MS Windows Beta Test App 4.24 available
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4314
Credit: 250763253
RAC: 33936
3 Aug 2006 15:49:12 UTC
Topic 191648
(moderation:
A new Beta Test App is available on our usual Beta Test Page.
It features a codebase similar to the Linux 4.17 Beta Test App, with hand-coded optimized assembler calculation from Akos (and me).
See how much this speeds up things in general.
I haven't seen a single invalid result from the Linux Apps with the same analysis code, so I'm pretty sure this App won't cause any problems. Please report invalid results ASAP.
Happy crunching!
BM
BM
MS Windows Beta Test App 4.24 available
)
Well very early days still, but assuming a flat work level, this big WU should be done in around 8 hours or so, compared to 12,5 hours or so - that's very much better (grin). Now I can get some work done here in XP as well as in Linux (Dual-boot)
Gray
RE: RE: A new Beta Test
)
OK 12% after an hour, so somewhat over 8 hours is a fair guess...
Gray
First result in with 4.24
)
First result in with 4.24 reduces 5600-5700 second range results to 3755 seconds, a 33% improvement (awaiting validation though). Next result is longer, but looking like a 46800 second result from 4.02 is heading to be about 32000 seconds with 4.24, around the same 33% level of improvement. This will get the Search Progress figures moving when it gets released! A great job Bernd and Akos!
RE: [Now I can get some
)
Would really be courious to know how the 4.24 compares to the 4.17 on the same machine. If I read you results right, there's still a big difference. Is this consistent with wall-clock time or is there a problem with reporting the CPU-time?
BM
BM
RE: RE: [Now I can get
)
I'm running a dual-boot as well, as soon as my cache is dry I'll start crunching with 4.24 to give a comparison between 4.17 and 4.24.
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
The stderr out for this
)
The stderr out for this result has a few curious/unusual "small x" entries that I've never seen before.
Valid State is "Initial" at this point so it's nothing to be terribly concerned about from my point of view.
RE: The stderr out for this
)
A qoute by Bernd from the Linux 4.16 Beta test page:
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
Looks like you did a bang up
)
Looks like you did a bang up job on the optimization! It has made a huge difference so far on my Turion X2. It's almost 50% faster! This is going to reignite interest in the project and start getting the estimated work still done number down starting this week. Great job Bernd, and keep the code coming!
Maybe that "small x" debug
)
Maybe that "small x" debug line could just be a counter that gets displayed once when the application wraps up and exits. It turns the stderr out into some new form of spagetti code.
This Athlon 64 takes about
)
This Athlon 64 takes about 5:20 to finish the type of WU that gets assigned 176.50 credits by the server.
I have no other results from this machine to compare to because it gets so hot around here in the summer that running computers voluntarily is a very bad idea indeed.