Or better yet, a group of cores?

My 16core would take about 7000 secs to do a 100+ credit task.
Now it's taking 12000:(

Or better yet, a group of cores?

My 16core would take about 7000 secs to do a 100+ credit task.
Now it's taking 12000:(

If its not failing them it sounds more like its downclocked or has fallen back to using the cpu. Can you provide a link to the wu?

Or better yet, a group of cores?

My 16core would take about 7000 secs to do a 100+ credit task.
Now it's taking 12000:(

If its not failing them it sounds more like its downclocked or has fallen back to using the cpu. Can you provide a link to the wu?

Or perhaps he is falling victim to the fact that WUs seem to be getting less credit now than fairly recently (my APs of similar length have gone (mostly) from the mid-700 credits to the 600s). So to get 100 credits, he would have to compute for longer now.

Which is causing the RAC on both my machines to slowly decrease even though they have been running solid over the last few weeks, with no downtime due to running out of WUs.

Does that make sense?

---

Or better yet, a group of cores?

My 16core would take about 7000 secs to do a 100+ credit task.
Now it's taking 12000:(

If its not failing them it sounds more like its downclocked or has fallen back to using the cpu. Can you provide a link to the wu?

Or perhaps he is falling victim to the fact that WUs seem to be getting less credit now than fairly recently (my APs of similar length have gone (mostly) from the mid-700 credits to the 600s). So to get 100 credits, he would have to compute for longer now.

Which is causing the RAC on both my machines to slowly decrease even though they have been running solid over the last few weeks, with no downtime due to running out of WUs.

Does that make sense?

You might well be right. I'm running my 'main' for longer and my RAC has dropped back quite a bit, just in the last few weeks. I may get the odd 'reward' which is quite nice, but in the main, its working longer for less...a bit like pensions in the UK! lol

---

Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

It's not one WU in particular, it's all of them. And as far as I can tell it's been going on for about three weeks. The card just seems to be running at half speed (fortunately without producing any errors). I haven't caught it downclocking, the temps are normal and so is the GPU load. I'm pretty sure it's got nothing to do with how credit is granted since "Estimated task size in GFLOPs" vs eventual granted credit look unchanged.

I just hope there's nothing wrong with the GPU.

What about the GPU memory? Could that be half gone?

Get hold of a copy of GPU-Z, a little free utility that allows you to monitor a GPU in real time. This will show what speed the various bits of the GPU are running at, how much of the GPU's resources you are using, and what temperature it is running at. It will also report the driver version you are actually using - some are known to give the sort of problems you are reporting.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

It's not one WU in particular, it's all of them. And as far as I can tell it's been going on for about three weeks. The card just seems to be running at half speed (fortunately without producing any errors). I haven't caught it downclocking, the temps are normal and so is the GPU load. I'm pretty sure it's got nothing to do with how credit is granted since "Estimated task size in GFLOPs" vs eventual granted credit look unchanged.

I just hope there's nothing wrong with the GPU.

What about the GPU memory? Could that be half gone?

I haven't heard about partially burned out CUDA-Cored or parts of memory,
yet, also 'sounds' a bit weird.

It could be possible, memory or CUDA cores, (SHADER's), but haven't heard or seen
an example of this.

I experienced, some drop-down of GPU; core/memory/shader-speed, depending of the driver used.
And particular DC projects don't work flawlessly, with SETI's, (optimized?) and
(Bêta?) app.'s for ATI (2x EAH5870's), even causes memory (waiting?) problems
and crashes.

I've, for the moment, only CPU Projects, Rosetta, LHC and Malaria Control
, installed, Einstein@home (whitout GPU!

No work from Milkyway, don't like Collatz C.(personal view!)
Installed on this host.

After installing BOINC(6.12.34; 64bit), again on a new HDD, first new install of WIN 7(64bit) ofcoarse on a new set of SAMSUNG HD503HJ(500GB) and 2 HD103SJ
(1TB) and 2 500GB USB 3.0 (really high througput of ~100MB/s to 150MB/s, from
SATA II (system-disks) to USB 3.0, linked HDD.
Also using ReadyBoost, through a 133MB/s SD card of 8 GByte, limitting HDD
access!

I, also upped the system clock from 100MHz to 102MHz., it runs 3.6GHz
and 3.9GHz. if 2 cores are used, turbo-mode
System is stable, ran a variety of BenchMark Tests.

In the next week I'll install SETI (Bêta) again and hope all goes well and behaves well,,,,,.....;-).

