Times (Elapsed / CPU) for BRP5/6/6-Beta on various CPU/GPU combos - DISCUSSION Thread

Forums › Cruncher's Corner

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5872
Credit: 117617059650
RAC: 35258642

I have barely enough results

11 Mar 2015 9:39:58 UTC
Message 130748
(moderation:
    )

    I have barely enough results for v1.52 on my HOST 05 in the opening post of the RESULTS thread but I've just updated the table there and decided to add them. I had extra results for 1.47 so I added a new line for 162 results (107+55 more) whilst leaving the previous 107 intact for comparison.

    The results for 1.52 look very promising.

    Cheers,
    Gary.

    MarkHNC
    MarkHNC
    Joined: 31 Aug 12
    Posts: 37
    Credit: 170965842
    RAC: 0

    RE: RE: My 1st beta 1.52

    11 Mar 2015 14:14:34 UTC
    Message 130749 in response to message 130734
    (moderation:
      )

      Quote:
      Quote:
      My 1st beta 1.52 is running on my Intel HD4000

      Actually we are not sure yet whether we want to keep serving the rather big BRP6 work units to the Intel iGPUs. At least the less powerful among them like the HD 2500 will take longer to crunch than we usually like tasks to take to complete. It is quite possible that we'll stop BRP6 beta on the Intel iGPUs after some initial tests.

      HB

      I have an i3 3220/HD 2500 that runs at 100% CPU and 100% GPU nearly 24/7 and that picked up two of these big tasks. I have it setup to run two Einstein tasks at the time, because it was peaking around 70% GPU utilization when running the single-unit Arecibo tasks. I also run three WCG units alongside, mostly FAAH-Vina with the occasional CEP2. So it is now running two of these biggies.

      First is 50%, elapsed 23h30m, remaining 11h52m
      Second is 48%, elapsed 24h49m, remaining 12h58m

      Richard Haselgrove
      Richard Haselgrove
      Joined: 10 Dec 05
      Posts: 2143
      Credit: 2957672981
      RAC: 712808

      RE: RE: RE: My 1st beta

      11 Mar 2015 15:35:41 UTC
      Message 130750 in response to message 130749
      (moderation:
        )

        Quote:
        Quote:
        Quote:
        My 1st beta 1.52 is running on my Intel HD4000

        Actually we are not sure yet whether we want to keep serving the rather big BRP6 work units to the Intel iGPUs. At least the less powerful among them like the HD 2500 will take longer to crunch than we usually like tasks to take to complete. It is quite possible that we'll stop BRP6 beta on the Intel iGPUs after some initial tests.

        HB


        I have an i3 3220/HD 2500 that runs at 100% CPU and 100% GPU nearly 24/7 and that picked up two of these big tasks. I have it setup to run two Einstein tasks at the time, because it was peaking around 70% GPU utilization when running the single-unit Arecibo tasks. I also run three WCG units alongside, mostly FAAH-Vina with the occasional CEP2. So it is now running two of these biggies.

        First is 50%, elapsed 23h30m, remaining 11h52m
        Second is 48%, elapsed 24h49m, remaining 12h58m


        Once this pair have finished, you might find it interesting to run the next pair with the CPU at 75% utilisation. What were your run (elapsed) times for the small Arecibo tasks on the HD 2500?

        MarkHNC
        MarkHNC
        Joined: 31 Aug 12
        Posts: 37
        Credit: 170965842
        RAC: 0

        RE: RE: RE: RE: My

        11 Mar 2015 17:12:24 UTC
        Message 130751 in response to message 130750
        (moderation:
          )

          Quote:
          Quote:
          Quote:
          Quote:
          My 1st beta 1.52 is running on my Intel HD4000

          Actually we are not sure yet whether we want to keep serving the rather big BRP6 work units to the Intel iGPUs. At least the less powerful among them like the HD 2500 will take longer to crunch than we usually like tasks to take to complete. It is quite possible that we'll stop BRP6 beta on the Intel iGPUs after some initial tests.

          HB


          I have an i3 3220/HD 2500 that runs at 100% CPU and 100% GPU nearly 24/7 and that picked up two of these big tasks. I have it setup to run two Einstein tasks at the time, because it was peaking around 70% GPU utilization when running the single-unit Arecibo tasks. I also run three WCG units alongside, mostly FAAH-Vina with the occasional CEP2. So it is now running two of these biggies.

