Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Windows 6.55 CPU Usage
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 The Gas Giant Send message Joined: 20 Sep 08 Posts: 54 Credit: 607,157 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications    | |
|
Any chance of getting the CPU usage for windows back to something reasonable? Having it run at 80% of a core on my Q9450 - while having it say it only needs 0.03 CPU isn't good. | |
ID: 5396 | Rating: 0 | rate:
 /   Reply
Quote
| |
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications   | |
|
See this thread: | |
| ID: 5405 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Rabinovitch  Send message Joined: 25 Aug 08 Posts: 143 Credit: 64,937,578 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications  | |
|
Which version of BOINC do you use? After I've updated it to 6.5.0 CPU usage became mor or less normal - between 13% and 20%. WinXP x64. | |
| ID: 5414 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications  | |
Which version of BOINC do you use? After I've updated it to 6.5.0 CPU usage became mor or less normal - between 13% and 20%. WinXP x64. ON a 4 core system 20% CPU usage is 80% of a core ... Windows reports the percentage on a system basis so that full core usage is 25% on a 4 core and 12% on an 8 CPU system ... GPU Grid is over using core and the tradeoff is to run it while waiting for the improved version that lowers core usage thus doing work for the project (and earning credit) or to suspend GPU Grid for the moment and have more CPU for other projects ... My choice for the moment is to "eat" the loss and run the project (as I am doing for FreeHAL which also seems to be using a little more core than I would like) in the interests of progress ... Every one has to make the choice and there is no single right choice here ... I mean, what do I do when Nvidia has CUDA running on the mac and GPU Grid does not have an application ready ... do I start running Folding at home? :) | |
| ID: 5419 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Rabinovitch Send message Joined: 25 Aug 08 Posts: 143 Credit: 64,937,578 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
You mean that author is processing 4 gpugrid WUs at a time? Hmm... | |
| ID: 5421 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Rabinovitch Send message Joined: 25 Aug 08 Posts: 143 Credit: 64,937,578 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
By the way, it could be sweet if gpugrid crunching would not disturb with graphics "freesing". Even on not so slow GPU - on my gtx260 - I don't feel good when I see my desktop and KNOW, that GPU is busy with WU now... And it's without gaming, only during "starfield" screensaver! | |
| ID: 5422 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
NO ... I mean that if you see a usage number of 20% on a 4 core system, that is 80% of that core's capability. On a 4 core system, 25% is full utilization of a single CPU core. On an 8 core system it is roughly 12% with a couple percent left over that jumps around ... And, running 4 GPU Grid process is not totally out of the question ... with the two core cards I don't know if both would be placed on one task or that the card can run two tasks at the same time. In theory, if the cards run two processes at the same time, and I bought 3 of them, I would be able to run 6 GPU Grid tasks at the same time ... Not that I have plans to do so ... for one thing I haven't paid for any of the latest system yet so I should not continue the buying spree ... and with the troubles in the BOINC Manager and the lack of projects using the GPU I am content to have just two cards running at this time ... though if the Mac PRo can start I will certainly be looking at trying to run on it too ... | |
| ID: 5423 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Which version of BOINC do you use? After I've updated it to 6.5.0 CPU usage became mor or less normal - between 13% and 20%. WinXP x64. That is not at all normal. It should use almost NO CPU time: Here's the analysis for my 9600 GSO: Version 6.56 - Total 2 WUs completed OK WUs worth 3232.06 credits - CPU secs: 334.95 to 338.27 each Version 6.55 - Total 25 WUs completed OK WUs worth 3232.06 credits - CPU secs: 34,341.28 to 51,533.36 each That's over 100 to 1 difference See this thread for more information: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=605 | |
| ID: 5424 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Which version of BOINC do you use? After I've updated it to 6.5.0 CPU usage became mor or less normal - between 13% and 20%. WinXP x64. YOu are correct, it should use next to none ... And one day soon, it should ... :) | |
| ID: 5429 | 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 | |
That is not at all normal. It should use almost NO CPU time: If normal is defined as "what we had during the previous months" then it's perfectly normal. If you define normal as "being ideal", then.. yes, 6.55 is not normal ;) MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
| ID: 5439 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
That is not at all normal. It should use almost NO CPU time: I was defining "normal" as the excellent behavior we had with v.6.56. V6.55 wastes a massive amount of CPU time for no reason. It negatively affects other projects that are not getting the CPU cycles they deserve. I proposed a simple intermediary solution here for 32bit machines: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=605 That was on December 30th. So far still no answer. I hate to be a nag but you asked... | |
| ID: 5528 | 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 | |
|
Well, I've been crunching here a bit longer than you and witnessed the first clients, which needed 100% of one core and I've ssen the results of the first attempts to reduce CPU usage, which lead to unpleasant performance drops of the GPU (less credit, overall). This is not meant to be an excuse, as we finally do have a much better method, but rather to put things into perspective. And since I dedicated one of my cores for months I don't mind some more days. | |
| ID: 5551 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
"The delay in doing this [other] change is that we had a very bad period with the server scheduler which drained a lot of human resources." I would guess that they are hydrated again ... in that that would be the opposite of drained ... ____________ | |
| ID: 5556 | 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 | |
|
Or irrigated? | |
| ID: 5558 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Or irrigated? Ok, does that mean they are back to "swampy"? Or just that now they are all wet? Just trying to clarify ... (Sorry folks ... only sense of humor I have ...) :) ____________ | |
| ID: 5559 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
Well, I've been crunching here a bit longer than you and witnessed the first clients, which needed 100% of one core and I've ssen the results of the first attempts to reduce CPU usage, which lead to unpleasant performance drops of the GPU (less credit, overall). This is not meant to be an excuse, as we finally do have a much better method, but rather to put things into perspective. And since I dedicated one of my cores for months I don't mind some more days. In the case of v6.56 not only was CPU performance massively better but GPU performance improved a bit too. | |
| ID: 5561 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
[SG]Arsenic Send message Joined: 19 Oct 08 Posts: 5 Credit: 2,217,455 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
If 6.56 only crashes 64-bit XP and 2003 machines, why not make it available via the app-info.xml way? That way, 6.55 would run on ALL machines and 6.56 would be available for people who would like/can run it. | |
| ID: 5564 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
If 6.56 only crashes 64-bit XP and 2003 machines, why not make it available via the app-info.xml way? That way, 6.55 would run on ALL machines and 6.56 would be available for people who would like/can run it. Great minds think alike :-) I asked the same question on 12/25, but no answer yet: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=580&nowrap=true#4841 I considered setting one up myself but don't really want to do that without the admin's permission. | |
| ID: 5565 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Windows 6.55 CPU Usage
