Posts by Alex Storey


log in
1) Message boards : Politics : The Varoufakis thread #2 (Message 1787162)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
You'll never guess in what context I found Greece sandwiched between Finland & Denmark:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/may/12/what-are-the-top-10-most-secretive-tax-havens-video

Source (Lower is better):
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

Strange days Jim... strange days.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing? (Message 1786949)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
BTW can anybody put some real numbers into the Creditnew equation? I'd like to play around these days but loathe to work with just letters and words. Feels like 10x the effort (at least for the way my own brain is wired).

Anyway, can anybody create a template? Might even be a good idea to have links on the CN Wiki page directing to real world examples of a Seti task and other Boinc projects tasks... dunno.

William? Ageless? Jason? Anybody?

Thanx in advance.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1786947)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Just keep in mind that 'Founder's Edition' is just the new name for 'Reference card' and priced higher, despite no cherry picked parts, both so as to not compete with AIB partner customised cards, (which should start cheaper and custom variants range from basic to ridiculous ,and dearer), And add an 'early adopter tax'.


Oh wow... yeah.

http://www.pcgamer.com/what-exactly-is-nvidias-gtx-1080-founders-edition/

Well I guess Jarred Walton isn't writing for Anandtech anymore...

Anyway, the way Jensen announced the card during the live presentation we were watching I assumed these would be better binned chips. Apparently that's not the case?

If true, I guess there's no point in shelling out the extra bucks solely for Seti purposes?
4) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1786532)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Will this mean a new driver update?


Almost certainly :)

Probably a new family too...

370.xx

Oh and rumor has it GTX 1080 reviews will be out on the 17th.

(Not clear ATM if this date is only for the "Founders Edition" reviews or not. Actually I think the same goes for the May 27th launch date... That could be for the "Founders Edition" only too)
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing? (Message 1786508)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Wow, OK... I'm shocked. By some miracle we're all on the same page all of a sudden. Awesome.

I thought you guys were gonna pick up from where we left off (almost 3yrs ago) and that I was gonna get another lecture on how credit is NOT a flopcounter.

So now what? Well now...

From where I'm standing it looks like you are trying to fix something that isn't fixable. Now don't get me wrong... Jason if you think you can crack the FLOPS problem and reel it into some semblance of reality then you're a miracle worker. Plain and simple.

But for now, and for your own sanity, and Richard's, and Raistmer's... And all the other gurus. Oh and Eric's of course :) ...

... It might be a good idea to call credits anything but Cobblestones. Because as long as you do, you're all going to go crazy.

OK so here's the deal with the CreditNew equation:

-After the CN equation is done chasing it's tail it spits out a number.
-CreditNew calls this number "F" (after calling it a bunch of other things first)

Now let's all call "F" something like "CN" for the sake of ALL our sanity. And again for all our sanity let's agree for a moment that CN is a random number generator (which is one of the kindest things people have called it over the years). Unfortunately (and out of the blue) we do this with it:

CN*cobblestone_scale = CREDIT

But if CN is arbitrary then no matter what you multiply it with, the result will also be arbitrary.

Also, there's no real need to multiply it by anything (let alone Cobblestones). We can easily leave that part out. It won't break the equation or anything because it's not really PART of the equation.

It could just as easily be:
CN = Credit

And "Credit" could be anything. Anything EXCEPT Cobblestones ;)
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing? (Message 1786427)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
(EDIT: Richard, hadn't seen you're post when I wrote whatever's below but since we're kinda on the same page now I don't think I'll add anything.)

Unfortunately that tone is my baseline. It gets under people's skin I know. 3 parts INTJ and 1 part cultural differences.

It's you, and Richard, and Raistmer (and all the other "above & and beyond the call of duty" people) whose life we need to make easier. Ironically that was the whole point of my previous post. It was my point back when I got the BoZ speech too.

-If we multiply the estimates by rainbows (or call the new credits Andersens if it makes anyone feel better) then everybody can sit back, relax and enjoy themselves.

Because once we do, we can define what those credits are. And it'll look something like this (just a lot better written):

"We've tried to make a system that's FLOPS-based but unfortunately we can't come up with one (for now) that isn't vulnerable to cheating. CREDITS will henceforth be called Unicorns (and RAC will become Recent Average Unicorns) and be a daily token given by Boinc that CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be compared with past or future tokens. And it should most certainly NOT be used as a measure of your PC's health or abilities. We'd love to give you a speedometer but are unable to create one ATM that doesn't compromise the science. Hopefully one day we will... But until then it's Unicorns."

You can't say any of that though if you're calling your CREDITS "Cobblestones".

How much time and energy would it have saved you guys (the gurus) if this was done when v7 rolled out?

-----

PS
Think convergence on +/- 10 % elapsed estimates on a given host, adapting to major changes within 10 tasks, would be enough of a goal ?


Is that question directed at me? I'm guessing it's for Richard but not quite sure...
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing? (Message 1786410)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
...open to proposals for improvement/replacement.