          First is 50%, elapsed 23h30m, remaining 11h52m
          Second is 48%, elapsed 24h49m, remaining 12h58m


          Once this pair have finished, you might find it interesting to run the next pair with the CPU at 75% utilisation. What were your run (elapsed) times for the small Arecibo tasks on the HD 2500?

          So far, what has been downloaded into the cache is more Arecibo. I'll try to remember to watch for BRP6.

          Last 40 Arecibo:
          Average: 3,538.75; Median: 3,551.86; Min: 3,047.78; Max: 3,688.01

          Richard Haselgrove
          Richard Haselgrove
          Joined: 10 Dec 05
          Posts: 2143
          Credit: 2957672981
          RAC: 712808

          RE: RE: RE: I have an

          11 Mar 2015 17:25:30 UTC
          Message 130752 in response to message 130751
          (moderation:
            )

            Quote:
            Quote:
            Quote:

            I have an i3 3220/HD 2500 that runs at 100% CPU and 100% GPU nearly 24/7 and that picked up two of these big tasks. I have it setup to run two Einstein tasks at the time, because it was peaking around 70% GPU utilization when running the single-unit Arecibo tasks. I also run three WCG units alongside, mostly FAAH-Vina with the occasional CEP2. So it is now running two of these biggies.

            First is 50%, elapsed 23h30m, remaining 11h52m
            Second is 48%, elapsed 24h49m, remaining 12h58m


            Once this pair have finished, you might find it interesting to run the next pair with the CPU at 75% utilisation. What were your run (elapsed) times for the small Arecibo tasks on the HD 2500?

            So far, what has been downloaded into the cache is more Arecibo. I'll try to remember to watch for BRP6.

            Last 40 Arecibo:
            Average: 3,538.75; Median: 3,551.86; Min: 3,047.78; Max: 3,688.01


            I have HD 4000 and HD 4600, but I don't think there's a big difference from HD 2500. By reducing CPU loading, I get something below 700 seconds (in round figures) for tasks running one at a time. I'll go get some accurate figures.

            Edit: last 40 validated on each host
            HD 4000 Average: 665.92 Median: 664.79 Min: 658.34 Max: 681.67
            HD 4600 Average: 653.09 Median: 652.31 Min: 646.25 Max: 665.45

            ExtraTerrestrial Apes
            ExtraTerrestria...
            Joined: 10 Nov 04
            Posts: 770
            Credit: 578220208
            RAC: 202073

            HD2500 has just 6 EUs,

            11 Mar 2015 23:22:09 UTC
            Message 130753
            (moderation:
              )

              HD2500 has just 6 EUs, compared to 16 in HD4000 and 20 in HD4600. Compute performance varies from the expected factor of 2.3 slower than HD4000 (SmallLux) to almost a factor of 4 for the fluid simulation. Based on the shaders and Richard's HD4000 we could expect 1773s per single WU, or 3547s for 2 of them if there was no scaling benefit. That's pretty close to the mean 3539s per 2 WUs which Mark reported. With BRP4 and app 1.39 there was an advantage of ~10% for running 2 WUs concurrently on my HD4000 - this may make up for a slightly lower clock speed on Mark's i3.

              Richard, do you see a performance difference between HD4000 and HD4600 with 1.52? I always suspected there was none with 1.39 because the main memory bandwidth limited throughput. Now that this bottleneck is significantly widened I'd expect to see some performance difference. It's 16 vs. 20 EUs, after all.

              BTW: my Intel is only getting 1.39 since the first two successful ones. I'd love to use 1.52 even on BRP4 work, but don't want the hassle of an anonymous platform.

              MrS

              Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

              Gary Roberts
              Gary Roberts
              Moderator
              Joined: 9 Feb 05
              Posts: 5872
              Credit: 117617059650
              RAC: 35258642

              I've updated the stats table

              12 Mar 2015 4:45:13 UTC
              Message 130754
              (moderation:
                )

                I've updated the stats table for HOST 01 in the opening post of the results thread. I've added a lot more to the 1.47 sample. I've also added a preliminary stats line for 1.52 which I'll update with more results when available. The further improvement from 1.52 on this host is quite impressive!!

