I've just included a last chart in the "Performance" tab, featuring the long WU return time per GPU type. Please check it out and tell me if the ranking is consistent with the expectable performance.

I've just included a last chart in the "Performance" tab, featuring the long WU return time per GPU type.

Please check it out and tell me if the ranking is consistent with the expectable performance.

If the WU assignment is random (as I assume it is), a big number of samples (N) would diminish the effect of time differences related to batch, at least in terms of average.

The question is: which should be the minium number of sample WU (N) in order to say the batch effect is small enough and therefore data is more reliable? For know I picked to show graphic cards with N>=30, that is considerably low but allows to plot the whole spectrum of GPU cards. I could raise it to 100...

Sorry, new thoughts keep popping in my mind after I press the "post reply" button.

The question is: which should be the minium number of sample WU (N) in order to say the batch effect is small enough and therefore data is more reliable?

For know I picked to show graphic cards with N>=30, that is considerably low but allows to plot the whole spectrum of GPU cards. I could raise it to 100...

Ok, this time I don't edit my post, instead I reply myself.

The question is: which should be the minium number of sample WU (N) in order to say the batch effect is small enough and therefore data is more reliable?

The reliability is independent from the number of GPUs, when there are empty areas in the matrix of WDDM, GPU, SWAN_SYNC, WU batch, overclocking.

I've just included a last chart in the "Performance" tab, featuring the long WU return time per GPU type. Please check it out and tell me if the ranking is consistent with the expectable performance.

I would switch the GPU set up to the vertical axis, add a scroll bar, and move the time to the horizontal axis. That way, you can put the full card names on the left side without squeezing them. I agree that we should break up each card into WDDM and non WDDM operating systems and stop there. It gets too cumbersome after that.


I noticed you don't have the GTX 690, 590, 580 and 480 cards listed. I am still using one 690 card on my windows 7 computer, even though on my computer view page says the computer has 3 GTX 980 Ti's. I find that amusing!


You should also switch the axis on the WU return time distribution chart, and add a scroll bat to the WU batch name axis. That way you are not squeezing the batch names.

I thought about horizontal charts, the problem is that google charts has not implemented this feature yet for CandleSticks charts, so I'm afraid we will have to stick to the present result (remember that if you hover over the chart you get further information about each candlestick).

I'll try to make two plots, separating WDDM and non-WDDM.

EDIT: after looking the database, I'm afraid to say we can't make two plots because there's not enough data for non-WDDM. Almost the totality of the data comes from Microsoft OS.

Gerard Hi,

Nice work on the performance page but there is improvement to be made in the form of "horizontal scrolling" any chance of getting rid of this by changing font or spacing?

Sideways scrolling is something to be avoided on webpages.

You are right... casuistry brought us to the scenario where batch names are waaay too long. I'll do something about it.

I run two long run tasks per GPU on my two SLIed Titan Black cards (I use SLI for other applications) on Windows 7, so four of them are running simultaneously. While this significantly increases the amount of time it takes a task to run, it also somewhat increases the total amount of work done per time.

Sorry if that's throwing off the results.

Oh, also, Titan Blacks have approximately 6144MB of memory. I'm not sure why memory seems to often be listed incorrectly, even by DirectX. I know it's there, because I occasionally use nearly that much of it.
____________
My BOINC Cruncher, Minecraft Multiserver, Mobile Device Mainframe, and Home Entertainment System/Workstation: http://www.overclock.net/lists/display/view/id/4678036#

I run two long run tasks per GPU on my two SLIed Titan Black cards (I use SLI for other applications) on Windows 7, so four of them are running simultaneously. While this significantly increases the amount of time it takes a task to run, it also somewhat increases the total amount of work done per time.

Sorry if that's throwing off the results.

I run two long run tasks per GPU on my two SLIed Titan Black cards (I use SLI for other applications) on Windows 7, so four of them are running simultaneously. While this significantly increases the amount of time it takes a task to run, it also somewhat increases the total amount of work done per time.

Sorry if that's throwing off the results.

All your Titan Blacks seem to be doing is throwing errors at the moment and this doesn't increase the total amount of work done.

Am I missing something?