v8.19 test results

Message boards : SETI@home Enhanced : v8.19 test results
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59591 - Posted: 17 Sep 2016, 0:56:54 UTC

GPU is not OC’d, it’s strictly stock with default settings.  1 WU/GPU.

>  stock
    Task 24802355
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 15m 03s
    CPU time : 14m 42s

    Task 24801929
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 30s
    CPU time : 00m 48s

    Task 24802557
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 59s
    CPU time : 14m 25s

    Task 24802388
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 52s
    CPU time : 14m 37s

>  -tt 30

    Task 24802346
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 15m 01s
    CPU time : 14m 41s

    Task 24802340
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 49s

    Task 24802390
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 58s
    CPU time : 14m 47s

    Task 24802221
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 26s
    CPU time : 00m 47s

>  -tt 60

    Task 24802400
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 30s
    CPU time : 00m 47s

    Task 24802331
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 54s
    CPU time : 14m 42s

    Task 24802060
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 49s
    CPU time : 14m 41s

    Task 24801377
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 46s

>  -tt 90

    Task 24802277
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 47s
    CPU time : 14m 36s

    Task 24801614
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 45s

    Task 24801967
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 53s
    CPU time : 14m 34s

    Task 24806655
    WU true angle range : 1.123006
    Run time : 07m 43s
    CPU time : 02m 40s

>  -tt 120

    Task 24802402
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 51s
    CPU time : 14m 37s

    Task 24802266
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 26s
    CPU time : 00m 45s

    Task 24802342
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 41s
    CPU time : 14m 34s

    Task 24802528
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 26s
    CPU time : 00m 44s

>  -tt 180

    Task 24802524
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 25s
    CPU time : 00m 45s

    Task 24802590
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 45s
    CPU time : 14m 37s

    Task 24802398
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 14m 48s
    CPU time : 14m 34s

    Task 24802540
    WU true angle range :
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 47s

>  -tt 30 -sbs 256

    Task 24806696
    WU true angle range : 1.123006
    Run time : 08m 07s
    CPU time : 02m 55s

    Task 24806654
    WU true angle range : 0.007806
    Run time : 14m 55s
    CPU time : 14m 44s

    Task 24806631
    WU true angle range : 1.123006
    Run time : 08m 09s
    CPU time : 03m 04s

    Task 24806437
    WU true angle range : 0.007806
    Run time : 14m 58s
    CPU time : 14m 43s

    NOTES -- VHAR nearly 100 sec > stock (6:30 v 8:10), VLAR virtually identical, GUI lag intermittent

>  -tt 60 -sbs 256

    Task 24806686
    WU true angle range : 1.123006
    Run time : 08m 09s
    CPU time : 03m 02s

    Task 24806651
    WU true angle range : 1.123006
    Run time : 08m 07s
    CPU time : 03m 02s

    Task 24806741
    WU true angle range : 0.007806
    Run time : 14m 52s
    CPU time : 14m 37s

    Task 24811854
    WU true angle range : 0.011707
    Run time : 23m 11s
    CPU time : 23m 43s

    NOTES -- VHAR nearly 100 sec > stock (6:30 v 8:10), GUI lag frequent
    VLAR virtually identical, GUI lag more noticeable while surfing web and switching apps

>  -use_sleep with -high_prec_timer

    Task 24802460
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 15m 39s
    CPU time : 04m 07s

    Task 24800827
    WU true angle range : 1.189277
    Run time : 06m 41s
    CPU time : 00m 43s

    Task 24802302
    WU true angle range : 0.007977
    Run time : 16m 00s
    CPU time : 04m 02s

    Task 24802249
    WU true angle range : 2.866236
    Run time : 06m 29s
    CPU time : 00m 36s


More to follow if need be.

ID: 59591 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 05
Posts: 2423
Credit: 15,878,738
RAC: 0
Russia
Message 59596 - Posted: 17 Sep 2016, 10:45:15 UTC - in response to Message 59591.  
Last modified: 17 Sep 2016, 10:54:18 UTC

Thanks for report.

I would like to get more statistics on VHAR difference you noticed.

Let's see here: https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/result.php?resultid=24806655
It's -tt 90 "stock" (almost stock more precise). You list it in so speaking "fast VHAR" area (slow VHAR area ~8min with comments about slowdown).
So I would like to get more statistics between this "fast" and "slow" - are they really different (that is, relate upon tuning line) or it's just big variation in run times for VHAR per se.

So, please look for AR >1 tasks, and collect more such tasks for let say "pure stock" (-tt 60), "increased" (-tt 90) and "expanded" (-tt 90 -sbs 256).
Lets limit to only 3 categories for now, but with good statistics each.