Sorry, if I slipped too much off topic, but life-time expectencies may significantly drop to unwanted values, when Non-FERMI cards are used 100%, 24x
7, cooling and sufficient power, is a necessity, in avoiding faults and
burned out cores/shaders or memory, useally affecting [b]all of the cards contents.

Also apologies to my wingmates, whom had to wait longer, cause a lot of tasks
timed out or were faulty!

---

The card just seems to be running at half speed ...

Why "seems"?

Use MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision to check and report the exact speeds (MHz) of GPU Core/Shader/Memory
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=64917&nowrap=true#1173453

GPU-Z also reports them:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

I'm using GPU-Z and even tried CUDA-Z

A couple of things I just noticed and am not sure of:
GPU-Z says Memory Size 512MB then in the Sensors tab says 180MB Memory Usage (Dedicated). Is this normal?
CUDA-Z says 2 multiprocessors. Anybody know what that means?

Oh, and thank you all for your replies!

I'm willing to bet this is probably due to a nVidia driver update. Perhaps one of the nVidia folks could recommend an older driver that would maximize his GPU cycles.

I assume this is an onboard chip so you'll have dedicated video thats no biggy.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'll offer you indispensable troubleshooters a fresh angle at the problem I'm facing:

Event log - 35 GFLOPS peak
Task properties - Estimated app speed 13.62 GFLOPs/sec

Any ideas?
And for the life of me, I can't catch my GPU downclocking no matter how hard I try!

Event log - 35 GFLOPS peak
Task properties - Estimated app speed 13.62 GFLOPs/sec

Any ideas?

the 'GFlops peak' are theoretical 'marketing Flops' and only acheivable in code under specific, not very realistic conditions. Typical real world thoughput of a little below half that is about right.

When you've been comparing task elapsed times, have you been taking the task "Angle Range' into consideration ? Processing times vary a lot depending on the rate the telescope was moving during the observations, so comparing tasks with roughly the same angle range is essential.

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Thanx Jason,

I know nVIDIA's numbers are "creative" (much like stereo Watts and TFT contrast ratios, to name a few), and even though I can't remember the old numbers, I was under the impression I was running higher (25 GFLOPS, for example). But if you say less than half is normal, then that's good enough for me. As for the angles, if you are referring to vlars, SETI doesn't send those to my GPU.

For all intents and purposes I consider this question answered, that pretty much "No, a CUDA core/group of cores cannot burn out" (not without the card producing errors, anyway). Skildude is probably right, it may be driver related. If/when I figure out what I messed up, I'll post an update.

Thanx everybody!

Thanx Jason,

I know nVIDIA's numbers are "creative" (much like stereo Watts and TFT contrast ratios, to name a few), and even though I can't remember the old numbers, I was under the impression I was running higher (25 GFLOPS, for example). But if you say less than half is normal, then that's good enough for me. As for the angles, if you are referring to vlars, SETI doesn't send those to my GPU.

For all intents and purposes I consider this question answered, that pretty much "No, a CUDA core/group of cores cannot burn out" (not without the card producing errors, anyway). Skildude is probably right, it may be driver related. If/when I figure out what I messed up, I'll post an update.

Thanx everybody!

NVIDIA ION GPU. (Some added information)

NVIDIA's number on CUDA-cores, aren't "creative" ;-) and you certainly can't
compaire them to "Watt's on AUDIO-Devices", which handle, R.M.S.* (Sinus)
Power and a number of irrelevant # of Watt's, i.e. Music Power, total Watt's, etc.
An (audio) Watt is (OutPut)Voltage devided by the impedance (Ohm), measured
when the device is not clipping, i.e. running from max. V to min. Volt.
And a given distorsion, but this is getting way out off TOPIC :)
* Root Mean Square.

---

When comparing with "stereo Watts" ("Music Power") he was talking about the advertised (inflated/synthetic/theoretical) GFLOPS
- Not about the number of CUDA-cores or multiprocessors.


Here is a table for Multiprocessors / CUDA cores for different GPUs:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20100606/gpu-computing-nvidia-cuda-compute-capability-comparative-table/

For Fermi:
1 Multiprocessor = 32 or 48 CUDA cores (depends on model - Compute Capability 2.0 or 2.1)

For older CUDA GPUs:
1 Multiprocessor = 8 CUDA cores


More info (PDF):
http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/fermi_white_papers/NVIDIA_Fermi_Compute_Architecture_Whitepaper.pdf

" Fermi:
Third Generation Streaming Multiprocessor (SM)
32 CUDA cores per SM, 4x over GT200
"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)