Have somebody got access violation error with S40?/quote]
No problem here with 24 WU's completed and only a couple of those pending. Still running about 20 minutes faster than S39L. These WU's are in numerical order so they are all about the same length.
A have not problem also. On my Xeon S40 has uniform speed as S39L
S40: avg. 6030,71 sec (avg. from 11 WUs)
S39L: avg. 6034,55 sec (avg. from 19 WUs)
Has anyone who is running the D40 application tried the S40? And if so how do they compare?
Thanks
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman
Has anyone who is running the D40 application tried the S40? And if so how do they compare?
Thanks
Differences are still in error range.
And some "bug" - after uploading calculated WU no new WU calculation was started by S-40 until I noticed it few hours later and pressed "Update project" button. No errors in messages were shown. There is no such bug on secondary PC.
So, probably I found the reason of "access violation" fault. There were two chances. Software or hardware fault.
S40 is running on my five computers and I got 6 faults from 200 wus.
I got the faults one the same computer, so it gives much bigger probability to hw fault.
But, I got the same fault. So I examined the code and the CPU more watchfully.
I found that the AGU part of the CPU cannot tolerate the higher frequencies.
Toroughbred 2400+
D-40 5010 (10 WU av)
S-40 4843 (2 WU av) (all 2 WU faster than all 10 of D-40)
It seems S-40 faster :)
Winchester on 213 HT
S-39L 4034 (12 WU av, very small WU time difference)
S-40 3854 (5 WU av)
S-40 faster here too. And no faults on slightly overclocked Athlon64 still.
RE: AGI (address generation
)
Ok, thanks. The only AGI I knew of was Asrock's variant of Acc. Graphics Port. I'd read some posts about using graphic cards for processing.
RE: Hello! S40 did some
)
I did a fast code checking. It seems to be good. :-(
RE: RE: Have somebody got
)
I didn't get any errors with
)
I didn't get any errors with it but it was around 100 seconds slower than S39L on my Prescott (HT enabled).
me-[at]-rescam.org
RE: I didn't get any errors
)
Thanks.
S40 is also slower on my P4-M Northwood (~1%).
The prefetch logic / cache mechanism of AMD processors is much better than intel.
Probably, intel forgot something. (AMD -> write combining)
2WUs done on 2 different
)
2WUs done on 2 different processors (Thoroughbred, Winchester), 1 verified - no problems so far.
Has anyone who is running the
)
Has anyone who is running the D40 application tried the S40? And if so how do they compare?
Thanks
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman
RE: Has anyone who is
)
Differences are still in error range.
And some "bug" - after uploading calculated WU no new WU calculation was started by S-40 until I noticed it few hours later and pressed "Update project" button. No errors in messages were shown. There is no such bug on secondary PC.
So, probably I found the
)
So, probably I found the reason of "access violation" fault. There were two chances. Software or hardware fault.
S40 is running on my five computers and I got 6 faults from 200 wus.
I got the faults one the same computer, so it gives much bigger probability to hw fault.
But, I got the same fault. So I examined the code and the CPU more watchfully.
I found that the AGU part of the CPU cannot tolerate the higher frequencies.
Toroughbred 2400+ D-40 5010
)
Toroughbred 2400+
D-40 5010 (10 WU av)
S-40 4843 (2 WU av) (all 2 WU faster than all 10 of D-40)
It seems S-40 faster :)
Winchester on 213 HT
S-39L 4034 (12 WU av, very small WU time difference)
S-40 3854 (5 WU av)
S-40 faster here too. And no faults on slightly overclocked Athlon64 still.