Questions and Answers :
GPU applications :
How fast are different cards?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
HFB1217 Send message Joined: 25 Dec 05 Posts: 102 Credit: 9,424,572 RAC: 0 |
First go into your Bios and disable EIST that is a power saving function that keeps the CPU from running at full speed all the time. Secondly is your CUDA is not optimized then download Raistmer's optimizer http://lunatics.kwsn.net/gpu-crunching/ak-v8-cuda-mb-team-work-mod.0.html This will error out those VLAR workunits. Hope this helps out. Come and Visit Us at BBR TeamStarFire ****My 9th year of Seti****A Founding Member of the Original Seti Team Starfire at Broadband Reports.com **** |
perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3377 Credit: 20,676,751 RAC: 0 |
Hank, you are a bit out of date. If he is running 6.6.20 he doesn't need the team mod anymore. Check around for one of Raistmer's stand alone mods and the correct app_info for your setup. This thread http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=52589 will give you a good idea how to set it up. PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC |
(Ryle) Send message Joined: 18 Aug 05 Posts: 3 Credit: 1,916,218 RAC: 0 |
I think you may all be right :) I freed up a cpu-core as Gundolf suggested, and now it produces some of them in under 10 minutes. But I still get many of those VLAR's. I've been trying to keep an eye on the manager for the last day, and mostly notice the VLARs. That may be because the other types go so fast that they disappear before i notice them. With regards to Raistmers mod, I'm not too keen on editing any boinc files. Not yet at least. So I'll keep that one in mind for now. |
Frederic Salve Send message Joined: 13 Nov 00 Posts: 2 Credit: 2,528,859 RAC: 0 |
I just installed a Gigabyte GTX 260 (216 cores) OC @630MHz. It is crushing Seti Cuda WU in 10 minutes and 10 seconds average. |
Andy Williams Send message Joined: 11 May 01 Posts: 187 Credit: 112,464,820 RAC: 0 |
MSI GTX 260 factory OC @655 MHz 8 minutes 20 seconds. -- Classic 82353 WU / 400979 h |
TCP JESUS Send message Joined: 19 Jan 03 Posts: 205 Credit: 1,248,845 RAC: 0 |
I have played around a bit with only a few cards, but have no real way of testing other than what BOINC spits out in the 'MESSAGE' section when it detects the CUDA devices upon startup. I am interested in more info as well, if some of the guys with GTX 200 series cards wouldn't mind sharing..... For example: CUDA devices: GeForce 9600 GSO (driver version 18585, CUDA version 1.1, 384MB, est. 62GFLOPS), GeForce 9600 GSO (driver version 18585, CUDA version 1.1, 768MB, est. 46GFLOPS) In the machine above, I am running 2 x 9600 GSO (unmatched cards) in a Crossfire Motherboard. 1 card is stock, the other is overclocked quite a bit. Here are a few cards that I have made note of when starting BIONC and what it estimates their performance as: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Quadro NVS 290, 256MB PCIe, 16 Cores - 5 GFLOPS - Geforce 8500 GT, 512MB PCIe, 16 Cores - 6 GFLOPS - Geforce 9600 GSO, 768MB (DDR2) PCIe, 96 Cores - 46 GFLOPS <---CURRENT SECONDARY CARD - (same card above, overclocked by 5% +) ...... - 48 GFLOPS - Geforce 9600 GSO, 384MB (DDR3) PCIe, 96 Cores - 48 GFLOPS - (same card above, overclocked by 30% +) ..... - 62 GFLOPS <---CURRENT PRIMARY CARD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyone else care to share their BOINC message/estimation at startup ? Thanks. Allan |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 |
CUDA device: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 106GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 106GFLOPS) F. |
Hammeh Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 135 Credit: 1,143,316 RAC: 0 |
My 8500GT: 22/05/2009 16:13:02 CUDA device: GeForce 8500 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 5GFLOPS) Quite shockingly low!! I don't even bother running CUDA on it anyone, not worth the hassle of it overheating and causing system slowdowns. |
KW2E Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 346 Credit: 104,396,190 RAC: 34 |
