Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Quadro 1700 Discrepancy
Author | Message |
---|---|
Hi all, | |
ID: 7654 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Everything looks identical except in the OS. All the machines with these cards are XP 32-bit, but there is one difference with the cards that aren't working. They list the OS as: | |
ID: 7655 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Microsoft Windows XP This looks like a new build or Release Candidate for XP SP3...maybe.. Did you just patch your XP boxes..? ____________ Consciousness: That annoying time between naps...... Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it. | |
ID: 7658 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
good pickup fellas, totally forgot to check the service pack numbers. | |
ID: 7659 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Another thing to check is what those computers are doing ('real' work, not BOINC). | |
ID: 7660 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
well all 4 are running the same boinc projects, and nothing else. ie. dedicated crunchers. | |
ID: 7661 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
another peculiar thing is that the 2 comps that are finishing wus on time are using 0.03% cpu + 1 cuda, whereas the 2 slow comps are using 0.02% cpu + 1 cuda. Not sure why the numbers would be different, but they should not make any difference, i.e. they don't affect how the BOINC client runs the apps. Interesting: on my machine with 6.5.0 it shows 0.14 CPU. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 7671 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Can you check with cpuz what sort of cpu they have and especially look at the optimisation codes like mmx,sse,sse2,sse3 and ssse types the more the faster. | |
ID: 7687 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I get the feeling that even though huge amounts are calculated on the gpu some parts still are done by the cpu before being fed to the gpu. These instruction set extensions are no magic bullets. You'd need to carefully hand-optimize and vectorize your code, something compilers are not very good at and which is not always possible. Or use libraries where other people already did that job for you. Anyway, the cpu part of GPU-Grid has so far been very insensitive to CPU speed. And his cards are not very fast (-> need less CPU), plus his CPUs are fast: they're all C2Ds with at least SSE3. Thinking outside the box is nice, but I'd be very surprised if you found the right direction here ;) It looks more like a software problem, maybe some debug options were enabled in that pre-release SP3. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 7701 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hi all, The reason for the difference is you dont have identical cpus, they are markedly different. There are two Core2 Duo E Series and 2 Core2 6400's Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11] 5640.97 million ops/sec Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] 6804.65 million ops/sec Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6] 4690.81 million ops/sec Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 2] 4623.15 million ops/sec The integer processing speed is the key. If you look at the slower results, they are from the slower interger rated boxes, which is "normal" in that the interger processing is the key part of Crunching. They also dont have the same RAM - two have 3Gb and two have 2Gb Regards Zy | |
ID: 7745 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Looked a bit closer at the results. The slower boxes as expected do crunch slower, they do however complete in time. Looking across all four boxes, there are a large amount of User Aborts after a few hours / after 24 hours, particularly the faster machines, paradoxically. | |
ID: 7746 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The reason for the difference is you dont have identical cpus, they are markedly different. How do you know that? Sorry, but this sounds just plain wrong. Even on GTX 280-class cards the CPU-speed does not matter (within sane limits) and these guys need the CPU every ~25 ms. His cards have times per step of 400 - 500 ms, that's one CPU-interaction every half second! They also dont have the same RAM - two have 3Gb and two have 2Gb The amount of memory is only important if you run out of it. On my machine the acemd-task uses 24 MB of main mem. How likely is it that these 24 MB are just too much for a machine with 3 GBs and windows can not swap anything else to disk? Just let the op sort out this software question first, i.e. install the proper SP3. Edit: as Zydor just mentioned clock speeds.. I've seen 400 MHz shader clock in one result instead of the usual 900 MHz. That would cause a significant slow-down. MrS ____________ Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 | |
ID: 7748 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
There appears to be some issue with NVIDIA display drivers and XP's RC v.3311. see here. | |
ID: 7752 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Quadro 1700 Discrepancy