Optimized Clients

Questions and Answers : Windows : Optimized Clients
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Derek Tweedie

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 00
Posts: 18
Credit: 3,387,536
RAC: 22
United Kingdom
Message 253327 - Posted: 25 Feb 2006, 0:52:39 UTC

I have just installed the optimized clients for all my PC's (running XP Pro)

My Pentium m now turns around a unit in about 35 mins (it use to take about 2 hours on the standard seti client software) however, my A64s and XP processors still take hours to do a work unit, noting that my A64 3500 is quite a bit faster than the Pentium 4 M processor I have. Can anyone recommend a better optimized client for the AMD chips?
ID: 253327 · Report as offensive
Gone thanks to mmciastro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 99
Posts: 51
Credit: 112,892
RAC: 0
Message 253746 - Posted: 25 Feb 2006, 20:58:54 UTC

I have an XP 2200+ which takes 3 hours with optimized clients from Tetsuji Maverick Rai. It also takes 3 hours with Cruncher's Cache optimized client (Before using optimized clients it took around 4 hours). So it is not too surprising that your XP still takes hours, it does not get much faster with cache optimization.

Your A64 however should calculate a WU in around an hour with any optimized client. I have Cruncher's cache optimized client for A64s with SSE2 and have around 45 mins per WU on an A64 3200. If your 3500 takes hours you may still have Cool&Quiet activated. It doubles to triples the time per WU as Setiathome is a low priority task and allows the processor to lower the multiplier even when it is in use. Try switching it off by either uninstalling the software, turning it of in your control panel or disabling it in your BIOS. If you want to crunch as fast as possiple you do not need any speed management anyway as your PC is supposed to always run at full throttle.

Regards,

Christoph
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." R.M. Nixon
ID: 253746 · Report as offensive
Profile Derek Tweedie

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 00
Posts: 18
Credit: 3,387,536
RAC: 22
United Kingdom
Message 253890 - Posted: 26 Feb 2006, 3:05:03 UTC - in response to Message 253746.  
Last modified: 26 Feb 2006, 3:06:49 UTC

I have an XP 2200+ which takes 3 hours with optimized clients from Tetsuji Maverick Rai. It also takes 3 hours with Cruncher's Cache optimized client (Before using optimized clients it took around 4 hours). So it is not too surprising that your XP still takes hours, it does not get much faster with cache optimization.

Your A64 however should calculate a WU in around an hour with any optimized client. I have Cruncher's cache optimized client for A64s with SSE2 and have around 45 mins per WU on an A64 3200. If your 3500 takes hours you may still have Cool&Quiet activated. It doubles to triples the time per WU as Setiathome is a low priority task and allows the processor to lower the multiplier even when it is in use. Try switching it off by either uninstalling the software, turning it of in your control panel or disabling it in your BIOS. If you want to crunch as fast as possiple you do not need any speed management anyway as your PC is supposed to always run at full throttle.

Regards,

Christoph



Hi,

Thanks for the reply,

I have cool n quiet turned off in the bios. The Athlon 3500 is taking 2 hrs and 35 mins to do a typical work unit. Any ideas? I have installed the SSE3 seti software as my athlon is the venice core which has SSE3 support.


Cheers

Derek
ID: 253890 · Report as offensive
Gone thanks to mmciastro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 99
Posts: 51
Credit: 112,892
RAC: 0
Message 254227 - Posted: 26 Feb 2006, 21:32:53 UTC - in response to Message 253890.  


[/quote]I have installed the SSE3 seti software as my athlon is the venice core which has SSE3 support.
[/quote]

Just try the SSE2, maybe it makes a difference. Normally SSE3 gives you an advantage of some 1, 2 or 3 percent, but perhaps you have some incompatible setting somewhere (is your BIOS up to date? But the Venice core is around long enough now that that should not be a problem, I guess). Strange though.

Regards,

Christoph
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." R.M. Nixon
ID: 254227 · Report as offensive

Questions and Answers : Windows : Optimized Clients


 
©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.