Improvement is impossible and replacement is moot as long as you guys continue to pretend that even the CreditNew version of Credit is NOT a FLOPS (or MIPS or whatever) counter.

I don't care how many "if found cheating->then..." loops CN has to go through and it doesn't matter. Because at the very END of the equation we're multiplying whatever garbage comes out of all those hoops and loops with... drumroll... Cobblestones. Then grant CREDIT in Cobblestones. Then display RAC in Cobblestones.

Ergo: CN = Flopcounter

So even if I get another Bank of Zimbabwe speech, CN will still be a Flopcounter. Raistmer, this goes for you too BTW.

OK so hopefully we're out of the "denial" stage and can focus on options.

Well the next step in our 12-step program is the only one worth talking about. Someone, somewhere has to decide what's more important: the anti-cheating loops or the speedometer?

-If it's the anti-cheating loops then we have to bite the bullet, get rid of Cobblestones and multiply by rainbows or unicorns or whatever. Because we can multiply by whatever we want. It makes no difference whatsoever in this scenario.

-If it's the speedometer then it has to be stable. It has to at least be stable within each project. And it has to be stable against future app versions. It doesn't have to be super-accurate at first, just stable. It can start out conservatively for example and then someone like Jason can do what he does best: make it better. And enjoy himself while doing it for a change :)

Otherwise, as long as you're calling credit "Cobblestones" people will think there's something wrong with their computer... they'll fiddle with everything for a couple of days, stumble into the forums screaming bloody murder and most you guys will get all territorial and say:

"Don't let the door hit you on the way out"

How many times do we have to watch re-runs of the same episode?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785811)
Posted 15 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
...so basically there's nothing stopping me buying a pair of 1080s at the end of the month?


Unfortunately there is. Thanx for the reminder. I forgot the disclaimer.

------

Important:

There's no guarantee the new cards will work out-of-the-box for SETI!


If something goes wrong and the cards initially start returning garbage it could take anything from a couple of days, to a couple of weeks, to a couple of months to fix.

It's happened before but I wasn't in the forums when it did. You'll have to wait until someone drops by that was, if you'd like more info...
9) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785759)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
I will be waiting for the GTX 1060.

GTX 1060Ti or 1050Ti for me.

EDIT- similar power consumption to my GTX 750Tis, but double the performance (with a bit of luck). That'd make it worthwhile for me.


I don't know if the 750 Ti's performance per watt is the stuff of legend but it most certainly deserves to be. It's a complete outlier. A bit of a freak in that department actually.

So I bet you'll get the "double the performance" part of your wish but I can't imagine a scenario where the card doesn't use at least 50% more juice than what you're burning now...

Unless of course another outlier shows up. If it does it'll likely be a GP107 chip. But those'll probably go into laptops this gen.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785710)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
"We know from NVIDIA’s previous Tesla P100 announcement that the company has opted to pay special attention to CUDA Core efficiency with Pascal, improving the throughput of the architecture as opposed to adding a significant number of additional CUDA cores. As a result, like previous architectural shifts, core-for-core comparisons are going to be tricky thanks to GP104 hitting a higher percentage of its theoretical throughput in practice."

http://anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-1070

Awesome :)
11) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785700)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
OK so let's do some number crunching in the Number Crunching forum:

Wiki doesn't have the full 1070 specs up yet so I'll use the 1080 specs and Wiki's more conservative 8228 GFLOPS. But let's stay on the optimistic side and pretend for now that this generation is compute-oriented (because of VR requirements and those insane core frequencies) until/unless we have evidence that indicates otherwise. So here goes nothing:

8228 GFLOPS divided by GTX 460 907.2 GFLOPS equals 9.069 times faster.
GTX 480 1344.96 GFLOPS - GTX 1080 6.117 times faster

- GTX 560 Ti 1263.4 GFLOPS - 6.512 times faster
- GTX 580 1581.1 GFLOPS - 5.204 times faster
- GTX 660 1881.6 GFLOPS - 4.373 times faster
- GTX 680 3090.43 GFLOPS - 2.662 times faster
- GTX 770 3213.3 GFLOPS - 2.560 times faster
- GTX 780 Ti 5045.7 GFLOPS - 1.630 times faster
- GTX 970 3494 GFLOPS - 2.354 times faster
- GTX 980 Ti 5632 GFLOPS - 1.461 times faster

So if Pascal really is compute oriented and there's a loose real-world GFLOPS correlation with Fermi gen cards then you get:

Roughly 6x the compute power of a 480 or 560 Ti for about 180 Watts.

Pas mal ;)
12) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785685)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Quoting myself:
Actually it's the 1080 that may be marginally better in terms of dollar-to-throughput.


