Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs Microsoft
Author | Message |
---|---|
Ian&Steve C. suggested a comparison between Microsoft and Linux hosts (https://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=5194&nowrap=true#55895)
Host and PCIe specifications, CPU/GPU utilisation for other projects, Power limiting or Overclocking, Software / OS configurations.
Linux MS
Linux Av.Cred MS Av.Cred Linux Microsoft
GPU Model Tasks / Day Tasks / Day Advantage Advantage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTX 2080 963 786,836 5,208 667,794 18%
RTX 2080 SUPER 303 786,164 4,623 720,189 9%
RTX 2080 Ti 2,219 783,743 9,406 756,671 4%
RTX 2070 SUPER 2,220 704,915 5,044 620,787 14%
GTX 1080 Ti 1,922 664,039 8,487 527,414 26%
RTX 2060 SUPER 146 643,716 3,825 580,067 11%
RTX 2070 1,082 637,254 5,375 578,506 10%
TITAN X 120 583,820 321 519,139 12%
GTX 1080 3,139 551,634 9,890 460,617 20%
GTX 1070 Ti 1,091 515,561 3,333 437,885 18%
RTX 2060 253 473,835 4,517 403,898 17%
GTX 1660 Ti 1,695 468,735 3,661 415,678 13%
GTX 1070 2,878 449,560 8,974 394,496 14%
GTX 1660 SUPER 889 438,065 3,312 411,626 6%
GTX 1660 226 402,077 1,579 359,399 12%
GTX TITAN X 50 374,996 60 303,673 23%
GTX 980 Ti 311 373,613 810 322,007 16%
GTX 1650 SUPER 578 368,614 1,639 323,988 14%
GTX 1060 6GB 784 308,254 6,072 287,037 7%
GTX 980 220 307,633 1,025 296,368 4%
GTX 1060 3GB 1,388 307,559 3,927 268,834 14%
GTX 1650 1,244 285,020 2,287 250,840 14%
GTX TITAN Black 111 248,741 81 235,078 6%
GTX 970 930 246,908 3,212 245,575 1%
GTX 1050 Ti 483 193,456 1,968 180,500 7%
GTX 960 455 183,379 1,161 173,986 5%
GTX 1050 159 166,705 769 160,519 4%
Quadro P1000 57 149,987 87 108,722 38%
GTX 950 59 142,365 241 144,675 2%
GTX 750 Ti 30 105,671 169 105,381 0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Data captured 8th December 23:30 UTC. Data is sourced from valid tasks gathered from first 1500 hosts in Volunteer Tab Hosts with multiple GPUs excluded | |
ID: 55908 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I wonder why the average 2080ti isnt scoring better. I have 6x 2080tis and have seen 2080tis in other hosts also scoring north of 1,000,000 per day per card under Linux. | |
ID: 55909 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I wonder why the average 2080ti isnt scoring better. I have 6x 2080tis and have seen 2080tis in other hosts also scoring north of 1,000,000 per day per card under Linux. Good question, calculation needs to be made visible for clarity. For each GPU model: Average Credit / Day = (86400 / Total Runtime) * Total Credit This can also be written as Total Credit / (Total Time / 86400) Essentially I am dividing the Total Credit by Total Runtime expressed as days. happy to look at other calculations if this is not a good fit. If there is a flaw in the calculation used, please let me know so I can correct it. The other contributing factor could be the differential in credit awarded between ADRIA and MDAD. I could redo the table based on MDAD tasks only. From the dataset used, I have grabbed 443 tasks from your host 546526. Using the above calculation, the Average Credit / Day is 1,037,108. This lines up with the RAC of 1,042,210 for this host. The calculation I use appears ok. | |
ID: 55913 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
yeah i think that would be more appropriate to remove that extra variable. MDAD only i think is a good idea. see what happens | |
ID: 55914 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
are you applying this formula to every task individually? and then averaging the results? for each host? because even within the MDAD group on the same host/GPU, there seems to be varying credit reward per unit time. take the following two tasks results as examples. both from my 2080ti system above. both MDAD tasks. wildly different calculated credit/day. Task 1: https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=31613572 Runtime: 905.56 Credit: 7337.81 Calc Cred/Day: (86400/905.56)*7337.81 = 700,104 Task 2: https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=31643991 Runtime: 1298.90 Credit: 17523.00 Calc Cred/Day: (86400/1298.90)*17523.00 = 1,165,591 just something to think about. ____________ | |
ID: 55928 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
re you applying this formula to every task individually? and then averaging the results? for each host? Calculation is a single calculation using TOTAL Credit and TOTAL Runtime for each GPU Model. (not each GPU, but each GPU Model) The wild variance in credit you are seeing is normal for MDAD. Data from your host suggests the calculation is good.(from Message ID:https://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=5203&nowrap=true#55913) From the dataset used, I have grabbed 443 tasks from your host 546526. Looking only at RTX 2080 Ti and using RAC (not my calculation), the table below shows that not all users are getting the most out of their devices. The table includes all RTX 2080 Ti single GPU Hosts from Gpugrid Volunteer Tab, selecting only from first 100 hosts. The RAC figures for the RTX 2080 Ti GPUs mirror the results I have been posting.
