I always like these smug after-the-fact answers. Did you see when I posted that answer? At THAT time... etc.
Please check post dates and see things in context as on April the 8th 2009 Nvidia didn't have a GTX 260 or higher available yet, nor did Milkyway have any GPU applications for any capable Nvidia GPUs available at that time (GTX 285 and 295).
Whether they have now isn't the question. Any user wanting to run MW on his or her GPU should check the project in question. Just as they should check whether any of the CUDA capable projects can run on their Fermi GPUs. Not all can at this time.
By April 2009 the following GTX models were on sale: GTX 260, GTX 260 core 216 (GT 200 based), GTX 280, GTX 285 and GTX 295. Only the GTX 275 and the GT 200b based GTX 260 core 216 were not yet available in April 2009. All of the GTX 2xx models have compute capability 1.3 and are capable of doing MilkyWay at home (I do for two years now, using a 192 core GTX 260, the earliest available model).
Why are you dredging up this old thread yet again? You would appear to be deliberately attempting to start a fight over a technicality.
Ageless' original statement was (8th April 2009) (and he wasn't even talking to you)
One correction on your post, though. Milkyway doesn't run on CUDA. It runs on ATI 38x0 and 48x0 cards only.
The statement was perfectly correct because at the time it was made, MW had only an ATI app under development, but not a CUDA one. As I recall it, the ATI app was pretty much fully developed by the latter half of 2009 and the CUDA version came sometime in 2010. I recall this clearly because I purchased a number of 4850s late in 2009 since I considered the app was now 'ready for production'. That certainly wasn't the case for a CUDA app.
So, even though the original statement was true at the time it was made, some 20 months later on 8th Dec 2010, you decide to highlight it by quoting it and then responding that MW needs
.... a Nvidia card with compute capability 1.3 or higher, so a GTX260 or better and all GTXs after it, and some of the more recent GTS and even GT models. (GT 420/30/40, GTS 450)
Why pick such an old (and actually correct) statement and pose your answer in such a way as to make it look like the original statement was rubbish? It's not surprising that Ageless responded in rather a prickly manner. It would seem that you were fishing for that type of response. Because you chose such a long time delay, it's also not surprising that there was a small error in the answer you got. Sure, the GTX260 did exist at the time but since there was no viable CUDA app at MW, that little detail is not relevant.
The matter really should have ended there. You are really inviting moderation action by waiting a further 13 nonths and then attempting to restart a war by picking on this irrelevant 'technicality'. You seem to be trying to cause offense to the recipient. It's easy for any of us to get minor details wrong from time to time. If you really need to 'correct' someone, do it in a polite and unoffensive manner.
I always like these smug
)
I always like these smug after-the-fact answers. Did you see when I posted that answer? At THAT time... etc.
Please check post dates and see things in context as on April the 8th 2009 Nvidia didn't have a GTX 260 or higher available yet, nor did Milkyway have any GPU applications for any capable Nvidia GPUs available at that time (GTX 285 and 295).
Whether they have now isn't the question. Any user wanting to run MW on his or her GPU should check the project in question. Just as they should check whether any of the CUDA capable projects can run on their Fermi GPUs. Not all can at this time.
To be really smug: The Nvidia
)
To be really smug: The Nvidia GTX 260 came out [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_200_Series"]on 26 June 2008[/url]. A review for the GTX 260 and 280 appeared as early as 16 June 2008 on [url="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx-280,1953.html"]Tom's Hardware[/url].
By April 2009 the following GTX models were on sale: GTX 260, GTX 260 core 216 (GT 200 based), GTX 280, GTX 285 and GTX 295. Only the GTX 275 and the GT 200b based GTX 260 core 216 were not yet available in April 2009. All of the GTX 2xx models have compute capability 1.3 and are capable of doing MilkyWay at home (I do for two years now, using a 192 core GTX 260, the earliest available model).
A real handy way of knowing whether your card is supported is [url="http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/gpu_list.php"]here[/url].
https://boincstats.com/signature/5/user/2177/project/sig.png
RE: To be really smug: The
)
Why are you dredging up this old thread yet again? You would appear to be deliberately attempting to start a fight over a technicality.
Ageless' original statement was (8th April 2009) (and he wasn't even talking to you)
One correction on your post, though. Milkyway doesn't run on CUDA. It runs on ATI 38x0 and 48x0 cards only.The statement was perfectly correct because at the time it was made, MW had only an ATI app under development, but not a CUDA one. As I recall it, the ATI app was pretty much fully developed by the latter half of 2009 and the CUDA version came sometime in 2010. I recall this clearly because I purchased a number of 4850s late in 2009 since I considered the app was now 'ready for production'. That certainly wasn't the case for a CUDA app.
So, even though the original statement was true at the time it was made, some 20 months later on 8th Dec 2010, you decide to highlight it by quoting it and then responding that MW needs
.... a Nvidia card with compute capability 1.3 or higher, so a GTX260 or better and all GTXs after it, and some of the more recent GTS and even GT models. (GT 420/30/40, GTS 450)Why pick such an old (and actually correct) statement and pose your answer in such a way as to make it look like the original statement was rubbish? It's not surprising that Ageless responded in rather a prickly manner. It would seem that you were fishing for that type of response. Because you chose such a long time delay, it's also not surprising that there was a small error in the answer you got. Sure, the GTX260 did exist at the time but since there was no viable CUDA app at MW, that little detail is not relevant.
The matter really should have ended there. You are really inviting moderation action by waiting a further 13 nonths and then attempting to restart a war by picking on this irrelevant 'technicality'. You seem to be trying to cause offense to the recipient. It's easy for any of us to get minor details wrong from time to time. If you really need to 'correct' someone, do it in a polite and unoffensive manner.
Cheers,
Gary.