Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Application 6.48 for Windows
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 [AF>HFR>RR] Jim PROFITSend message Joined: 3 Jun 07 Posts: 107 Credit: 31,331,137 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications    | |
|
I was surprise to see this application this morning, and no thread on the forum! | |
ID: 3079 | Rating: 0 | rate:
 /   Reply
Quote
| |
UBT - NaRyan Send message Joined: 16 Jul 08 Posts: 68 Credit: 1,242,980 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications    | |
|
I also had a workunit get done with v6.48 yesterday. | |
| ID: 3080 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
I have two of them. One is waiting to be processed by a 8800GT, the other one is now being processed by a GTX280 and the CPU load is about 50% of one CPU core (25% total load) (Intel Core 2 Duo 8500 no OC.) I'll report results when it be completed. | |
| ID: 3087 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
I had put some out to compute with the new application for testing. | |
| ID: 3089 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
GDF, thank you for your work :) | |
| ID: 3090 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Just perfect... | |
| ID: 3091 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Kokomiko   Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications  | |
|
With a GTX280 on a Phenom Quad 9950 BE at 2.6 GHz under Vista 64 bit the 6.48 is using 15% of the CPU power, thats ca. 60% of the power of one core. | |
| ID: 3092 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Stefan Ledwina Send message Joined: 16 Jul 07 Posts: 464 Credit: 221,007,857 RAC: 4,333,521 Level  Scientific publications | |
With a GTX280 on a Phenom Quad 9950 BE at 2.6 GHz under Vista 64 bit the 6.48 is using 15% of the CPU power, thats ca. 60% of the power of one core. Same here with an Intel Q9300, GTX 260 and Vista 64. A few times to compare - Windows 6.45 - 43-45ms/step Linux 6.47 - ~32 ms/step Windows 6.48 - 34.2 ms/step for the first WU ____________  pixelicious.at - my little photoblog | |
| ID: 3095 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
localizer Send message Joined: 17 Apr 08 Posts: 113 Credit: 1,656,514,857 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
Hi ... | |
| ID: 3096 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
@GDF | |
| ID: 3097 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Hi GDF. | |
| ID: 3098 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Kokomiko Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
There is no big difference between my GTX260 and GTX280. | |
| ID: 3099 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
Do you have the new GTX260 with 216 shaders? | |
| ID: 3102 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
DeleteNull Send message Joined: 28 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 142,385,295 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
Hi, | |
| ID: 3104 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
STE\/E Send message Joined: 18 Sep 08 Posts: 368 Credit: 3,250,594,866 RAC: 50,708,680 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
I received the same errors on the new 6.48 Application, I rebooted which usually stops any errors but it still got them so I set the Box to NNW for now ... ??? | |
| ID: 3105 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
I received the same errors on the new 6.48 Application The output of Stoffelstasks shows the "incorrect function" error, whereas you get "<message> - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)</message>]]>". Don't know what that means though. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
| ID: 3106 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
CPU Time down from about 3000 seconds to 40 | |
| ID: 3107 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Kokomiko Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Do you have the new GTX260 with 216 shaders? Yes, you're right. Just checked with GPU-Z, it's a GTX260² with 216 Shaders. ____________   | |
| ID: 3108 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Well, the new 6.48 WUs are fine for me: | |
| ID: 3109 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
CPU Time down from about 3000 seconds to 40 The WU you're linking to was crunched with 6.45, not 6.48. You're currently getting times between 37 and 41 ms/step.. which will surely improve once you get 6.48-WUs. Regarding CPU-usage: you had a unit with ~40s before. On my machine CPU time increases to ~1h if I use it interactively, otherwise I get times in the tens of seconds. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
| ID: 3110 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
STE\/E Send message Joined: 18 Sep 08 Posts: 368 Credit: 3,250,594,866 RAC: 50,708,680 Level Scientific publications | |