And for the record:
  Name:						 GeForce GTX 950
  Vendor:					 NVIDIA Corporation
  Driver version:				 359.00


EDIT:
And regarding lags:
VLAR virtually identical, GUI lag more noticeable while surfing web and switching apps

Would be good to spot what AR of task in crunching was at time of lags.
Do you see lags for all ARs? Or only for -sbs 256 + VLAR ? Or maybe reverse, -sbs 256 + VHAR ?

W/o direct profiling data this info would help to determine where in processing chain lag could appear.
News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer
ID: 59596 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59598 - Posted: 17 Sep 2016, 18:12:49 UTC - in response to Message 59596.  

I initiated testing based on your posts

The following were run prior to reading your post.
>  -high_perf

    Task 24811662
    WU true angle range : 0.011707
    Run time : 22m 58s
    CPU time : 22m 39s

    Task 24811633
    WU true angle range : 0.011707
    Run time : 22m 36s
    CPU time : 22m 36s

    Task 24812627
    WU true angle range : 1.954970
    Run time : 06m 38s
    CPU time : 01m 06s

    Task 24812847
    WU true angle range : 1.158120
    Run time : 06m 37s
    CPU time : 01m 25s

    NOTES -- VLAR GUI lag unacceptable.  VHAR GUI lag much better, but not as well as stock.

So, please look for AR >1 tasks, and collect more such tasks for let say "pure stock" (-tt 60), "increased" (-tt 90) and "expanded" (-tt 90 -sbs 256).
Lets limit to only 3 categories for now, but with good statistics each.

Working on.  I'm trying to get 5 WUs for each.
EDIT:
And regarding lags:
VLAR virtually identical, GUI lag more noticeable while surfing web and switching apps

Would be good to spot what AR of task in crunching was at time of lags.
Do you see lags for all ARs? Or only for -sbs 256 + VLAR ? Or maybe reverse, -sbs 256 + VHAR ?

W/o direct profiling data this info would help to determine where in processing chain lag could appear.

I only tested 2 VLARs & 2 VHARs with those switches, so my observation is generalized.  Can test more WUs with -tt F -sbs 256 switches if you require.

>  stock (no switches)
    Task 24813261
    WU true angle range : 1.158120
    Run time : 06m 40s
    CPU time : 01m 26s

    Task 24812770
    WU true angle range : 1.158120
    Run time : 06m 38s
    CPU time : 01m 26s

    Task 24813611
    WU true angle range : 1.078262
    Run time : 08m 10s
    CPU time : 03m 06s

    Task 24814483
    WU true angle range : 1.078262
    Run time : 08m 09s
    CPU time : 03m 02s

    Task 24814439
    WU true angle range : 1.078262
    Run time : 08m 08s
    CPU time : 03m 05s

    NOTES -- No GUI lag.

ID: 59598 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 05
Posts: 2423
Credit: 15,878,738
RAC: 0
Russia
Message 59599 - Posted: 17 Sep 2016, 18:58:02 UTC - in response to Message 59598.  
Last modified: 17 Sep 2016, 19:01:07 UTC

Looks like AR=1.0 ~8min while AR=1.1~6min40s
So, AR-dependence here, not tuning line one.

Regarding -high_perf - bigger lag is expected indeed.

EDIT: note that your prev run (14 min) VLARs were GUPPI ones (BLC*) - they base speed different from Arecibo VLAR (22 min in last test).
Worth to compare -high_perf on GUPPI now (regarding lags too).
Arecibo VLAR is hardest one regarding lags BTW.
News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer
ID: 59599 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59600 - Posted: 17 Sep 2016, 20:01:31 UTC - in response to Message 59599.  

I may have misinterpreted your earlier post.  Now, I believe you may have wanted -sbs 256 included with the following
>  -tt 60
    Task 24817351
    WU true angle range : 0.886736
    Run time : 08m 37s
    CPU time : 04m 19s

    Task 24817678
    WU true angle range : 0.886736
    Run time : 08m 27s
    CPU time : 04m 45s

    Task 24824577
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 37s
    CPU time : 05m 09s

    Task 24824685
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 38s
    CPU time : 05m 07s

    Task 24824448
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 40s
    CPU time : 05m 06s

    NOTES -- GUI lag very minimal.

Unfortunately, not much variation in AR.