Here's some of the ones I have. I have not posted any dupes, although I have many and all vary in GFLOPS ratings for the same card on various systems. (OS?) CUDA device: GeForce GTX 295 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 106GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce GTX 275 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 123GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce GTX 280 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 1024MB, est. 130GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 100GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce 8400 GS (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 256MB, est. 5GFLOPS) <-PCIe CUDA device: GeForce 8400 GS (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 256MB, est. 4GFLOPS) <-PCI CUDA device: GeForce 8600 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 256MB, est. 14GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce 8600M GS (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 6GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce 9800 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 1024MB, est. 60GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce 9800 GTX+ (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 84GFLOPS) CUDA device: GeForce 9600 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 34GFLOPS) Rob |
perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3377 Credit: 20,676,751 RAC: 0 |
5/21/2009 11:49:35 AM CUDA device: GeForce 8500 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 5GFLOPS) I wasn't going to post in this until I saw Hammeh's post. I'm running a Celeron E1400 dual @ 2.0G. My 8500GT is giving me about the equivalent of another core and a half. Way slower than the big guns but a lot better than without. PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC |
TCP JESUS Send message Joined: 19 Jan 03 Posts: 205 Credit: 1,248,845 RAC: 0 |
After doing a little Linpack benching on a couple Q6600 Systems I have, it's easy to see why GPU crunchers reign supreme....even over 16 CPU Machines. My quick findings....(most likely common knowledge already as well) System #1 - Q6600 Quad @ 3.2Ghz - 10 GFLOPS/core (40 GFLOPS Total) System #2 - Q6600 Quad @ STOCK/2.4Ghz - 6.5 GFLOPS/core (26 GFLOPS Total) This leads me to this great find: SETI GPU Cruncher's Dream Motherboard ($60 MSI 945GCM478-L) + (Socket.478 P4 $5 CPU) + ($10 worth of DDR2 Memory) + GTX 295 = MONSTER CRUNCHER ! ...that is, unless Tri or Quad SLI is your preference and you already have a board capable ;) Just a thought, perhaps not even a very good one...lol Allan I am TCP JESUS...The Carpenter Phenom Jesus....and HAMMERING is what I do best! formerly known as...MC Hammer. |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 |
After doing a little Linpack benching on a couple Q6600 Systems I have, it's easy to see why GPU crunchers reign supreme....even over 16 CPU Machines. Doesn't quite reflect my experience. I ran a Q6600 (@3.2GHz) for quite a while before I replaced it with my current Q9450 which I am able to run at 3.6GHz. The performance of the two at the same clock speed is not massively different. Now my GTX295 is estimated by Boinc at 106GFlops per GPU and each GPU is roughly equivalent to 2 cores of my Q9450 (i.e. adding the GTX doubled my RAC + a little bit). So that puts the Q9450 @ 3.6GHz at about 53GFlops per core. F. |
TCP JESUS Send message Joined: 19 Jan 03 Posts: 205 Credit: 1,248,845 RAC: 0 |
....So that puts the Q9450 @ 3.6GHz at about 53GFlops per core. Have you run IntelBurnTest on that CPU ? Was I interpreting the data that I received, wrong ? Was the 26 GFLOPS output using IntelBurnTest a 'PER CORE' value on my Stock Clock/2.4Ghz Q6600 ? (..should I NOT have devided the results by 4 ?).... I am just wondering how I can get actual APPLES-TO-APPLES comparison, rather than estimating using times and WU results. Thanks. Allan I am TCP JESUS...The Carpenter Phenom Jesus....and HAMMERING is what I do best! formerly known as...MC Hammer. |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 |