                Cheers,
                Gary.

                Mumak
                Joined: 26 Feb 13
                Posts: 325
                Credit: 3522468124
                RAC: 1589217

                If someone is curious how a

                12 Mar 2015 9:25:50 UTC
                Message 130755
                (moderation:
                  )

                  If someone is curious how a Tesla performs here ;-)
                  Tesla K20c
                  BRP6 v1.39, running 2 WUs
                  705 MHz, ECC ON: 60 C, 100 W, ~13000 secs
                  758 MHz, ECC OFF: 61 C, 108 W, ~11200 secs

                  Disabling ECC improves memory bandwidth, which is important for current BRP tasks. This is likely to change for the new versions.. But sorry, I haven't opted into the Beta yet. Too much other work..

                  -----

                  Daniels_Parents
                  Daniels_Parents
                  Joined: 9 Feb 05
                  Posts: 101
                  Credit: 1877689213
                  RAC: 0

                  [pre] Comparing GTX670 and

                  12 Mar 2015 10:50:19 UTC
                  Message 130756
                  (moderation:
                    )

                    [pre]
                    Comparing GTX670 and GTX560Ti 2 x GTX670 2 x GTX560Ti

                    GPU Clock (MHz) 1097 900
                    Memory Clock (MHz) 3005 2106
                    Memory Size (GB) 2 1
                    Memory Bandwith (GB/s) 192 128
                    Memory Interface With (Bit) 256 256
                    Voltage (V) 1.162 1.062
                    CUDA Cores 1344 384

                    CPU Processor i7 950 / 3.051 MHz 920 / 2.7 MHz
                    Memory 12 GB / DDR3 1066 12 GB / DDR3 1333
                    Motherboard EVGA E768 Gigabyte GA-EX58 Extreme
                    PCI-E x16 /x16 x16 / x8
                    Operating System Win7 x64 Home Premium Home Premium

                    RCA (cobblestones about) 97'000 100'000

                    All GPUs are now running 4 x BRP6-Beta 1.52 each, remaining CPU cores working on other tasks (GPU usage 97% shown by Precision-X)
                    The system with the GTX560Ti cards is slightly more successful

                    Seen from my point of view, the system with the GTX670 cards should cut significantly better ... am I wrong ?

                    [/pre]

                    I know I am a part of a story that starts long before I can remember and continues long beyond when anyone will remember me [Danny Hillis, Long Now]

                    Richard Haselgrove
                    Richard Haselgrove
                    Joined: 10 Dec 05
                    Posts: 2143
                    Credit: 2957672981
                    RAC: 712808

                    RE: Richard, do you see a

                    12 Mar 2015 12:44:42 UTC
                    Message 130757 in response to message 130753
                    (moderation:
                      )

                      Quote:

                      Richard, do you see a performance difference between HD4000 and HD4600 with 1.52? I always suspected there was none with 1.39 because the main memory bandwidth limited throughput. Now that this bottleneck is significantly widened I'd expect to see some performance difference. It's 16 vs. 20 EUs, after all.

                      BTW: my Intel is only getting 1.39 since the first two successful ones. I'd love to use 1.52 even on BRP4 work, but don't want the hassle of an anonymous platform.

                      MrS


                      I don't think we're comparing like with like. My posted times were for v1.34 (BRP4) work - I don't think v1.39 (BRP6) was ever released for intel_gpu, we only started running them with the Beta.

                      I've never seen anything like a 25% difference between the 4000 and 4600 - the 4600 (in an i5) has been better than the 4000 (in an i7), but only by the sort of 10 second margin you saw in the figures I posted yesterday. Both figures have improved slightly with newer drivers, but that has to be done carefully because of the validation issues we've discussed elsewhere.

                      I tried running a dozen or so tasks 2-up on the HD 4600 overnight, but only saw about a 3% improvement on the overall throughput:

                      HD 4600 Average: 1,267.31 Median: 1,261.45 Min: 1,248.90 Max: 1,310.41

                      I'll watch out for a comparison between 4000 and 4600 with the v1.52 BRP6 Beta, but it'll take time to gather enough numbers.

                      Comment viewing options

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

                      Forums › Cruncher's Corner