Benchmark results - times wanted for any hardware, CPU or GPU, old or new!
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Benchmark results - times wanted for any hardware, CPU or GPU, old or new!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7   
|
Doh! Forgot links! Sorry for the busted links but it's the poor software this forum uses! You can manually edit the url in the address bar or just go to the threads linked below. KWSN forum thread http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204042#204042 AnandTech forum thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366988 mesyn191 I'm very sorry I've only just realised I'd completely overlooked your post! :o Thx for the result :). Updated table - corrected links (but they still won't work here!) & added a 7970. Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds. [update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb. ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered upto the 17/2/14, you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU. Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either. For CPUs you'll want to crunch 1WU per real core. Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :- HD 7970 (GPU 1150 MHz) ....................................... 75s Sunny129 R 280X (GPU 1100 MHz) ......................................... 75s Mumak HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129 HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1400 MHz, Cat 14.1) .. 78s Mesyn191 HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 80s Leonheart HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 81s Mumak, HD 7970 (GPU 1050 MHz) ....................................... 81s Sunny129 HD 7950 (GPU 900 MHz) ......................................... 82s WES HD 7970 (stock) .................................................... 83s mikey HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz) ....................................... 85s Sunny129 HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz,Cat 14.1 b) . 87s Leonheart HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ......................................... 90s Sunny129 (same time when RAM u/c to 800 MHz!) HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz) ................ 95s Leonheart HD 7870 XT (stock) .............................................. 120s Matt HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 121s salvordorhardin HD 6950 (stock) .................................................. 176s Icecold HD 5870 (stock) .................................................. 192s mikey HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 210s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz, RAM u/c 500 MHz) ............ 211s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) ...................................... 231s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 245s salvordorhardin HD 5850 1GB (stock) ........................................... 246s Assim1 (1st post) HD 5850 1 GB (GPU 800 MHz) .............................. 246s petrusbroder GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc HD 4870 512 MB (stock) ...................................... 444s JumpinJohnny GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ........................... 471s GleeM HD 4870 1GB (stock) ........................................... 503s Assim1 GTX 570 (stock) .................................................. 520s - Linux biodoc GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 520s Dunx HD 4850 1 GB (stock) .......................................... 553s wayliff GTX 770 (GPU 1333 MHz) .................................... 609s Stojag HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post) HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ........................ 724s Mumak HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) ..................................... 807s Deerslayer GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ................................. 816s - Linux biodoc GTX 560 Ti (stock) .............................................. 836s Deerslayer HD 7750 (GPU 900 MHz, RAM 1300 MHz) ............. 1096s branjo GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ......................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6 Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :- Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 (Turboing to 3.7 GHz) ...... 9881s Stojag Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1 Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.41 GHz) .................. 13,774s JumpinJohnny Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown. Sorry for the busted links but it's the poor software this forum uses! You can manually edit the url in the address bar or just go to the threads linked below. KWSN forum thread http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204042#204042 AnandTech forum thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366988 Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61274 · Rating: 0 · rate:
 /   |
|
Send message Joined: 13 Feb 11 Posts: 31 Credit: 1,403,524,537 RAC: 0 
|
76.6 seconds..... 1030 GHz R9 280X - HD 7970. HTH dunx ID: 61287 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
Thx Dunx :) Wow!, 1030 GHz? Surely that would do WUs in milliseconds? ;) lol Btw, HTH?? Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61290 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
 Arion Send message Joined: 10 Aug 08 Posts: 218 Credit: 41,846,854 RAC: 0  
|