I hadn't come across the IntelBurnTest. Just googled it and looked at a couple of forums. It looks like your are interpreting the results right - perhaps it is the Boinc estimate for my GTX that is inaccurate. I'm not sure if I am prepared to toast my CPU to find out - perhaps after I have caught a few zzzzzzz's. F. |
jrusling Send message Joined: 8 Sep 02 Posts: 37 Credit: 4,764,889 RAC: 0 |
5/22/2009 3:52:25 PM CUDA device: GeForce 9600 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 37GFLOPS) http://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/18390/sig.png |
KW2E Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 346 Credit: 104,396,190 RAC: 34 |
|
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
Want to know GFLOPS for Intel CPUs? They don't list any Xeon CPUs like my E5430s. I suppose it would be closest to the Core 2 Quad Q9450 CPU, but I have two physical chips. |
TCP JESUS Send message Joined: 19 Jan 03 Posts: 205 Credit: 1,248,845 RAC: 0 |
Want to know GFLOPS for Intel CPUs? I have seen that link before and although it's directly from Intel, it's different than what the Linpack tests spit out for a Q6600 @ stock speeds. IntelCPUburn/Linpak Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz = 26.xx GFLOPS Intel Website Specs Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz = 38.xx GFLOPS I would just really like to know the method used to calculate by Intel, so that a TRUE Video Card vs CPU comparison can be done. It's too bad that BOINC didn't just spit out a CPU MFLOPS estimate right below the Video card/Cuda device estimate during startup so that we could compare on a level playing field. Allan I am TCP JESUS...The Carpenter Phenom Jesus....and HAMMERING is what I do best! formerly known as...MC Hammer. |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 |
....So that puts the Q9450 @ 3.6GHz at about 53GFlops per core. OK. I decided to take the plunge and here is what IntelBurn Test says about my Q9450 (stable at both standard and maximum stress levels - phew!!) ---------------------------- IntelBurnTest v2.1 : Standard Stress Level Created by AgentGOD ---------------------------- Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz Clock Speed: 3.60 GHz Active Physical Cores: 4 Total System Memory: 4094 MB Testing started on 23/05/2009 21:25:06 Time (s) Speed (GFlops) Result [21:25:31] 18.645 47.9430 3.068952e-002 [21:25:55] 18.548 48.1918 3.068952e-002 [21:26:20] 18.503 48.3093 3.068952e-002 [21:26:44] 18.457 48.4311 3.068952e-002 [21:27:08] 18.543 48.2057 3.068952e-002 Testing ended on 23/05/2009 21:27:08 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- IntelBurnTest v2.1 : Maximum Stress Level Created by AgentGOD ---------------------------- Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz Clock Speed: 3.60 GHz Active Physical Cores: 4 Total System Memory: 4094 MB Testing started on 23/05/2009 21:28:55 Time (s) Speed (GFlops) Result [21:30:22] 72.133 47.0287 3.134522e-002 [21:31:50] 74.157 45.7451 3.134522e-002 [21:33:17] 74.070 45.7985 3.134522e-002 [21:34:44] 72.996 46.4721 3.134522e-002 [21:36:10] 72.025 47.0988 3.134522e-002 Testing ended on 23/05/2009 21:36:10 ---------------------------- And the maximum core temp was 73C for a moment; mainly sat around 67C - 70C. It normally sits around 60C when crunching. So now I wonder about Boinc's estimates for the GFlops of the GPUs. I can only surmise that the wonderful work that the Lunatics crew has done optimising the code for the CPU makes the difference and that if the GPU code were optimised to the same degree my GPU could do two and a half times as much work as my CPU (on each GPU core?) giving a RAC of about 28K (or 48k if the 106 GFlops for the GTX really is per GPU core). F. |
Uffe F Send message Joined: 7 Sep 04 Posts: 2 Credit: 135,337 RAC: 0 |
5/22/2009 3:52:25 PM CUDA device: GeForce 9600 GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 37GFLOPS) How do you get it to 37 GFLOPS? any tweaking? mine says: 11-06-2009 15:27:09 CUDA device: GeForce 9600M GT (driver version 18585, compute capability 1.1, 512MB, est. 14GFLOPS) |
©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.