But then again this cuda app is really buggy so its not working quite right...

Yepp, and someone made a fool of himself releasing that crap into the open.

The question is whose gonna take the blame... the berkley boyz or Nvidia ...

3r......I had postulated that nvidia had donated to the project to force the new app through........to bolster the sales of new vid cards.....and I am sure a few went out an bought some...

I was told by certain sources that this was not the case....but I am not sure who to believe.....

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

3r......I had postulated that nvidia had donated to the project to force the new app through........to bolster the sales of new vid cards.....and I am sure a few went out an bought some...

I was told by certain sources that this was not the case....but I am not sure who to believe.....

I don't think that nvidia donated nor that it was their initial intend to port the app.

But I do strongly believe that the administration thought that this new app would quickly attract lots of new users (which seems to work) to squeeze money out of them...

not sure if scam is the proper translation for what i have in mind...

/edit
trickery seems to fit better

---

Join BOINC United now!

3r......I had postulated that nvidia had donated to the project to force the new app through........to bolster the sales of new vid cards.....and I am sure a few went out an bought some...

I was told by certain sources that this was not the case....but I am not sure who to believe.....

I don't think that nvidia donated nor that it was their initial intend to port the app.

But I do strongly believe that the administration thought that this new app would quickly attract lots of new users (which seems to work) to squeeze money out of them...

not sure if scam is the proper translation for what i have in mind...

Attract new users??
I'll bet not more than a dozen...
Most of those posting here about it have been here since dirt was a new thing......

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Attract new users??
I'll bet not more than a dozen...
Most of those posting here about it have been here since dirt was a new thing......

I wouldn't count on that dirty vocal dozen (most of them won't post here... you know .. the gamer kids... see pic below lol...) :p



I've seen some postings on the bigger online news sites here in germany about it... could be quite a few more than a dozen ;)

---

Join BOINC United now!

Is it dumb not to use cuda? I see gpus for less money than a memory upgrade ,$59 with what sounds like more improvment. I know nothing about graphic cards ,but am I getting this right?This was a lowend gpu 512mb 455mz core.

So don't run out and buy one?(actually I let my fingers run to new egg)
I'd still like to know if this is a good way to go, money wise.

Attract new users??
I'll bet not more than a dozen...
Most of those posting here about it have been here since dirt was a new thing......

I wouldn't count on that dirty vocal dozen (most of them won't post here... you know .. the gamer kids... see pic below lol...) :p



I've seen some postings on the bigger online news sites here in germany about it... could be quite a few more than a dozen ;)

if (Fanboy=1) goto Label1


With Homogenious processors coming in the pipe, i don 't think the Cuda stuff will go very far. From an enabling point of view, it is awesome that NV spend all of this time on it, it will be very easy to recompile and run with Homogenious processors with Caches ... :)
The cache part is the important part, algorythm rarely touch only one time the data (Especially Seti) ... and branches are very important.

I am focusing on other stuff than SETI right now, but I think i am fairly happy of what I am seeing, will clean the table later with the hardware, as I always do ;-)

PS: This is my very personal opinion.

:Label1
Fanboy = always right ... then Happy?
lol

I have just discovered the joys of optimized clients since CUDA. The whole thing made me thing am I getting the most out of my computers eating up electricity.
I have since swapped to the latest 'custom' apps for seti and AP on vista and 64b Linux.
I now have 4 cpu's and 1 gpu working on my main box and a further 3 cores chugging away on other computers, waiting to see the increase in points.
The SSSE3(?) optimized AP client makes a huge difference on my Quad core AMD

SSSE3 is Intel-only. AMD users are stuck with a max of SSE3 (only two S's).

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

after trying the CUDA stuff, it pretty well sucks if you run it on the celeron with a GT280 ... I thought the processor did not matter ...
one more marketing hype ... The CPU still does most of the work on the CUDA stuff ...

pffffff...

Who?

Usual FUD-slinging I see?