Got your message today about the 3870 times.... I'm running an app_info shown below. What do I need to add or change to run the app you're asking for? PS.. I already set up a profile for this system so it doesn't screw up the rest of my systems :) <?xml version="1.0"?> -<app_info> -<app> <name>milkyway</name> </app> -<file_info> <name>milkyway_separation_0.82_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</name> <executable/> </file_info> -<app_version> <app_name>milkyway</app_name> <version_num>82</version_num> <flops>1.0e11</flops> <avg_ncpus>0.05</avg_ncpus> <max_ncpus>1.0</max_ncpus> <plan_class>ati14ati</plan_class> -<coproc> <type>ATI</type> <count>1</count> </coproc> <cmdline/> -<file_ref> <filename>milkyway_separation_0.82_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> </app_info>  
ID: 61293 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 12 Posts: 20 Credit: 105,341,548 RAC: 0  
|
HD 7970 51 secs R9 270 282 secs GT610 3500 secs all under win 7, boinc 7.2.39 The R9 results are suspect as milkyway reports 38 DP flops, default to 100 flops which is very incorrect. Will update to beta driver and try again. ID: 61294 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
 Send message Joined: 25 Jan 11 Posts: 271 Credit: 346,072,284 RAC: 0 
|
Got your message today about the 3870 times.... I'm running an app_info shown below. What do I need to add or change to run the app you're asking for? unfortunately i don't think you can help the cause with an HD 3xxx series GPU. according to your app_info, you're using v0.82 (ati14), the non-OpenCL version of the Milkyway@Home applicaiton...i'm assuming that you're HD 3870 is not OpenCL-capable, or else your GPU would be using v1.02 (opencl_amd_ati), the OpenCL version of the Milkyway@Home application. to participate in the first place, you'll note that its the tasks that earn 213.76 points that we're after here...and the only application that sends out 213.76-point tasks is the Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) application. if you look at all the different versions of the Modified Fit application, there are no non-OpenCL GPU versions of the application - all of them are OpenCL-based...so i don't think the server will give you any Modified Fit tasks (even if you have them selected/enabled in your MW@H web preferences) b/c the project knows that HD 3xxx series GPUs cannot crunch OpenCL versions (the only ones available for either AMD or nVidia GPUs) of the app. 
ID: 61295 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Arion Send message Joined: 10 Aug 08 Posts: 218 Credit: 41,846,854 RAC: 0
|
unfortunately i don't think you can help the cause with an HD 3xxx series GPU. according to your app_info, you're using v0.82 (ati14), the non-OpenCL version of the Milkyway@Home applicaiton...i'm assuming that you're HD 3870 is not OpenCL-capable, or else your GPU would be using v1.02 (opencl_amd_ati), the OpenCL version of the Milkyway@Home application. No big deal... Was asked to run those because it would be nice to have the 3870 included on the list. I don't know if its Open CL capable or not. If anyone knows and thinks this can run the specialised wu's you are running let me know what I need to change or add in my app_info file. Otherwise I'm content to continue along as I have for this long. Most important is that my old card is able to contribute to the project and earn me some extra credits over the CPU. :)
ID: 61296 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
Damn I didn't know that :(, sorry Arion, that's a pity I won't be able to add your 3870 to the list then. Glad it still faithfully crunches for you anyway! :) Thanks for replying anyhow. Sunny Thx for the info mate, I was after a 3870 time, didn't know about those limitations :( Alez I'm not sure about your 7970 time either, I think you've averaged some of the 'short' 213.76 WU times. Did you do that for the other 2 cards too? Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61309 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 13 Feb 11 Posts: 31 Credit: 1,403,524,537 RAC: 0
|
So you found my secret stash of 1000 R9 280X's cards, running in a cupboard.... ( HTH - Hope this helps... ) dunx P.S. Anyone else had problems with x-fire and drivers on system with two R9 280x / HD79xx cards ? ID: 61313 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 12 Posts: 20 Credit: 105,341,548 RAC: 0
|
nope, times consistently at 50 secs. 680783869 509228308 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 19:53:37 UTC Completed and validated 50.42 5.90 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) 680783868 509228307 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 19:51:20 UTC Completed and validated 50.24 5.37 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) 680783868 509228307 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 19:51:20 UTC Completed and validated 50.24 5.37 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) 680783867 509228306 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 19:52:29 UTC Completed and validated 50.44 6.02 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) 680783866 509228305 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 19:51:20 UTC Completed and validated 51.31 6.05 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) 680783865 509228304 3 Mar 2014, 12:57:49 UTC 3 Mar 2014, 18:40:20 UTC Completed and validated 51.61 6.08 213.76 Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28 (opencl_amd_ati) computer is here. http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=479121 runs 1 x 7970 clocked to 1050, 1 x r9 270 clocked to 1000 and 1 x gt610 ID: 61314 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 25 Jan 11 Posts: 271 Credit: 346,072,284 RAC: 0
|
nope, times consistently at 50 secs. you have a number of valid 213.76-point tasks that took ~76s to complete (in addition to the ones that only ~50s to complete)...these are the ones we're after. after having averaged the first 5 of your valid longer-running 213.76-point tasks, i got an average run time of 76.5s.
