Since I never ran the 8.05 or 8.04 one, I am comparing it to the the AVX r3330 one since that is the only one I have ever run.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

There is 1 8.05 that you did run Keith, took 23 min 20 sec, lol

Since I never ran the 8.05 or 8.04 one, I am comparing it to the the AVX r3330 one since that is the only one I have ever run.

AVX isn't a good comparison, as it's only good for CPUs and OSs that support it.
This application will be for general release, so maximum compatibility.
If the new application is as good as Raistmer feels it is, it's run time will make the present stock ones look bad.

So if you think the 8.06 is slow, wait till you run a few 8.05s to completion as a comparison.
:-)

EDIT-
I'm looking at 3hrs 25 to 3hrs 40 for 8.05 runtimes. With AVX they're more along the lines of 2hrs 15 for similar WUs.
If the new 8.06 knocks those run times to 3hrs or less, it will be a huge boost to the computing power of all the hosts running stock, which I expect is most of them.
Anonymous platform would probably be less than 5%?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Yes, of course I didn't let the 8.05's run to completion, but at their 50% mark it looked like the completion times were going to be in the 2.5- 3.0 hr mark. The AVX app gets the Arecibo standard AR 0.44 done in 2.15-2.30 hours.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

There is 1 8.05 that you did run Keith, took 23 min 20 sec, lol

But that was an overflow task, so not valid.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

$hit! I just realized I hadn't made this an apples-apples comparison. I run the AVX app with real core affinity. I just switched the 8.06 (alt) app over to same affinity as my normal AVX r3330 one. At least the next 8 8.06 (alt) tasks will get processed with the same resources as my normal AVX ones.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

New 8.06 app after 25 minutes:

https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArIvftV8roEagVxHXJ1olJuoFrBn

8.04 app took anywhere from 13.6K to 15.2K secs to complete.

note: this is with the process running at priority level 6 - below normal

I just added beta project to my R7-1700 and FX-8370 systems in addition to my i7-69050X system. I will suspend SETI to get some beta results out quickly.

---

GitHub: Ricks-Lab
Instagram: ricks_labs

Windows/x86 running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 8.05 10 Feb 2017, 20:57:18 UTC 300 GigaFLOPS
Windows/x86 running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 8.06 (alt) 1 Jun 2017, 17:48:19 UTC 34 GigaFLOPS

Both numbers increased that means testers actively switch ON - thanks to all.

34/300=0.113 > 27/299=0.090 so good so far.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

Looking good. And much faster so far on my CPU.

So far Ive seen roughly a good 20-30min or so speed up over the 8.04 & 8.05 applications, that's been with Arecibo work. I'm waiting to get some GBT work to see how it goes with them.

EDIT- 2 GBT WUs queued up to be run with 8.06 in the next few hours.

So far-

SETI@home v8 8.04 windows_intelx86     18.95 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.05 windows_x86_64       14.03 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.06 windows_x86_64 (alt) 16.82 GFLOPS

---

Grant
Darwin NT

It would appear Beta has run out of work.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

If those numbers Grant are for you E6600 then they're not bad at all, but if they're for your i7 2600 then it's much better to stick with the AVX app.

Cheers.

If those numbers Grant are for you E6600 then they're not bad at all, but if they're for your i7 2600 then it's much better to stick with the AVX app.

The i7 and definitely staying with AVX.
A lot of hardware can't run the AVX application, so for the 95% or so who run stock, it will give a huge boost to their output (and those of us using Lunatics on older hardware).
It's still looking like up to 30min off of Arecibo work, and possibly as much as 45-60min off of some GBT work (though only done a couple of GBT WUs so far).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

My results so far:
i7-6950X: https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/host_app_versions.php?hostid=81607
SETI@home v8 8.04 windows_intelx86 19.02 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.05 windows_x86_64 17.65 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.06 windows_x86_64 (alt): 17.00 GFLOPS
R7-1700: https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=82652
SETI@home v8 8.04 windows_intelx86: 11.91 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.05 windows_x86_64 13.90 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.06 windows_x86_64 (alt): 12.80 GFLOPS
FX-8370: https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=82653
SETI@home v8 8.04 windows_intelx86: no tasks
SETI@home v8 8.05 windows_x86_64 11.08 GFLOPS
SETI@home v8 8.06 windows_x86_64 (alt): 12.04 GFLOPS

---

GitHub: Ricks-Lab
Instagram: ricks_labs

I have just re-installed Seti Beta on my elderly Xeon that does not support AVX. The Lunatics version of the cpu task runs at about 3.5 hours. The reason I am using it rather than the stock task is the stock Seti task was running about 5.5 hours.

I wait with baited breath :)

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

I have just re-installed Seti Beta on my elderly Xeon that does not support AVX. The Lunatics version of the cpu task runs at about 3.5 hours. The reason I am using it rather than the stock task is the stock Seti task was running about 5.5 hours.

I wait with baited breath :)

Tom

Hmmmm, Not getting anything from the Beta server...... slowly turning blue (in face)....

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

I think, maybe, they got a better response from us than they expected.

Ed F

Least detailed test result would be:

Windows/x86 running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 8.05 10 Feb 2017, 20:57:18 UTC 299 GigaFLOPS
Windows/x86 running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 8.06 (alt) 1 Jun 2017, 17:48:19 UTC 27 GigaFLOPS

If/when second number will exceed first - testing will be completed.

I'm missing something. I have never had a cpu with 3 digit GigaFlops like above. So what does it mean?

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

Large CPU flops means they have been rescheduling and the number is invalid for any comparison.
I can get my CPU apr over 1000GFlops :)

EDIT: Oh, I thought he meant from host page.

That's not a single CPU. It's total GigaFLOPS for those two latest apps, from the Beta Applications page:

https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php

What we're hoping for, is that the latest app (now in testing) will pass the older app in total GigaFLOPS.

So that is the sum total of all testing rig Gflops for that app? Seems like if 3,000 testers suddenly piled on, the results would be completely misleading. Shouldn't it be an average/rig? Or is the point to say when the 2nd passes the first, it has been thoroughly tested?

Mumble, mumble, mumble...

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).