Message boards :
Number crunching :
Amount of concurrent blocks
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 5 Jun 09 Posts: 2 Credit: 1,704 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 10 Mar 10 Posts: 6 Credit: 955,895 RAC: 0 |
would also like to know this as well , i am new to the project |
Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0 |
I don't have a technical understanding of the preference, but I believe it essentially indicates how long the application can request control over the GPU at a time. That means that for higher values, the application can do more calculations in a row without giving control back to the operating system, but that also means that anything the operating system wants to do (such as drawing to the screen to update what you see) will have to wait until it gets control. So it's a trade-off between system responsiveness and Milkyway application performance - however, the amount of performance gained by using a higher setting may be negligible. |
Send message Joined: 7 Mar 10 Posts: 11 Credit: 1,284,443 RAC: 0 |
I don't have a technical understanding of the preference, but I believe it essentially indicates how long the application can request control over the GPU at a time. That means that for higher values, the application can do more calculations in a row without giving control back to the operating system, but that also means that anything the operating system wants to do (such as drawing to the screen to update what you see) will have to wait until it gets control. So it's a trade-off between system responsiveness and Milkyway application performance - however, the amount of performance gained by using a higher setting may be negligible. I'm 99% sure from experience in other areas...its "memory" block usage. Basically how much Video RAM can be dedicated for tasks. Thus the "interface lag" at "higher values" I have a GTX280, set it to 50000 and can't tell a difference video wise unless I play a full screen video file, then get the occassional chop. |
Send message Joined: 16 Jun 09 Posts: 85 Credit: 172,476 RAC: 0 |
The field concurrent blocks dictates how much of the GPU will be used by the application in a single iteration. The more concurrent blocks the faster the workunits are finished, but it will cause more user interface lag. |
Send message Joined: 30 Apr 09 Posts: 99 Credit: 29,853,513 RAC: 1,056 |
I tested on my manufacturer OCed GTX260-216 @ 680/1500/1250 MHz [core/shader/RAM] the stock 128 and 50,000 and the calculation times are the same. Which blocks are meant with this settings? GTX260-216 - GT200b, 55nm: Shader? This are 216. CUDA Cores? This are 27. ROPs? This are 28. Shader-Cluster? This are 9. Texture units? This are 72. Fillrate Pixel (GP/s) - 16,128. Fillrate Texture (GT/s) - 41,472. [wikipedia.org/GeForce_200_Series] Maybe I would need to insert the correct value of my GPU? Thanks! :-) [EDIT: The screen is connected to the onboard GPU. The GTX260-216 do only CUDA.] |
Send message Joined: 21 Nov 09 Posts: 49 Credit: 20,942,758 RAC: 0 |
The field concurrent blocks dictates how much of the GPU will be used by the application in a single iteration. The more concurrent blocks the faster the workunits are finished, but it will cause more user interface lag. Much like Sutaru I didn't see any difference in completion time or interface responsiveness between 128 and 50,000. And my screen is run through the video card. GTX260 55nm with 216 cores as well. Perhaps it would have more effect with single precision calculations where the gpu is more completely used for the computation? nmeofdst8, As for memory usage, GPU-Z reports the same ammt of memory used no matter what the setting is set to. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jun 11 Posts: 2 Credit: 154,955 RAC: 0 |
With gtx560ti and 384 concurrent (as many as stream processors) and no cpu in milkyway preferences I have gained 2 minutes from 8 min to 6 min, any higher value results in no acceleration or no run at all cuda milkyway chunks. The only problem I cannot remove cpu tasks n-body simulation, even i have forbidden cpu for ever. it is heat maker, always 100% on one cpu processor. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jun 11 Posts: 2 Credit: 154,955 RAC: 0 |
Maybe I was wrong, it only works with 128, anybody has any clues about this feature? With 128 still have 6 min without any cpu... |
Send message Joined: 8 May 10 Posts: 576 Credit: 15,979,383 RAC: 0 |
Maybe I was wrong, it only works with 128, anybody has any clues about this feature? With 128 still have 6 min without any cpu...This isn't a feature. I think the old CUDA version might have used it. If you're changing it now it won't do anything. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group