ID: 61315 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 12 Posts: 20 Credit: 105,341,548 RAC: 0
|
or you take the 50's and the 76's and call it 63 :) I only posted the numbers because at the time you had no data from either of my three cards in this machine, and only looked back 2 pages ( which were all nearly 50's ). How you choose to interpret it, that's your call and your welcome to use it as you see fit I also have 7750's and 7770's running in various systems but you already have data from them. ID: 61318 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 25 Jan 11 Posts: 271 Credit: 346,072,284 RAC: 0
|
i don't know if it was mentioned earlier in this thread or not (i haven't followed it from the beginning), but at some point we discovered that some 213.76-point tasks take x seconds to complete, while other 213.76-point tasks take 1.5x seconds to complete. thus the OP decided that' we'd use only the longer-running 213.76-point tasks, that is, the ones that take approx. 50% longer to complete. i suppose he could have just as easily told everyone to use 5 of the shorter-running tasks for their averages, or perhaps 3 short ones and 2 long ones. fortunately, for simplicity's sake, he chose to average 5 of the same kind of task, and that just happened to be the kind that takes 50% longer to complete. its not really about interpretation so much as it is about consistency...if you aren't calculating your average run time using 5 of the longer running 213.76-point tasks, then the contribution will be useless...
ID: 61320 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 12 Posts: 20 Credit: 105,341,548 RAC: 0
|
must have missed that memo too, still makes the r9 270 disappointing for an ATI and the 610 the slowest card so far, but it never misses a beat. Don't recall it ever throwing an error :) ID: 61321 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
Yea I chose the 'long' 213.76 WUs because that's what we started with. Unfortunately because of the crap software these forums use I can't edit the 1st post to update the description, we discovered the 'short' 213.76 WUs on about the 20th of Feb. I've been posting updated benchmarks requirements along with the updated table towards the end of the thread but if you only read the requirements from my 1st post you would of indeed missed it ;). ~77s looks about right for your 7970 Re R9 270 time, considering it has about the same DP power as a HD 4830 that is a surprisingly good time, was that average (282s) taken when you were only getting the short 213.76 WUs? I would say yes as I counted 5 longer 213.76 WUs with an average of about 427s, which is still way ahead of the 4830 :), or is that a different GPU? I think something is very wrong with your NVidia time though as it's showing a very high CPU time too (over 3900s!). Unless that's MWs poor support of NVidia cards?? Btw long 213.76s are taking about 6770s on that GPU. Are any of your 77xx cards at a different clock to the ones on my table? If so give me the times pls :). Dunx Lol :D Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61334 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
I was going to post a time for my GTX 260 c216, but it only seems to be crunching MW v1.02 WUs. At 1st I thought it was because the GPU was too old, but then I stumbled across a team mate of mine crunching on a 260 who is able to get mod fit WUs. See here http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=443852&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= Then I found that my 2nd rigs location was set to 'home', even though I'd long since deleted that profile. However I'm fairly sure that x-profile did have MW@H app unticked, anyway I set it's location to default aka none.......... and it's still getting only MW 1.2 WUs! Anyone got any ideas?? My 2nd rig http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=566187 Oh btw, my card has a latter driver than my team mates, his rig's on Win 7 my 2nd rig's on XP. Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61341 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 25 Jan 11 Posts: 271 Credit: 346,072,284 RAC: 0
|
I was going to post a time for my GTX 260 c216, but it only seems to be crunching MW v1.02 WUs. perhaps that host is using either an app_info.xml file or an app_config.xml file that specifies the use of (has an entry for) the Modified Fit application. in other words, perhaps that user is forcing his GTX 260 to crunch the Modified Fit tasks (and thus forcing it to use the OpenCL-coded application binary, since there is no non-OpenCL-coded version of the Modified Fit application). perhaps you should PM him and see who he is able to receive Modified Fit tasks. this also makes me wonder if what i told Arion a few days ago - that an HD 3870 cannot crunch Modified Fit tasks due to a lack of OpenCL support - is true...perhaps it can be forced to crunch Modified Fit tasks as well. let me know what you find out about the GTX 260 host.
