Message boards : Number crunching : swan_sync = 0 ... little effect.
Author | Message |
---|---|
Hello: A view of the results of using the variable "swan_sync = 0" for months, I think it is not interesting. | |
ID: 21502 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
SWAN_SYNC was created to increase the efficiency on fermi cards, and it does. | |
ID: 21504 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
On Linux SWAN_SYNC=0 must be in CAPITALS! | |
ID: 21505 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
On Linux SWAN_SYNC=0 must be in CAPITALS! Hi, The variable on Linux and is capitalized and it works perfectly. I just say the results do not offset (in GTX295) and show me what my numbers after several months of work. Please who believes otherwise simply showing their numbers ... comparing the performance increase (reduction of time on a task 10%) with the increased load on the CPU, which is four times with all that entails. Greetings. | |
ID: 21507 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Some people might think a 10% improvement is worthwhile, others will think not. As Steve said SWAN_SYNC works best on Fermi's. It does still bring some improvement on other cards, but usually less. | |
ID: 21516 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Some people might think a 10% improvement is worthwhile, others will think not. As Steve said SWAN_SYNC works best on Fermi's. It does still bring some improvement on other cards, but usually less. Hello: The comment is only to be valued if winning that 10% (one hour) really pays off when one considers the large increase in load on the CPU which means assigning a CPU + GPU core SWAN_SYNC = 0, as we is 10 or 14 times, as we compare Linux and Windows.
Taking the numbers of these tasks I have done recently, I play the following, correct if I'm wrong. The task in Linux I see it is 8.9% faster (or slower Windows 8.15%) almost 10% not 5% but this task in Linux also have not enabled SWAN_SYNC = 0. it shows how little CPU time. If selected would be 15% faster Linux than Windows. In short we are talking about one hour less in Linux to complete the task and enabled again without SWAN_SYNC = 0 so with a load on the CPU much lower. The task in Windows is enabled SWAN_SYNC = 0 and the CPU load was 14 times greater than that needed in Linux, frankly very bad deal if you also 8.15% has been slower. Comparing CPU time Linux-Linux and Windows-Windows, the difference is 10 times as I say in the remarks, with or without SWAN_SYNC = 0. Remember that these tasks are the same hardware. Greetings. | |
ID: 21521 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The task in Linux I see it is 8.9% faster (or slower Windows 8.15%) almost 10% not 5% but this task in Linux also have not enabled SWAN_SYNC = 0. it shows how little CPU time. If selected would be 15% faster Linux than Windows. One thing to keep in mind. You're comparing to Win7 which is very slow here. XP is considerably faster. | |
ID: 21554 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hi. True XP is faster than Win7 (but not as much as Linux), but this is not the issue. What we are discussing is whether to use the variable SWAN_SYNC = 0 is profitable or not by comparing the cost of CPU time and energy costs and temperatures. My result is simply not worth it. Greetings. | |
ID: 21555 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
CC 1.3 cards do not benefit as much as CC 2.0 GPU's. | |
ID: 21576 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
swan_sync is a giant waste of resources on a GT240. | |
ID: 21761 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : swan_sync = 0 ... little effect.