I've just got to say that I'm really not impressed with these on my GTX 660's even reducing the number of concurrent w/u's from 3 down to 2.

Ridiculously long run times, my 2500K can do these quicker.

Cheers.

I've just got to say that I'm really not impressed with these on my GTX 660's even reducing the number of concurrent w/u's from 3 down to 2.

Is that on CUDA 32, 42, 50 or all of the above?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Vlars takes 4 to 5X to crunch on a 670/690 than a normal WU.

That´s why i ask to return to the old way, No Vlars to Nvidias...

---

Vlars takes 4 to 5X to crunch on a 670/690 than a normal WU.

Do you get 4-5X as much credit?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Vlars takes 4 to 5X to crunch on a 670/690 than a normal WU.

Do you get 4-5X as much credit?

Of course not!

---

Vlars takes 4 to 5X to crunch on a 670/690 than a normal WU.

Do you get 4-5X as much credit?

Of course not!

So it's not worth it.
Even more so from what i've seen posted about the reduced amount of credit people are getting now for normal run time WUs.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Even more so from what i've seen posted about the reduced amount of credit people are getting now for normal run time WUs.

Just had a quick look back though my Valid results.

From the looks of it a completed unit is getting about half the credit it used to. But it's taking twice as long (or more) to do. So that works out to about a 75% reduction in credit per hour by my very rough barely concious reckoning.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I've just got to say that I'm really not impressed with these on my GTX 660's even reducing the number of concurrent w/u's from 3 down to 2.

Is that on CUDA 32, 42, 50 or all of the above?

They are cuda50 but I think that I'll just start aborting them and go back to doing 3 at a time.

Cheers.

OK, that does it they're all being aborted here now.

While running 2 VLAR's on a card my memory controller load drops down to 35-40% but the GPU load jumps to 99% and the power consumption goes up to 90%. Running 3 normal w/u's the memory controller runs between 55-75%, the GPU load between 80-90% and the power consumption goes down to 75-80%.

Cheers.

IMHO VLARs is still work and science.
Better than no work at all.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

IMHO VLARs is still work and science.
Better than no work at all.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether it is good or not but IMO anyone wanting to run them must be a masochist.

Cheers.

I can confirm Wiggo's observations. Also, the estimated crunch times for VLARs are obscure: 15:33 estimated for cuda32 and my GTX 660 needs about 58mins (1 WU/GPU). GPU load is at 90-99%, while for non-VLAR it is at ~61%.

VLAR is sicience to, but why not just put as an option to the user, then we choose if we whant or not be a masochist.

Something like: <VLAR on GPU>1|0<VLAR on GPU> will avoid all this worries.

---

Maybe but it would be more realistic in comparison against ATI/AMD cards.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Compare ATI vs Nvidia is something like compare coke vs pepsi, each one have it´s personal flavor favorite.

On other hand try no run Vlars on Nvidias is like try to mix water and oil, even if you could do, they not mix well with the past of the time...

---

Here's a VLAR on an AMD; 16fe12ab.28387.14939.6.11.120.vlar_0
Run time 2,382.83
CPU time 130.53
That's about the same runtime for an Astropulse on that card. Offer the same amount of credits for a VLAR as an AP, and I'll bet no one would complain about VLARs again.
Just a thought...
;-)

Here's a VLAR on an AMD; 16fe12ab.28387.14939.6.11.120.vlar_0
Run time 2,382.83
CPU time 130.53
That's about the same runtime for an Astropulse on that card. Offer the same amount of credits for a VLAR as an AP, and I'll bet no one would complain about VLARs again.
Just a thought...
;-)

If you run a high blanked AP task it takes 3 times longer but you claim the same amount of credits.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Here's a VLAR on an AMD; 16fe12ab.28387.14939.6.11.120.vlar_0
Run time 2,382.83
CPU time 130.53
That's about the same runtime for an Astropulse on that card. Offer the same amount of credits for a VLAR as an AP, and I'll bet no one would complain about VLARs again.
Just a thought...
;-)

I'll still complain. ;-)

Cheers.

Here's a VLAR on an AMD; 16fe12ab.28387.14939.6.11.120.vlar_0
Run time 2,382.83
CPU time 130.53
That's about the same runtime for an Astropulse on that card. Offer the same amount of credits for a VLAR as an AP, and I'll bet no one would complain about VLARs again.
Just a thought...
;-)

If you run a high blanked AP task it takes 3 times longer but you claim the same amount of credits.

The difference being, you would know how long a VLAR would be before you chose to run it. Along with all the associated warts, as in screen lag. Here is what I would do to to a Blanked AP if I knew it before hand; ap_03jn10aa_B6_P0_00018_20130523_23446.wu_1
percent blanked: 93.55
And, you would get about the same credit for that task.

Here's a VLAR on an AMD; 16fe12ab.28387.14939.6.11.120.vlar_0
Run time 2,382.83
CPU time 130.53
That's about the same runtime for an Astropulse on that card. Offer the same amount of credits for a VLAR as an AP, and I'll bet no one would complain about VLARs again.
Just a thought...
;-)

I'll still complain. ;-)

Cheers.

I think Eric knows that when the crunchers stop complaining he has a problem.