So... You've just confirmed that the Intel Celerons are crippled with too little on-chip cache and strangled by a very old FSB bottleneck.

Now try a useful test?...

Or even openly demonstrate (and release) something that is of help to everyone?


Or are you just going to play the Marketing Hype game yet again (Yawn...).

Just my opinion as ever.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... I am focusing on other stuff than SETI right now, but I think i am fairly happy of what I am seeing, will clean the table later with the hardware, as I always do ;-)

[...]

lol

As you always never do for SETI.

Yawn yawn yawn...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

From my observations so far CUDA seems to be about level with my 1.86GHz Core2Duo time wise....nothing like the up to 10x claimed...crunching with an factory OC'd 8800GT

Rather disappointed by the claims made by SETI.
I wonder what their test rigs were

---

...

I wonder what their test rigs were

From my understanding, there....were no test rigs. I'm pretty sure the 3-10x speed-up was an educated guess with some suggestion from nVidia.

By the way, I have an 8800GT that I have yet to put to work. I'll wait for it to be worthwhile. I run opti's, but for a very general sense, they just about are "set it and forget it"...for a few months at least.

Right now I see that CUDA has too much micro-managing and baby-sitting to be useful.

I don't really care about the crunch times that it would take though. If it is like having a 5th core on the CPU, then that's 25% more work that can be done in the same amount of time. If it's slower, then obviously that percentage goes down, but it's still an increase nonetheless.

Who knows, I might just opt not to do it at all, which is looking somewhat likely.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

From my observations so far CUDA seems to be about level with my 1.86GHz Core2Duo time wise....nothing like the up to 10x claimed...crunching with an factory OC'd 8800GT

Rather disappointed by the claims made by SETI.
I wonder what their test rigs were

Well so far i'm not disappointed.

My trusty old 8800GTX made in 2006 peforms 430 Gflop with Cuda-Z.

Regular 14.x credit wu's are taking 4 minutes and 55 seconds in realtime and of these minutes and seconds the cpu needs 80 seconds to setup the data for the GPU.

It's truly cool to see BoincMgr update with 0.41x% every update and that is one in a second aproximately.

Yes i've overclocked the shadercore slightly but not that much.

But claiming 10x performance is somewhat an overstatement but not if they compare with a regular dualcore computer today, then it's achievable.

Kind Regards Vyper

---

_________________________________________________________________________
Addicted to SETI crunching!
Founder of GPU Users Group

Hey Who? any word on an update to the Atom chipset? One that would use a lot less power would be nice.

---

From my observations so far CUDA seems to be about level with my 1.86GHz Core2Duo time wise....nothing like the up to 10x claimed...crunching with an factory OC'd 8800GT

Rather disappointed by the claims made by SETI.
I wonder what their test rigs were

As the press-release mentions, a GTX-280 is roughly 2x faster than a i7-965 (3.2 GHz), and a GTX-280 is roughly 10x faster "than an average dual core consumer CPU (2.66 GHz AMD Phenom 995".

Now, why an "average consumer" should buy the most high-end nvidia-card is another matter...

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."

Like Vyper Boinc Manager showed the % rapidly counting down in chunks but only after several hours of crunching so I don't know what's going on.

I've decided to give CUDA another go this time without any other projects vying for CPU time but I've got to get through two Astropulses and several WCG

---

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Asleep at the wheel again?

---

... I am focusing on other stuff than SETI right now, but I think i am fairly happy of what I am seeing, will clean the table later with the hardware, as I always do ;-)

[...]

lol

As you always never do for SETI.

Yawn yawn yawn...

Cheers,
Martin

Really ? remind me what CPU is TOP1 ? (and Who is the performance guy for it?)
Your opinion is always useless and innacurate, as usual, and the lack of people running SETI is proving how annoying you can be in the forum with your buddies ...

well, where is the NV computer in the top 10? top 20? top 30?
At least, I can open my mouth, I got several times my computers on the top 1, what about you? still barking? lol ...

