S41.xx Observation Thread

groundhog
groundhog
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 11
Credit: 69,280
RAC: 0

RE: OC sometimes causes

Message 30070 in response to message 30067

Quote:

OC sometimes causes strange things...

I examined the code of Prime95 some months ago because one of my friends wanted to more about it, so i know that Prime95 isn't a best choice for testing OC.

Yep, thats true. I once overclocked my XP2800, ran Prime95, all seemed well.
But with climateprediction I experienced a machine reboot from time to time. CPU-temperature wasn't an issue, it was well under max. specs.

Greetings groundhog


zagadka
zagadka
Joined: 29 Apr 06
Posts: 12
Credit: 17,088
RAC: 0

Based on the experience that

Based on the experience that S41.07 is actually significantly slower on my computer than S41.06 I did some calculations.

Based on a total of 92 results (51 with S41.06 and 41 with S41.07) I came up with these results.

The 51 results with S41.06 took a total of 164667 seconds which gives an average of 3228.764706 seconds per WU.

The 41 results with S41.07 took a total of 145041 seconds which gives an average of 3537.585366 seconds per WU.

It gives a difference on average of 308.82066 seconds per WU.

The computer I use is an AthlonXP 2500+ (Barton) running at stock speed.

Based on these numbers and the fact that I'm not affected by the bug it fixes, I don't think I'll upgrade to S41.08 if it's based on the code of S41.07.

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 561
Credit: 4,527,270
RAC: 0

RE: Based on the experience

Message 30072 in response to message 30071

Quote:
Based on the experience that S41.07 is actually significantly slower on my computer than S41.06 I did some calculations.

I'm sure that S41.07 is faster on K7 cores than S41.06 with 1-2%.

Probably you measured more short wus with S41.06.

Thalus
Thalus
Joined: 18 Jul 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 20,971
RAC: 0

Which version is better for

Which version is better for Athlon64 3500+? I saw Athlon64 with S41.07 and U41.04 so I don´t know which version is better or faster for my CPU... Thanks for Answer

zagadka
zagadka
Joined: 29 Apr 06
Posts: 12
Credit: 17,088
RAC: 0

RE: I'm sure that S41.07 is

Message 30074 in response to message 30072

Quote:
I'm sure that S41.07 is faster on K7 cores than S41.06 with 1-2%.

I don't remember where in this thread, but we have actually seen previous results that suggests that for some K7 cores there is little or no difference in speed between S41.06 or S41.07.

Quote:
Probably you measured more short wus with S41.06.

Actually the only short WUs in the calculations (only 1 or 2) were processed with S41.07, but since they didn't make a difference to the result I didn't mention them.

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,358
Credit: 2,489,874,434
RAC: 3,206,197

U41.xx is faster than S41.xx

U41.xx is faster than S41.xx on any machine that can support SSE3

Thalus
Thalus
Joined: 18 Jul 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 20,971
RAC: 0

RE: U41.xx is faster than

Message 30076 in response to message 30075

Quote:
U41.xx is faster than S41.xx on any machine that can support SSE3

Thanks for the answer... i tested both of them and i think U41.xx isn´t much faster than S41.xx ... 1-2 minutes on a WU.

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,358
Credit: 2,489,874,434
RAC: 3,206,197

It's a small edge, but as

It's a small edge, but as fast as the app is only a massive change could shave more than a few minutes off.

DarkStar
DarkStar
Joined: 2 Jan 06
Posts: 13
Credit: 73,738
RAC: 0

I've been running S41.07(HT)

I've been running S41.07(HT) - based on little more than I thought it was probably the most appropriate version, though I don't know whether there was any real benefit of using it instead of the standard S41.07 client.

The question now is - should I change to S41.08 instead?

Thanks for any advice. Note - the computers running the clients require HT to be enabled for other purpose, so disiabling HT isn't a viable option in this case.

.

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

RE: I've been running

Message 30079 in response to message 30078

Quote:

I've been running S41.07(HT) - based on little more than I thought it was probably the most appropriate version, though I don't know whether there was any real benefit of using it instead of the standard S41.07 client.

The question now is - should I change to S41.08 instead?

Thanks for any advice. Note - the computers running the clients require HT to be enabled for other purpose, so disiabling HT isn't a viable option in this case.


I've found that on my P4 3.0 HT(on) that the fastest version was the S40.04. Here is a previous post in this thread I'd wrote about comparing the S40 & S41HT. After trying the newest S40, S41, & S41HT versions since that post I still find the S40 being the fastest for the 3.0 HT (I leave the HT on too because my computers get used for everything and are not 'dedicated' for crunching.) On the other hand, the new S41.08 (and S41.07 non-HT) are the fastest for the Cel. 2.4. You can take it as advice, but these are my observations.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.