Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : longer runtimes

Post to thread Subscribe Sort
Author Message
Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7097 - Posted: 2 Mar 2009 | 6:53:50 UTC

I found out more and more of the last finished WUs that they have a timestep value of 80-100ms, 40000s-50000s with the same amount of credits, before it took around 20000s (GTX260).

Changed something in newer WUs?

ID: 7097 | Rating: 0 | rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
ignasi
Send message
Joined: 10 Apr 08
Posts: 254
Credit: 16,836,000
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7099 - Posted: 2 Mar 2009 | 9:33:44 UTC - in response to Message 7097.

Could you link some examples please?

thanks
i

ID: 7099 | Rating: 0 | rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7100 - Posted: 2 Mar 2009 | 10:14:26 UTC - in response to Message 7099.

Could you link some examples please?

thanks
i


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=351803
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=354339

ID: 7100 | Rating: 0 | rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile X1900AIW
Send message
Joined: 12 Sep 08
Posts: 74
Credit: 23,566,124
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7107 - Posted: 2 Mar 2009 | 18:31:15 UTC - in response to Message 7097.
Last modified: 2 Mar 2009 | 18:31:43 UTC

I found out more and more of the last finished WUs that they have a timestep value of 80-100ms, 40000s-50000s with the same amount of credits, before it took around 20000s (GTX260).

Changed something in newer WUs?


I think some process does slowdown the GPU performance in your system, I see similar values with both GTX 260 (192 and 216 SP) downclocked to 2D (300/600/300, fixed to 1,06V):
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=352480 216, WinXP/32 Bit, Q6600 @3,0 GHz
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=349986 216
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=346088 216
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=338329 216

- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=344662 192, Vista/64 Bit, Q6700 @2,6 GHz

P.S.: This kind a downclocked GTX 260 reaches the niveau of my 9800GX2 @stock (600/1500/1000), but at half of the power consumption:
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=328977 9800 GX2, Vista/64 Bit, Q6700 @2,6 GHz

ID: 7107 | Rating: 0 | rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7111 - Posted: 2 Mar 2009 | 19:24:13 UTC - in response to Message 7107.

I found out more and more of the last finished WUs that they have a timestep value of 80-100ms, 40000s-50000s with the same amount of credits, before it took around 20000s (GTX260).

Changed something in newer WUs?


I think some process does slowdown the GPU performance in your system, I see similar values with both GTX 260 (192 and 216 SP) downclocked to 2D (300/600/300, fixed to 1,06V):
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=352480 216, WinXP/32 Bit, Q6600 @3,0 GHz
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=349986 216
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=346088 216
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=338329 216

- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=344662 192, Vista/64 Bit, Q6700 @2,6 GHz

P.S.: This kind a downclocked GTX 260 reaches the niveau of my 9800GX2 @stock (600/1500/1000), but at half of the power consumption:
- http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=328977 9800 GX2, Vista/64 Bit, Q6700 @2,6 GHz


1-2 yes, the others are running normal

ID: 7111 | Rating: 0 | rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : longer runtimes

//