
   5120                         1207.2
   6144                         1340.4
   7168                         1462.2
   8192                         1565.0
   9216                         1654.6
   10240                        1736.9
   11264                        1815.5
   12288                        1891.6
   13312                        1956.3
   14336                        2017.2
   15360                        2068.5
   16384                        2111.9
   17408                        2157.2
   18432                        2194.6
   19456                        2227.6
   20480                        2266.4
   22528                        2323.9
   24576                        2378.8
   26624                        2423.5
   28672                        2463.2
   30720                        2500.8
   32768                        2533.9
   34816                        2558.8
   36864                        2586.8
   38912                        2616.0
   40960                        2637.1
   43008                        2654.8
   45056                        2677.0
   47104                        2693.9
   49152                        2708.2
   51200                        2725.3
   61440                        2790.8
   71680                        2835.8
   81920                        2872.6
   92160                        2902.4
   102400                       2927.6
   204800                       3036.9
   307200                       3075.5
   409600                       3095.9
   512000                       3108.5
   614400                       3117.3
   716800                       3122.4
   819200                       3126.8
   921600                       3130.4
   1024000                      3133.1
   1126400                      3128.0
   2174976                      3142.4
   3223552                      3147.4
   4272128                      3149.1
   5320704                      3151.6
   6369280                      3152.7
   7417856                      3153.5
   8466432                      3154.0
   9515008                      3152.9
   10563584                     3154.9
   11612160                     3155.1
   12660736                     3155.4
   13709312                     3155.6
   14757888                     3154.6
   15806464                     3154.8
   16855040                     3153.2
   18952192                     3151.2
   21049344                     3149.9
   23146496                     3150.0
   25243648                     3150.2
   27340800                     3150.3
   29437952                     3150.4
   31535104                     3150.6
   33632256                     3150.6
   37826560                     3150.7
   42020864                     3150.9
   46215168                     3151.0
   50409472                     3150.8
   54603776                     3151.2
   58798080                     3151.2
   62992384                     3151.2
   67186688                     3151.0

................................................................................
.
 Device to Host Bandwidth, 1 Device(s)
 PINNED Memory Transfers
   Transfer Size (Bytes)        Bandwidth(MB/s)
   1024                         373.5
   2048                         672.2
   3072                         913.7
   4096                         1107.7
   5120                         1290.9
   6144                         1429.4
   7168                         1551.4
   8192                         1660.8
   9216                         1761.8
   10240                        1838.4
   11264                        1916.1
   12288                        1971.0
   13312                        2047.1
   14336                        2103.6
   15360                        2150.1
   16384                        2186.7
   17408                        2240.1
   18432                        2233.0
   19456                        2297.3
   20480                        2342.1
   22528                        2380.8
   24576                        2453.7
   26624                        2495.9
   28672                        2538.6
   30720                        2585.5
   32768                        2602.8
   34816                        2650.3
   36864                        2652.4
   38912                        2686.9
   40960                        2704.3
   43008                        2732.3
   45056                        2753.3
   47104                        2766.1
   49152                        2790.2
   51200                        2802.9
   61440                        2874.5
   71680                        2913.6
   81920                        2960.0
   92160                        2993.2
   102400                       3007.8
   204800                       3122.5
   307200                       3152.8
   409600                       3170.8
   512000                       3187.6
   614400                       3191.6
   716800                       3196.8
   819200                       3203.3
   921600                       3206.5
   1024000                      3209.6
   1126400                      3200.5
   2174976                      3220.6
   3223552                      3220.5
   4272128                      3227.1
   5320704                      3227.4
   6369280                      3230.5
   7417856                      3228.9
   8466432                      3230.3
   9515008                      3231.2
   10563584                     3231.2
   11612160                     3232.9
   12660736                     3232.4
   13709312                     3231.8
   14757888                     3232.6
   15806464                     3231.5
   16855040                     3231.6
   18952192                     3231.3
   21049344                     3229.9
   23146496                     3230.5
   25243648                     3230.9
   27340800                     3230.9
   29437952                     3231.5
   31535104                     3231.2
   33632256                     3231.3
   37826560                     3232.1
   42020864                     3230.8
   46215168                     3231.6
   50409472                     3232.4
   54603776                     3232.3
   58798080                     3232.3
   62992384                     3232.1
   67186688                     3232.3

................................................................................
.
 Device to Device Bandwidth, 1 Device(s)
 PINNED Memory Transfers
   Transfer Size (Bytes)        Bandwidth(MB/s)
   1024                         1034.5
   2048                         2179.8
   3072                         3212.4
   4096                         4398.9
   5120                         5155.0
   6144                         6586.5
   7168                         7656.7
   8192                         8346.7
   9216                         9791.7
   10240                        10614.8
   11264                        11321.9
   12288                        12026.6
   13312                        11842.6
   14336                        10761.9
   15360                        8669.8
   16384                        16440.4
   17408                        17264.5
   18432                        18341.1
   19456                        18948.8
   20480                        19978.8
   22528                        21762.9
   24576                        23664.7
   26624                        25390.6
   28672                        26786.6
   30720                        28521.1
   32768                        30375.2
   34816                        32173.6
   36864                        33443.9
   38912                        34772.7
   40960                        36657.8
   43008                        38260.8
   45056                        35013.6
   47104                        36510.0
   49152                        37900.2
   51200                        39125.1
   61440                        45323.1
   71680                        50028.8
   81920                        55235.4
   92160                        56747.6
   102400                       60550.8
   204800                       85423.6
   307200                       68501.9
   409600                       71616.5
   512000                       74215.9
   614400                       75383.1
   716800                       76939.7
   819200                       78112.5
   921600                       79220.7
   1024000                      80193.3
   1126400                      91208.6
   2174976                      96622.7
   3223552                      98801.2
   4272128                      99901.4
   5320704                      100500.3
   6369280                      100948.9
   7417856                      101247.7
   8466432                      101608.5
   9515008                      101802.0
   10563584                     101891.5
   11612160                     102079.3
   12660736                     102250.4
   13709312                     102386.8
   14757888                     102399.1
   15806464                     102472.1
   16855040                     102478.6
   18952192                     102681.4
   21049344                     102664.2
   23146496                     102733.5
   25243648                     102821.5
   27340800                     102817.0
   29437952                     102872.8
   31535104                     102901.4
   33632256                     102976.3
   37826560                     102977.4
   42020864                     103003.7
   46215168                     103060.8
   50409472                     103136.6
   54603776                     103094.7
   58798080                     103111.6
   62992384                     103170.4
   67186688                     103233.4

Result = PASS

Claggy

And still have "someones" who say: nothing is wrong with creditscrew...

You need a bigger parachute.

---

I just hope Sten-Arne doesn't vanish from the radar !

I just hope Sten-Arne doesn't vanish from the radar !

I also hope he's up to date with his sea drills, he's going to have a mare of a time getting out of his parachute and into the dingy once he's landed in the sea, good job there isn't a gale on, yet. ;0

Claggy

Im wondering when Sten will pull the ripchord? :) Any bets on what the altitude will be?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe we should start a pool

Put me down for: 17353

That is if he does not pull the cord, MB only

---

Dave