>  -tt 90

    Task 24824499
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 38s
    CPU time : 05m 12s

    Task 24824564
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 38s
    CPU time : 05m 11s

    Task 24824682
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 37s
    CPU time : 05m 10s

    Task 24824792
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 27s
    CPU time : 05m 00s

    Task 24824587
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 22s
    CPU time : 04m 52s

    NOTES -- GUI lag slightly more noticeable than -tt 60

ID: 59600 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59601 - Posted: 18 Sep 2016, 0:30:48 UTC
Last modified: 18 Sep 2016, 0:32:23 UTC

The servers gave only 1 AR.

>  -tt 90 -sbs 256
    Task 24824801
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 39s
    CPU time : 05m 06s

    Task 24824694
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 38s
    CPU time : 05m 03s

    Task 24824679
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 40s
    CPU time : 05m 05s

    Task 24824618
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 20s
    CPU time : 04m 45s


    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 28s
    CPU time : 04m 57s

    NOTES -- GUI lag slightly more noticeable than -tt 90.  Compared to stock, these switches caused Run time at least 30s longer and CPU time 90s longer.  GUI lag noticeable when surfing web (page loading, scrolling, tab switching) see * below.

>  -tt 60 -sbs 256

    Task 24824798
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 42s
    CPU time : 05m 12s

    Task 24824795
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 40s
    CPU time : 05m 07s

    Task 24824786
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 35s
    CPU time : 04m 58s

    Task 24824546
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 40s
    CPU time : 05m 09s

    Task 24824723
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 22s
    CPU time : 04m 49s

    NOTES -- GUI lag similar to -tt 90 -sbs 256.  Compared to -tt 90 -sbs 256, these switches caused Run time about the same and CPU time 5s-10s longer.  GUI lag noticeable when surfing web (page loading, scrolling, tab switching) see * below.

>  -tt 30 -sbs 256

    Task 24824569
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 30s
    CPU time : 00m 05s

    Task 24824561
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 28s
    CPU time : 05m 03s

    Task 24824729
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 24s
    CPU time : 04m 52s

    Task 24824705
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 38s
    CPU time : 05m 05s

    Task 24824773
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 36s
    CPU time : 05m 05s

    NOTES -- GUI lag not as pronounced as -tt 90 -sbs 256, and -tt 60 -sbs 256.  Compared to those, the Run time and the CPU time were roughly similar.  GUI lag less noticeable when surfing web (page loading, scrolling, tab switching) see * below.


*  GPU load is usually 98%-99% with only S@h running.  More often than not, I suspend GPU when web surfing or the occasional game.

ID: 59601 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 05
Posts: 2423
Credit: 15,878,738
RAC: 0
Russia
Message 59607 - Posted: 18 Sep 2016, 7:55:23 UTC - in response to Message 59601.  



>  -tt 90 -sbs 256[list]

WU true angle range : 0.832014
Run time : 08m 28s
CPU time : 04m 57s

NOTES -- GUI lag slightly more noticeable than -tt 90.  Compared to stock, these switches caused Run time at least 30s longer and CPU time 90s longer. 


With what stock run you do compare exactly?

And some analyse of this particular result:


Target kernel sequence time set to 90ms
Maximum single buffer size set to:256MB

  Name:						 GeForce GTX 950
  Driver version:				 359.00

WU true angle range is :  0.832014
Used GPU device parameters are:
	Number of compute units: 6
	Single buffer allocation size: 256MB
	Total device global memory: 2048MB
	max WG size: 1024
	local mem type: Real
	FERMI path used: yes
	LotOfMem path: yes
	LowPerformanceGPU path: no
	HighPerformanceGPU path: no
period_iterations_num=50