Damn. My bad. Too tired to think straight these days and was relying on math I did on the back of a napkin last night right before going to bed... and got the fractions the wrong way 'round. Oops :)

Anyway:
GTX 1070 6500 GFLOPS @$379
GTX 1080 9000 GFLOPS @$599

So 6500/379 equals 17.15 GFLOPS per dollar for the 1070
And 9000/599 equals 15.025 GFLOPS per dollar for the 1080

So you'll probably get at least 10% more real-world Seti performance per dollar with the 1070. Theoretically maybe even 15%...
13) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785642)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Going to wait until they decide to show us all of their products, not just a first few that come out.


Actually... I just remembered there's a GP102 rumor flying around. IF true then that'll likely be a Titan but maybe even a 1080Ti too :) So if maximum throughput per card is the goal then yes, it may actually show up sooner rather than later.

But again in dollars-to-throughput I doubt the scales will tip dramatically...

However next to no-one thinks there's a chance the GP100 ("Big" Pascal in the Tesla card) is going to show up in a GeForce this gen. So maybe around this time next year...

Again all rumors.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785627)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
(continued from previous post)

....So comparing the Titan X to the 1070 was a bad idea. The price difference clouded my judgment. Sorry. However the 1070 should be noticeably better than the vanilla 980 @Seti crunching. Maybe 20% better realistically? Too early to tell of course...

But that brings us to Juan's question:
- Will be the 1070 a real winner or is better to go to the 1080?


Nah... maybe for gaming there'll be an edge but not for Seti. Evidence so far suggests that dollar-for-dollar they're likely almost completely equal. Actually it's the 1080 that may be marginally better in terms of dollar-to-throughput. But again, likely not enough of a dif to be important. So I guess the real answer is "whichever suits you best". By that I obviously mean budget, existing power supply, case, number of wanted cards etc.

However the above does NOT take power consumption into consideration. But difference there likely won't be significant either. Because these are same-generation cards. But difs may likely be considerable to previous gen cards. Probably worth the change-over for 24/7 crunchers of multiple high end cards as power savings in dollars could run into the hundreds annually. But we still have time to figure all that out:)

Wiki specs are up now BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_10_Series
15) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785611)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Not me, after watching them release the 980 then waiting a few months to release the 980Ti as short time later with specs that equalled or passed the Titans Xs


Not arguing with ya or anything, but the Ti was something like 9 months after the vanilla 980.

As for the Titan, we now know that it's a niche GPU and likely "useless" for SETI. In the sense that most of the extra money you pay is for DP performance (which for SETI-only crunchers is useless)...

Which brings me to my next post...
16) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785464)
Posted 17 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
maybe someone could buy the gpus at normal prices and bring them to you

It's happened in the past.


petri, Kevvy...

Maybe you guys should take the next plane to Aussieland and take your 980s with you. If you can sell 'em within the next couple of weeks you'll have scored a "free"* trip to the land down under :)

*Because whatever money you have left over from the trip, you can invest in 1070s and likely still end up with the same RAC you've got today ;)

Just thinkin' outside the box...
17) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785448)
Posted 17 days ago by Profile Alex Storey

They did skip a process node, and amp the memory/subsystem, so the claims seem viable. Time will tell if it's any good for compute, though the implications of some of the graphics+VR features seem to imply better/more-flexible processing.

For example they mentioned physics based audio processing for VR, which should be heavy floating point oriented, so we might get the raw TFlops we'd like.


Hmmm... reluctant to believe the numbers as far as SETI performance goes but IF I'm reading 'em correctly the 1070 (yes 1070) should be slightly better @crunching than the $999 Titan X?

@$379?

Sounds too good to be true.... Allegedly 6.5 TFLOPS.
9 TFLOPS for the 1080.

(BTW I DID get the 1070 launch date wrong, it's June 10th)
18) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1785361)
Posted 17 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
New name's official:

NVIDIA GTX 1080

more updates soon...

edit1: "Faster" than Titan X and TDP @180W AFAICT
edit2: "Faster" than GTX 980 in SLI
edit3: Sorry should have said it's live... Here's the link
https://www.twitch.tv/nvidia

edit4: 1080 $599 May 27
1070 $379 June 3
Going from memory so numbers could be a bit off (not 100% sure about the 1070 release date for example)

Jason beat me to it ;)
19) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Wars 2016: NVIDIA GTX 1080/1070 (Message 1784832)
Posted 19 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
Wow... Did NVIDIA just outdo Steve J on grandiose-sounding?

http://orderof10.com/humanityshallbeenlightened

AMD sounding downright humble by comparison:

https://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/radeon-polaris
20) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1784828)
Posted 19 days ago by Profile Alex Storey
OK so it's semi-official it's gonna be Donald vs. Hillary...

Unfortunately I still don't think Hillary can rope-a-dope Trump 'till November.

If Sanders can bring out Hillary's natural-born-entitlement side...

I fear Trump is gonna force Hillary into a mini-meltdown, then the press and Trump-allergic voters are going to pretend it never happened.

Dunno if it'll be enough to make Don president but for now I see no reason it couldn't.

Anyway, that's what my crystal ball is (still) saying.


Next 20

Copyright © 2016 University of California