I received the same errors on the new 6.48 Application It may have something to do with both Stoffel & my card being older ones, his being a 9800 & mine a 8800GT. I have 2 other Box's with GTX 260's both the 216 Shader variety type that are Processing the 6.48's just fine in under 7 hr's time ... :) | |
| ID: 3111 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
My point is that you both are getting different errors, not the same - despite of what the BOINC manager output says (it can only report the symptom, not the cause). So while you could be correct that the new client may have a problem with older hardware, I expect that this would be a special problem and not a general one. Otherwise we should be seeing many more user complaints. | |
| ID: 3112 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
There is no big difference between my GTX260 and GTX280. The GTX280 times should be ~10-15% faster -- it seems they are a little bit to slow. The speed of the 260 is ok (if it´s a stock GTX260² with 216 shaders) Cu KyleFL | |
| ID: 3121 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
The GTX280 times should be ~10-15% faster -- it seems they are a little bit to slow. It was only a single WU anyway, wasn't it? MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
| ID: 3122 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Kokomiko Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Yeas. Meanwhile I have 3 crunched on the GTX280, here the values: Clock rate: 1296000 kilohertz # Time per step: 28.124 ms WU: 23905.296 s Clock rate: 1404000 kilohertz # Time per step: 28.564 ms WU: 24279.624 s Clock rate: 1296000 kilohertz # Time per step: 27.046 ms WU: 22989.391 s The clockrate in the second WU is manual set to a higher value, also the memory and the shader. Looks like the WUs are very different in the length. ____________ | |
| ID: 3123 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
a 280 normally clocked is around 24ms on linux. I don't know why your 280 is slower. Next applications will print also the number of shaders. All the wus have the same length, although this is going to change soon. | |
| ID: 3125 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Sherman H. Send message Joined: 28 Sep 08 Posts: 27 Credit: 6,201,632,872 RAC: 3 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
Unfortunately 6.45 is a rather significant step backwards for me: | |
| ID: 3131 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
K1atOdessa Send message Joined: 25 Feb 08 Posts: 249 Credit: 387,028,788 RAC: 1,197,795 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
I have two 8800GT's, with only one 6.48 result in so far. Given the lack of a large enough sample, I can't make any conclusions yet. However, it appears this WU completed about 13% faster than 6.45's using the same drivers. The CPU usage did increase from 1-2% to about 19% on that core (Q6600, so using about 75% of that core instead of only 5%). | |
| ID: 3132 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
STE\/E Send message Joined: 18 Sep 08 Posts: 368 Credit: 3,250,594,866 RAC: 50,708,680 Level Scientific publications | |
I received the same errors on the new 6.48 Application I did a Reboot & Project Reset early this morning on the Box giving the Error's and running a 8800GT OC. I was finally able to get a couple of PS3 Wu's a few Minutes ago and 1 of the Wu's did start up & run 20 or so seconds before the other Project (Poem) took back over and started running it's Wu's in Priority Mode (roll's eyes) so I'll have to wait until the PS3 Wu decides to start back up again ... | |
| ID: 3133 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
A general remark for everyone: be careful with statements like "the new client is xx% faster/slower" based on a single result. On my machine I've seen times between 70 and 52 ms/step with application 6.45 (average ~62 ms), so I'd say the time can vary significantly. | |
| ID: 3135 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
DoctorNow  Send message Joined: 18 Aug 07 Posts: 83 Credit: 122,995,082 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
My first 6.48-WU resulted in an error, and I'm pretty sure it was almost finished, but I don't know exactly, it was in the night time as it broke. | |
| ID: 3141 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
My first 6.48 WU is being crunched right now, so far no problems (9800GTX+, 177.13, 6.3.10, XP SP2) and cpu usage is a fairly constant 16-17% of 25% (quad core). BUT I'm seeing an increase in GPU temperature by ~2°C, which hopefully means that the higher CPU usage buys me better GPU utilization, which would really be worth it. | |
| ID: 3143 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Kokomiko Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