Boinc Gpugrid
Host ID OS GPU RAC Rank
------------------------------------------------------
546526 Linux RTX 2080 Ti 1035368 33
501978 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 907221 46
478405 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 837393 54
455804 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 832648 55
513616 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 801022 58
522530 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 793276 59
539392 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 756802 65
542939 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 751048 68
552807 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 742845 69
538494 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 722999 73
564665 Linux RTX 2080 Ti 722641 74
538725 Linux RTX 2080 Ti 722416 75
519117 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 717758 78
518874 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 713037 79
512891 Linux RTX 2080 Ti 700465 83
552300 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 673280 90
547099 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 670212 92
528914 Microsoft RTX 2080 Ti 650826 98
------------------------------------------------------
I agree, the figure for the RTX 2080 Ti was a surprise, but all data I have seen supports this is the correct figure. | |
ID: 55931 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
can you elaborate on what you mean by total run time and credit for each gpu model? do you mean to say you take the sum of all the runtimes and credits of the thousands of tasks across all the hosts and do the calculation in a single equation? | |
ID: 55932 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
can you elaborate on what you mean by total run time and credit for each gpu model? do you mean to say you take the sum of all the runtimes and credits of the thousands of tasks across all the hosts and do the calculation in a single equation? If you look at this post, the Total Runtime and Total credit is listed for every GPU Model (but not broken up by OS): https://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=5194&nowrap=true#55894 These are the figures used. I didnt put those figures on this Thread as there was already 7 columns on the original post in this Thread. I will prepare another comparison next year. It will be interesting to see if the results are any different. | |
ID: 55935 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thank you for putting this information together. Always knew that there was Linux had an advantage over Windows but would have never suspected to see this big of a difference in performance. | |
ID: 55970 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Don't forget to do at least bare minimum of statistical computations. This exercise was not of much use. (Arithmetic avg on avg is wrong - I think it should be harmonic, were are other basic characterizations like variance?) | |
ID: 56142 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Don't forget to do at least bare minimum of statistical computations. This exercise was not of much use. (Arithmetic avg on avg is wrong - I think it should be harmonic, were are other basic characterizations like variance?) I totally agree. There is so much more analysis that can be done to present this data in better ways. I will certainly consider your suggestions on presenting the data with the statistical methods mentioned. It should also be considered that not everyone here are Statisticians. The current approach is to present the data with a minimum of statistical arithmetic so it has the broadest reach. Arithmetic avg on avg is wrong Yes, agreed. The "Advantage" column values are misleading, but nevertheless does indicate which OS has the advantage. that ~20% "advantage" might still be insignificant That remains to be seen. Hopefully the next post will be better presented with a better representation of the advantage. | |
ID: 56145 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Linux has a performance advantage over Windows (Vista and newer) operating systems due their different technological approach. | |
ID: 56146 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Linux has a performance advantage over Windows (Vista and newer) operating systems due their different technological approach. Great insight. So based on that, comparison will need a breakdown by OS AND Application. Relatively easy to do. This will be next year's challenge. | |
ID: 56147 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs Microsoft