ARGOMENTO:

Ecco i tempi di questa scheda su Milkyway e Collatz


Per paragone, su milkyway, la mia 3870 ci mette per WU 2minuti e 15sec, ovvero 135sec, una 4890 overclockata ci mette sui 40sec

Ecco milkyway con la 5870, tempi di Hans-Ulrich Hugi

Today i did some testing with the 5870 at different clock speeds (Milkyway and Collatz). All results are under Win7 Ultimate 64bit (Build 7600) with a Q9650 @ 3.75 GHz, Boinc Client 6.10.11 and the 0.20 Milkyway SW (no command line parameters changed). Under Collatz higher clocks greatly improve the performance (see my post there). Here are the results for Milkyway:

Clocks 850 / 1200 (@stock)
===========================

GPU load max. 99% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1200 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 62 ms(33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 800 1600
Calculated about 8.22242e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 1.23583e+008 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 20.7792 seconds

CPU time: 1.65361 seconds, GPU time: 20.7792 seconds, wall clock time: 21.793 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.70041 seconds, GPU time: 20.7948 seconds, wall clock time: 21.833 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.71601 seconds, GPU time: 20.7792 seconds, wall clock time: 21.844 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Clocks 850 / 1320 (GPU @stock / Memory + 10%)
=============================================

GPU load max. 99% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1320 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 62 ms(33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 800 1600
Calculated about 8.22242e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 1.23583e+008 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 20.7636 seconds

CPU time: 1.66921 seconds, GPU time: 20.7636 seconds, wall clock time: 21.831 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.70041 seconds, GPU time: 20.8104 seconds, wall clock time: 21.907 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.70041 seconds, GPU time: 20.8104 seconds, wall clock time: 21.847 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Clocks 935 / 1200 (GPU + 10% / Memory @stock)
==============================================

GPU core clock: 935 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1200 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 56 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 800 1600
Calculated about 8.22242e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 1.23583e+008 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 20.1084 seconds

CPU time: 1.01401 seconds, GPU time: 20.1084 seconds, wall clock time: 21.15 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.01401 seconds, GPU time: 20.1084 seconds, wall clock time: 21.15 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.01401 seconds, GPU time: 20.0928 seconds, wall clock time: 21.125 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Clocks 935 / 1320 (both + 10%)
===============================

GPU load max. 99% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 935 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1320MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 56 ms(33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 800 1600
Calculated about 8.22242e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 1.23583e+008 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 20.0772 seconds

CPU time: 1.04521 seconds, GPU time: 20.0772 seconds, wall clock time: 21.144 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.998406 seconds, GPU time: 20.0928 seconds, wall clock time: 21.122 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.998406 seconds, GPU time: 20.0928 seconds, wall clock time: 21.122 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

20 secondi

E, sempre suoi, i tempi su Collatz


(per paragone, la mia 3870 per WU ci mette sui 2000 secondi)

Clocks 850 / 1200 (@stock)
===========================

GPU load max. 50% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1200 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 34 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 2048 4096
needed 1674 steps for 2361224431037583010991
72615528055281 total executed steps for 137438953472 numbers

CPU time: 0.358802 seconds, GPU time: 512.367 seconds, wall clock time: 512.773 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.358802 seconds, GPU time: 512.757 seconds, wall clock time: 513.149 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.343202 seconds, GPU time: 512.399 seconds, wall clock time: 512.79 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Clocks 935 / 1320 (both + 10%)
===============================

GPU load max. 99% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 935 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1320 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 31 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed)
borders of the domains at 0 4096
needed 1679 steps for 2361218053894194294923
76789984427940 total executed steps for 137438953472 numbers

CPU time: 0.561604 seconds, GPU time: 256.979 seconds, wall clock time: 257.348 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 2.32441 seconds, GPU time: 263.585 seconds, wall clock time: 264.059 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 1.06081 seconds, GPU time: 257.785 seconds, wall clock time: 258.158 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

The higher clock speed nearly doubles the load and the calaculation time is half. So i want to know it is the GPU clock or the memory clock that gives this advantage:

Clocks 850 / 1320 (GPU @stock / Memory + 10%)
=============================================

GPU load max. 54% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 850 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1320 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 34 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts
borders of the domains at 0 2048 4096
needed 1674 steps for 2361211536082181078012
70073165112471 total executed steps for 137438953472 numbers

CPU time: 0.358802 seconds, GPU time: 512.445 seconds, wall clock time: 512.776 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.327602 seconds, GPU time: 512.352 seconds, wall clock time: 512.704 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.358802 seconds, GPU time: 512.398 seconds, wall clock time: 512.81 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Clocks 935 / 1200 (GPU + 10% / Memory @stock)
==============================================

GPU load max. 98% (GPU-Z 0.3.5)

GPU core clock: 935 MHz, memory clock: 300 MHz (Wrong: 1200 MHz!)

predicted runtime per iteration is 31 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed)
borders of the domains at 0 4096
needed 1723 steps for 2361229808201720130217
64635609237816 total executed steps for 137438953472 numbers

CPU time: 0.842405 seconds, GPU time: 310.285 seconds, wall clock time: 311.448 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.748805 seconds, GPU time: 306.697 seconds, wall clock time: 310.218 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz
CPU time: 0.702005 seconds, GPU time: 305.527 seconds, wall clock time: 307.559 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.7371 GHz

Azzarola...
Io con una HD4870 512mb @835/1050 ci metto circa 600 secondi su collatz.
Questa ci mette la metà.... verrebbe fuori un rac di oltre 150.000 su collatz e 200.000 su MW

canapa ha scritto:

.... verrebbe fuori un rac di oltre 150.000 su collatz e 200.000 su MW

che spettacolo...

wow impressionante
ora bisogna solo aspetare Nvidia Fermi per vedere come se la caverà...

Talon ha scritto:

wow impressionante
ora bisogna solo aspetare Nvidia Fermi per vedere come se la caverà...

Ehm, visto quello che si legge (e vede) in giro, bisognerebbe dire: aspetta e spera....

eh lo so ho letto...solo che io spero ancora perchè aspetto l'uscita per vedere quale avrà un migliore rapporto qualità prezzo

se vuoi sapere il rapporto qualità prezzo non devi aspettare la risposta è nota: ATI

basta valutare le due precedenti generazioni di schede video.

bastassero 5 5870 24/7 per raddoppiare il rac del gruppo

Nvidia aspetta e spera, la menano col physx e col 3d, mica con la SCIENZA della ATI (che ha i FLOPS in single e double precision più alti!)

questa ati mi tenta molto...è che consuma un sacco a tenerla sempre in full :S

Talon ha scritto:

questa ati mi tenta molto...è che consuma un sacco a tenerla sempre in full :S

ma le nvidia, perlomeno quelle che ho avuto io, consumano di più!
In idle la mia 4870 consuma un botto, sicuramente, ma se si parla di full ho qualche dubbio... i chipponi nvidia mangiano "come dei grandi!"

Trovate i consumi di tutte le schede qui:
www.dei.unipd.it/~fiozzidi/dbCompleto.html

bello bello ! da tenere memorizzato !


P.S. ti ho editato il post perchè il link non funzionava

Io ancora non capisco come fa a essere su un dominio della mia università

Voglio andare a incontrarli questi

impressionante!!