Pascal again available, Turing may be coming soon

Sorry I was a bit slow to post 2X, 3X, 4X improvement results.

These are specific not only to the Einstein current Windows code for Gamma-ray pulsar, but probably to the specific sort of file from which current WUs are being formed.  For these files, the infamous pause at just below 90% indicated completion is of very short length.  I strongly suspect that running 2X with offset WU starting times benefits particularly during this pause, so the (small) 2X improvement I observed may well be below long-term Einstein average behavior.

Anyway, here is what I saw today, setting productivity at 1X to 1.0 for a reference.:

1X 1.0
2X 1.031
3X 1.035
4X 1.037

With such modest improvement from higher multiplicity, I may well run the system at 1X long-term, and certainly will not go higher than 2X.  In any case, the search for overclock ceilings goes faster at lower multiplicity, so I've started up that ladder running 1X.

So far I have made it far enough up the core clock/memory clock improvement ladder to get 1.049 times the 1X default clock output.  

I've seen clear granularity in the reported core clock frequencies in the past, so went looking for it before starting this time.  It appears that for my 8020 the core clock granularity is 15 MHz, so I've used that as my step size.  The reported memory clock granularity seems too low to observe (so maybe the reporting is spurious).  In any case I've adopted what MSI Afterburner regards as a 30 MHz increment for memory clock trial steps.

So far I've gotten one momentary black screen, and at that moment errored out one WU.  This was at my first try to get started on granularity detection.  It may be hinting that my current core clock level (1980 max so far) is not so far below a hard limit for my card.

Speaking of limits, if you look around at game-oriented Turing reviews, you may see a lot of power limit ceiling discussion.  As we have often seen the Einstein application appears to employ fewer of the GPU chip resources than do typical games, so tends to run somewhat lower power at a given clock.  I've so far not made it quite so high as 80% of (unraised default) power limit.  I expect to run out of high speed correct function headroom before I run out of power limit headroom.

Not sure what you mean by "average time".  Since it was working on two tasks at once when running 2X, the average time, of course, was almost twice as long.  But since it was a bit less than double, the Einstein productivity was higher, in the ratio I posted.

To be really specific, I saw 8:16 average elapsed time at 1X at stock clocks, and 16:02 running 2X.

As I climb the overclocking ladder, I'm down to about 7:50 at the moment (for tasks run when I am not actively using the PC--this is my daily driver).

I'll retry 2X when I've found the clock rate ceilings.

I think I've bumped into the core clock rate ceiling for my 2080 card under current conditions.  After I had requested +140 (giving a reported 2010) core clock for a half hour run, my attempt to go up one rung to +155 gave multiple oddities, including a prompt transient in reported clock rate.  Then I noticed the red line which indicated that I had errored out the in-progress WU.

So I am currently continuing up the memory clock rate ladder, using a core clock dialed back slightly to +125 (gives 1995).  Based on a report or two from early benchmarkers, it may be that my card may have considerably more memory clock steps to go (I'm currently trialing at +300, which gives 1775 as reported by GPU-Z, or 7100 on the scale some other applications use).

I consider the relatively small percentage core clock overclock available to be an unwelcome surprise.  Of course, the specific sample of the GPU chip present on the card I received gets a vote on this, so other users are likely to see different results on this point than I.