Fftlength=8,pass=3:Tune: sum=2337.32(ms); min=2.284(ms); max=40.32(ms); mean=23.37(ms); s_mean=30.14; sleep=30(ms); delta=131; N=100; usual
Fftlength=8,pass=4:Tune: sum=1683.08(ms); min=2.84(ms); max=29.6(ms); mean=17.91(ms); s_mean= 26; sleep=15(ms); delta=125; N=94; usual
Fftlength=8,pass=5:Tune: sum=1319.88(ms); min=1.831(ms); max=24.57(ms); mean=14.83(ms); s_mean=17.73; sleep=15(ms); delta=120; N=89; usual
Fftlength=16,pass=3:Tune: sum=1639.9(ms); min=1.023(ms); max=28.26(ms); mean=13.67(ms); s_mean=22.62; sleep=15(ms); delta=135; N=120; usual
Fftlength=16,pass=4:Tune: sum=1163.15(ms); min=0.7331(ms); max=19.78(ms); mean=10.2(ms); s_mean=16.4; sleep=15(ms); delta=129; N=114; usual
Fftlength=16,pass=5:Tune: sum=961.457(ms); min=1.1(ms); max=17.64(ms); mean=8.986(ms); s_mean=13.14; sleep=15(ms); delta=122; N=107; usual
Fftlength=32,pass=3:Tune: sum=1115.22(ms); min=0.3611(ms); max=20.74(ms); mean=9.067(ms); s_mean= 15; sleep=15(ms); delta=130; N=123; usual
Fftlength=32,pass=4:Tune: sum=738.087(ms); min=0.3559(ms); max=13.85(ms); mean=6.474(ms); s_mean=10.32; sleep=0(ms); delta=121; N=114; usual
Fftlength=32,pass=5:Tune: sum=618.278(ms); min=0.3963(ms); max=12.33(ms); mean=5.778(ms); s_mean=8.444; sleep=0(ms); delta=114; N=107; usual
Fftlength=64,pass=3:Tune: sum=2602.49(ms); min=23.31(ms); max=52.25(ms); mean=51.03(ms); s_mean=51.79; sleep=45(ms); delta=1; N=51; high_perf
Fftlength=128,pass=3:Tune: sum=2811.65(ms); min=13.5(ms); max=28.9(ms); mean=27.84(ms); s_mean=28.1; sleep=30(ms); delta=1; N=101; high_perf
Fftlength=256,pass=3:Tune: sum=2965.75(ms); min=6.452(ms); max=14.97(ms); mean=14.61(ms); s_mean=14.75; sleep=15(ms); delta=1; N=203; high_perf
Fftlength=512,pass=3:Tune: sum=1019.88(ms); min=2.404(ms); max=2.709(ms); mean=2.506(ms); s_mean=2.535; sleep=0(ms); delta=1; N=407; usual
Fftlength=1024,pass=3:Tune: sum=664.134(ms); min=0.7999(ms); max=0.853(ms); mean=0.8169(ms); s_mean=0.8173; sleep=0(ms); delta=1; N=813; usual


As one can see, target kernel time of 90ms can't be reached on this AR for this particular GPU.
Longest kernel sequence for PulseFind is:
Fftlength=64,pass=3:Tune: sum=2602.49(ms); min=23.31(ms); max=52.25(ms); mean=51.03(ms); s_mean=51.79; sleep=45(ms); delta=1; N=51; high_perf
It's quite low value and hardly would cause any lags. That means lags are from some other kernel.
I suspect local PulseFind.
If you able to go to anonymous platform I would provide special build to check this.

But before while you have exactly this AR batch please add -use_sleep to -tt 90 -sbs 256.
How sleep addition will influent both run time and lags?
News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer
ID: 59607 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59609 - Posted: 18 Sep 2016, 15:37:17 UTC - in response to Message 59607.  
Last modified: 18 Sep 2016, 15:37:32 UTC

>  -tt 90 -sbs 256


    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 28s
    CPU time : 04m 57s

    NOTES -- GUI lag slightly more noticeable than -tt 90.  Compared to stock, these switches caused Run time at least 30s longer and CPU time 90s longer. 


With what stock run you do compare exactly?

Stock = the initial 4 results from above in Message 59591.  Maybe I should label it "BASELINE".

As one can see, target kernel time of 90ms can't be reached on this AR for this particular GPU.
Longest kernel sequence for PulseFind is:
Fftlength=64,pass=3:Tune: sum=2602.49(ms); min=23.31(ms); max=52.25(ms); mean=51.03(ms); s_mean=51.79; sleep=45(ms); delta=1; N=51; high_perf
It's quite low value and hardly would cause any lags. That means lags are from some other kernel.
I suspect local PulseFind. [/quote]

Forgive me, I don't fully understand the inner complexities yet.  I do read the README.txt files, and I'm in the process of reading your posts on the Lunatics forum, like this.

If you able to go to anonymous platform I would provide special build to check this.

Yes, but I would need assistance with the app_info or app_config file.

But before while you have exactly this AR batch please add -use_sleep to -tt 90 -sbs 256.
How sleep addition will influent both run time and lags?


