One question...when E@H releases its new non-beta app, will 0.03 be replaced with it?
I'm not sure I understand you - do you ask if, at some point, the current Beta App 0.03 will become the official one? Then the answer would be: this depends, e.g. on the outcome of this Beta test. Or do you ask if when we put up a new "official" Windows App there will continue to be a Beta test App with the version number 0.03? Then the answer is: probably not.
One question...when E@H releases its new non-beta app, will 0.03 be replaced with it?
I'm not sure I understand you - do you ask if, at some point, the current Beta App 0.03 will become the official one? Then the answer would be: this depends, e.g. on the outcome of this Beta test. Or do you ask if when we put up a new "official" Windows App there will continue to be a Beta test App with the version number 0.03? Then the answer is: probably not.
BM
I ask if when you put up the next official app, will the beta app disappear and be replaced by the new official app?
Looks like this new test application took me about 11% longer to crunch than the standard version.
Sounds strange. Neither the copiler options nor the "science code" that is used for the current Workunits has changed. Is this measured or estimated time you are referring to? CPU time or real time? Anything else changed on this machine?
Did anyone else see this?
BM
That was measured results for the first result completed with the Windows 003 beta app. The second result processed was about 9% slower than average. My standard deviation for processing times was pretty small with the regular application. There was nothing else changed, or running differently on this machine. I'll be interested to see how it validates and if anyone else get different processing times than the standard application version.
Yes. It's also slower on my AMD64 FX-53. In the neighborhood of 2,000 seconds slower. I've only completed two results with the new app so far, but they are both very close in completion times.
I do see graphics now, (ATI x800 Pro) but I don't run as a screensaver. I only tried the graphics to see if they worked with the new test app.
Ok, that's good enough - I'll have a closer look on what changed. Probably wasn't intentional, though.
BM
I installed 0.03 on my office PC with an Intel P4 2GHz yesterday morning and had no significant difference in duration!
Yesterday evening I installed 0.03 on my home pc with an AMD 1700+. I have not finished a WU but the estimated time is 10h instead of 9h (aprox. 11% more).
Is it related to AMD CPUs?
Graphics with ATI now working fine (even normally not used due to CPU consumption).
Ok, that's good enough - I'll have a closer look on what changed. Probably wasn't intentional, though.
BM
I installed 0.03 on my office PC with an Intel P4 2GHz yesterday morning and had no significant difference in duration!
That's good to know.
We try to keep the WUs the same size, but of course there are always some fluctuations. I wonder if it could be that people seeing differences here have just by accident gotten a bit longer ones at first, but 10% is relatively large and there seem to be a quite a number of them...
Anyway, then please continue to report your differences in crunching time, even and especially if it is zero, so I can get a more significant picture.
Quote:
Yesterday evening I installed 0.03 on my home pc with an AMD 1700+. I have not finished a WU but the estimated time is 10h instead of 9h (aprox. 11% more).
Is it related to AMD CPUs?
I don't think so. It's probably more related to the (nominal) change of the platform ("x86-windows" to "anonymous"). I wouldn't give too much on the estimations, at least not before having finished a couple of Results on a new platform or after a benchmark run.
Quote:
Graphics with ATI now working fine (even normally not used due to CPU consumption).
Well, if you have an OpenGL accelerated (ATI) card, then the graphics shouldn't hold up the CPU (very much, i.e. noticably).
RE: One question...when E@H
)
I'm not sure I understand you - do you ask if, at some point, the current Beta App 0.03 will become the official one? Then the answer would be: this depends, e.g. on the outcome of this Beta test. Or do you ask if when we put up a new "official" Windows App there will continue to be a Beta test App with the version number 0.03? Then the answer is: probably not.
BM
BM
RE: RE: One
)
I ask if when you put up the next official app, will the beta app disappear and be replaced by the new official app?
RE: RE: Looks like this
)
That was measured results for the first result completed with the Windows 003 beta app. The second result processed was about 9% slower than average. My standard deviation for processing times was pretty small with the regular application. There was nothing else changed, or running differently on this machine. I'll be interested to see how it validates and if anyone else get different processing times than the standard application version.
RE: Did anyone else see
)
Yes. It's also slower on my AMD64 FX-53. In the neighborhood of 2,000 seconds slower. I've only completed two results with the new app so far, but they are both very close in completion times.
I do see graphics now, (ATI x800 Pro) but I don't run as a screensaver. I only tried the graphics to see if they worked with the new test app.
RE: Did anyone else see
)
I see it too. 3 results are done now and are about 2000 sec longer.
Check here.
And I dont run the screensaver either.
Me too...I used to run WU's
)
Me too...I used to run WU's in about 21,000 sec. now I'm at about 20,000 seconds (5:30:00) with about an hour left (5,000 more sec.)
Not complaining, just pointing out
Ok, that's good enough - I'll
)
Ok, that's good enough - I'll have a closer look on what changed. Probably wasn't intentional, though.
BM
BM
Picked up the updated program
)
Picked up the updated program and installed without a hitch. When the WU completes, I'll pass back the figures and personal observations ...
If I've lived this long - I gotta be that old!
RE: Ok, that's good enough
)
I installed 0.03 on my office PC with an Intel P4 2GHz yesterday morning and had no significant difference in duration!
Yesterday evening I installed 0.03 on my home pc with an AMD 1700+. I have not finished a WU but the estimated time is 10h instead of 9h (aprox. 11% more).
Is it related to AMD CPUs?
Graphics with ATI now working fine (even normally not used due to CPU consumption).
Udo
RE: RE: Ok, that's good
)
That's good to know.
We try to keep the WUs the same size, but of course there are always some fluctuations. I wonder if it could be that people seeing differences here have just by accident gotten a bit longer ones at first, but 10% is relatively large and there seem to be a quite a number of them...
Anyway, then please continue to report your differences in crunching time, even and especially if it is zero, so I can get a more significant picture.
I don't think so. It's probably more related to the (nominal) change of the platform ("x86-windows" to "anonymous"). I wouldn't give too much on the estimations, at least not before having finished a couple of Results on a new platform or after a benchmark run.
Well, if you have an OpenGL accelerated (ATI) card, then the graphics shouldn't hold up the CPU (very much, i.e. noticably).
BM
BM