I will be as insolent as you are, help yourself!
I forgot, stop trying to make people think you are smart, smart people do not spend their life pissing off people for the pleasure.

PS: This is my personal opinion.

Webster Merriam is a good dictionary.
Tullio

---

From my observations so far CUDA seems to be about level with my 1.86GHz Core2Duo time wise....nothing like the up to 10x claimed...crunching with an factory OC'd 8800GT

Rather disappointed by the claims made by SETI.
I wonder what their test rigs were

As the press-release mentions, a GTX-280 is roughly 2x faster than a i7-965 (3.2 GHz), and a GTX-280 is roughly 10x faster "than an average dual core consumer CPU (2.66 GHz AMD Phenom 995".

Now, why an "average consumer" should buy the most high-end nvidia-card is another matter...

If this was true, where is the NV result on SETI?

3653198 | tasks 1 Anonymous 10,885.28 3,121,065 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5462 @ 2.80GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.6.0
3666921 | tasks 2 awit 10,471.77 1,356,226 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5482 @ 3.20GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.5.0
4015522 | tasks 3 Helli 9,532.27 4,605,948 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 4.22GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4] Microsoft Windows Vista
Ultimate x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
4529500 | tasks 4 Tomohisa Miya 9,151.88 1,224,324 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5462 @ 2.80GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.6.0
4097989 | tasks 5 Anonymous 8,931.75 3,676,601 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5365 @ 3.00GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 7] Darwin
8.11.1
4641997 | tasks 6 Arthur L. Smith 8,628.33 588,982 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5492 @ 3.40GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10] Microsoft Windows Vista
Business x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
2254633 | tasks 7 ugfbill 8,461.21 5,053,593 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5482 @ 3.20GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.6.0
4558594 | tasks 8 AT3 Schuricht 8,457.64 1,022,612 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2008
Enterprise x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
4537613 | tasks 9 steffff 8,427.75 1,209,717 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2008
Enterprise x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
4564582 | tasks 10 Andy Lee Robinson 8,427.14 975,992 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5410 @ 2.33GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Linux
2.6.18-92.1.13.el5
4515289 | tasks 11 Wild6-NJ 8,280.62 1,214,190 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5430 @ 2.66GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2008
Standard x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
4536563 | tasks 12 steffff 8,275.79 1,157,953 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2008
Enterprise x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
692737 | tasks 13 dcappello 8,241.46 2,836,531 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5482 @ 3.20GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.6.0
4657209 | tasks 14 Gandelf 8,170.05 460,587 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5450 @ 3.00GHz [EM64T Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2"
Enterprise Server x64 Editon, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)
4641147 | tasks 15 john deneer 7,825.93 531,765 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5462 @ 2.80GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.5.0
4221516 | tasks 16 Beren 7,793.70 2,838,146 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5462 @ 2.80GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Darwin
9.6.0
4181753 | tasks 17 Rob Neff (N7ORY) 7,574.77 2,029,646 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5410 @ 2.33GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2"
Standard Server x86 Editon, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)
4676380 | tasks 18 Gandelf 7,537.86 321,176 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4] Microsoft Windows Vista
Ultimate x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)
1239220 | tasks 19 Eric-Extreme-Goldberg 7,452.97 2,887,810 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5365 @ 3.00GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11] Darwin
9.6.0
3440890 | tasks 20 Anonymous 7,390.89 4,321,335 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 4] Microsoft Windows Vista
Business x64 Editon, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00)

no NV stuff in the top 10 ...

It is all marketing BS.
I really hope NV debug their SETI stuff, like this, i will be giving them a punishment in 2009 :), it will take me an hour to port to my own special project ... it is going to be bloody. I did not think NV would try to port SETI, it is extremely cache sensitive ... I am going to be dancing in my cubicle one more time ... The more they enable for CUDA, the more I ll have fun.

Ps: This is my personal opinion.