I've now nine of the 6.48 WUs crunched on my GTX280 and GTX260 cards and so far found no problems. The performance is much better than with the 6.45 and the 6.43, only 6:20h instead over 8 hours calculation time. The CPU utilization is higher (~15% of the power of one Quad CPU, ~60% of the power of one core), but I don't use a ncpus=5 entry, so this is not important for me. The temperature of the GPU is a little bit higher, but not so high as with the 6.43. | |
| ID: 3145 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Kokomiko Send message Joined: 18 Jul 08 Posts: 190 Credit: 24,093,690 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
Actual the first 6.48 WU is running on my 8800GT. There is the CPU utilization much higher then on my GTX260 or GTX280 cards. It's also on a Phenom Quad CPU (9850 BE). The workload is about 20% of the CPU, that's 80% of the core. It's a higher load as I thought. | |
| ID: 3153 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Krunchin-Keith [USA] Send message Joined: 17 May 07 Posts: 512 Credit: 111,288,061 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
A general remark for everyone: be careful with statements like "the new client is xx% faster/slower" based on a single result. On my machine I've seen times between 70 and 52 ms/step with application 6.45 (average ~62 ms), so I'd say the time can vary significantly. The time varies because it is measured in ELAPSED time, from start to finish including pauses/slowdowns by other task/programs (GPU waits for CPU to poll it) and boinc itself, if it moves the task to waiting to run and the task is left in memory, the elapsed time keeps counting. May happen in other cases, that is the only one I know for sure as I observed it happen and recorded GPU time reflected 5 extra hours in the time and a poorer ms/step. You cannot compare 6.45 shown GPU elapsed times to 6.43 and before which was CPU time, not necessarily reflecting the true GPU time used. --- Now that being said, I've only compared two results on one Windows x86 host for 6.48 on 8800GT-640Mhz stock speed. I see a large increase in CPU time from about 1 hour to 12 hours, CPU usage from 2-4% to 38-40%. GPU elapsed time decreased some, about 2000s or 33min at most from most previous 6.45 tasks, so now they run 15.75hours elapsed GPU time. The 6.45 were mostly in the range of 68ms at the low end, the two 6.48's are 66.55 and 66.6ms. This is running the task at low priority as determined by boinc, not using ncpus+1. NVIDIA driver 178.13, and buggy client 6.3.14. I did just upgrade the driver to 178.24 after those two ran. | |
| ID: 3158 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Thamir Ghaslan Send message Joined: 26 Aug 08 Posts: 55 Credit: 1,475,857 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
WELL DONE! | |
| ID: 3161 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
[BOINC@Poland]AiDec Send message Joined: 2 Sep 08 Posts: 53 Credit: 9,213,937 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
Hardware: | |
| ID: 3179 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Vid Vidmar*  Send message Joined: 27 Aug 08 Posts: 18 Credit: 1,146,374 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
Hi! | |
| ID: 3190 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Sherman H. Send message Joined: 28 Sep 08 Posts: 27 Credit: 6,201,632,872 RAC: 3 Level Scientific publications | |
|
An update to my previous comparison between 6.45 and 6.48. This is from my last post: | |
| ID: 3192 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
ExtraTerrestrial Apes Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
AiDec, | |
| ID: 3199 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
After a few rendered wus: 24500 sec instead of 31500, CPU Util about 15-16% (q6600 3.4 GHZ) | |
| ID: 3211 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
[BOINC@Poland]AiDec Send message Joined: 2 Sep 08 Posts: 53 Credit: 9,213,937 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
AiDec, Yes. Steps: 6.45 without OC (that`s why ca. 33-34 ms) 6.45 OC (28-30 ms) 6.48 OC (24-27 ms) I think it`s little bit more clear now :). And additional explanation (based on old 6.45): If I`m crounching with 3x280 then steps approx(!): 1st-32ms, 2nd-34ms, 3rd-40ms. Also sometimes I`m using just 2xGPU or 1xGPU to crunch when I`m playing games and sometimes I`m setting SLi. Don`t try to look at all WU`s, just some of them are `clear crunched` and I think I know which of them I should use to check new app`s performance :). ____________ | |
| ID: 3213 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
fractal Send message Joined: 16 Aug 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 1,248,879,715 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
9600gso stock, 6.3.10 client, q6600, 3 cpu tasks, one core reserved for GPU | |
| ID: 3384 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Application 6.48 for Windows