> -tt 90 -sbs 256 -use_sleep
    Task 24824697
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 09m 09s
    CPU time : 00m 55s

    Task 24824558
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 09m 01s
    CPU time : 01m 01s

    Task 24824542
    WU true angle range : 0.832014
    Run time : 08m 44s
    CPU time : 01m 02s

    Task 24832279
    WU true angle range : 0.010849   (oops, a VLAR snuck in here)
    Run time : 26m 42s
    CPU time : 04m 54s

    Task 24832395
    WU true angle range : 3.417951
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 18s

    Task 24832338
    WU true angle range : 3.417951
    Run time : 06m 27s
    CPU time : 00m 29s


NOTES -- GUI lag is better then -tt 90 -sbs 256. There remains some minor intermittent keyboard lags for example, but on my rig, it's not a deal breaker. Compared to "stock" (or "BASELINE"), the Run time is ~38% longer and the CPU time is ~33% longer. While testing, I was web surfing, composing this post, and switching between open apps.Presently, testing -use_sleep only.

Let me know what other switch combinations you need tested.

ID: 59609 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Jan 16
Posts: 38
Credit: 289,647
RAC: 0
United States
Message 59610 - Posted: 18 Sep 2016, 18:42:27 UTC

>  -tt 30 -sbs 256 -use_sleep
    Task 24832352
    WU true angle range : 0.007806
    Run time : 17m 03s
    CPU time : 04m 17s

    Task 24832403
    WU true angle range : 3.417951
    Run time : 06m 25s
    CPU time : 01m 02s

    Task 24832178
    WU true angle range : 0.010849
    Run time : 26m 40s
    CPU time : 05m 26s

    Task 24832425
    WU true angle range : 3.417951
    Run time : 06m 24s
    CPU time : 00m 15s

    Task 24831421
    WU true angle range : 0.010040
    Run time : 26m 15s
    CPU time : 06m 23s

    NOTES -- GUI lag is minimal.  There remains some intermittent keyboard lags for example.  Notice the difference in the Run time and the CPU time for ARs 0.007806, 0.010849, & 0.010040.  Overall, this switch combination couldn't best the "BASELINE".

ID: 59610 · Report as offensive
Stephen
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 Sep 16
Posts: 20
Credit: 176,425
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 59625 - Posted: 19 Sep 2016, 15:46:58 UTC

. . To whom it may concern -

. . Runtimes:

. . Arecibo VLAR:
. . . . . . . CUDA42 . . . <=> 86 mins
. . . . . . . CUDA50 . . . <=> 85 mins
. . . . . . . SoG r3528. . <=> 86 mins

. . Arecibo Normal AR:
. . . . . . . CUDA42 . . . <=> not available
. . . . . . . CUDA50 . . . <=> 35 mins
. . . . . . . SoG r3528. . <=> 37 mins

. . Arecibo High AR:
. . . . . . . CUDA42 . . . <=> 25 mins
. . . . . . . CUDA50 . . . <=> 24 mins
. . . . . . . SoG r3528. . <=> 25 mins

. . Guppies:
. . . . . . . CUDA42 . . . <=> 55 mins
. . . . . . . CUDA50 . . . <=> 55 mins
. . . . . . . SoG r3528. . <=> 56 mins

. . These are very much the actual runtimes for each class of WU. Surprisingly on this rig all apps appear to achieve almost identical runtimes though SoG seems to achieve a consistently higher GPU utilisation level than CUDA. There is about a 60 to 90 second increase in some runtimes with SoG but out of 85 mins that is negligible. Mostly there is no lag though when crunching Arecibo VLAR WUs using CUDA50 there is definite lag when moving the cursor about in Boinc Manager, I have not noticed this with SoG but it may be there and simply not detected.

. . Computer Core(2) Duo E7600 3GHz with 6GB ram
. . GPU is Nvidia GT730 with 2GB GDDR5 ram
. . Driver version is 365.19
. . BOINC version 7.6.22

Stephen

.
ID: 59625 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 05
Posts: 2423
Credit: 15,878,738
RAC: 0
Russia
Message 59635 - Posted: 19 Sep 2016, 19:02:46 UTC - in response to Message 59625.  

. . GPU is Nvidia GT730 with 2GB GDDR5 ram
.

For such cards BOINC will ultimately select CUDA42 app (if it will measure relative performance correctly).
News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer
ID: 59635 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 05
Posts: 2423
Credit: 15,878,738
RAC: 0
Russia
Message 59647 - Posted: 20 Sep 2016, 8:03:13 UTC - in response to Message 59610.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2016, 8:05:06 UTC

  Notice the difference in the Run time and the CPU time for ARs 0.007806, 0.010849, & 0.010040. 

That's why the best is to compare exactly same ARs with different switches (or to plot AR-dependence curve for each settings set, that requires much-much more completed tasks and much bigger statistics).
"baseline" was WU true angle range : 0.007977 so indirect comparison with latest only possible.
News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer
ID: 59647 · Report as offensive

Message boards : SETI@home Enhanced : v8.19 test results


 
©2021 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.