ID: 61342 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
So by default they can't normally crunch mod fit WUs? I'll see if I can get hold of our own Silverthorne :), don't recall him posting for a while.... [edit] nope, nearly 2yrs at AT! :( Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61343 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 22 Jan 11 Posts: 375 Credit: 64,707,164 RAC: 7
|
Please share your new scores for old & new GPUs & CPUs alike! :) I will update the table as necessary. Requirements for benchmark, validated 213.76 credit WUs only, average of 5 WU times, dedicated CPU core for the GPU, please state clock speeds if overclocked (including factory o/cs) or state 'stock'. It would also be handy if you could state your BOINC & driver version & OS, incase it does make any odds. [update] It seems MW@H have now (20th Feb. ish) released new faster 213.76 credit WUs along with the previously 'standard' speed WUs, so going by the benchmarks gathered upto the 17/2/14, you need to average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only. Each 'speed' WU should only vary by a few seconds or so where their is nothing else working the GPU. Oh & for the benchmark please only crunch 1 WU at a time per GPU otherwise it will massively increase WU time, naturally! ;) (even if it does increase output), and the WU times seem to fluctuate much more than singly crunched WU so you can't 1/2 the time either. For CPUs you'll want to crunch 1WU per real core. Current GPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :- HD 7970 (GPU 1150 MHz) ....................................... 75s Sunny129 R 280X (GPU 1100 MHz) ......................................... 75s Mumak R 280X (GPU 1030 MHz) ......................................... 77s Dunx HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129 HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1400 MHz, Cat 14.1) .. 78s Mesyn191 HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 80s Leonheart HD 7950 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 81s Mumak, HD 7970 (GPU 1050 MHz) ....................................... 81s Sunny129 HD 7950 (GPU 900 MHz) ......................................... 82s WES HD 7970 (stock) .................................................... 83s mikey HD 7970 (GPU 1000 MHz) ....................................... 85s Sunny129 HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz,Cat 14.1 b) . 87s Leonheart HD 7970 (GPU 950 MHz) ......................................... 90s Sunny129 (same time when RAM u/c to 800 MHz!) HD 7950 (GPU 1000 MHz, RAM 1500 MHz) ................ 95s Leonheart HD 7870 XT (stock) .............................................. 120s Matt HD 7950 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 121s salvordorhardin HD 6950 (stock) .................................................. 176s Icecold HD 5870 (stock) .................................................. 192s mikey HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz) ....................................... 210s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 850 MHz, RAM u/c 500 MHz) ............ 211s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 775 MHz) ...................................... 231s Assim1 HD 5850 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 245s salvordorhardin HD 5850 1GB (stock) ........................................... 246s Assim1 (1st post) HD 5850 1 GB (GPU 800 MHz) .............................. 246s petrusbroder GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc GTX Titan .......................................................... 414s Yankton (GPU load only 18% despite a free CPU core) HD 4870 512 MB (stock) ...................................... 444s JumpinJohnny GTX 560 Ti 448c (GPU 880 MHz) ........................... 471s GleeM HD 4870 1GB (stock) ........................................... 503s Assim1 GTX 570 (stock) .................................................. 520s - Linux biodoc GTX 480 (GPU 750 MHz) ...................................... 520s Dunx HD 4850 1 GB (stock) .......................................... 553s wayliff GTX 770 (GPU 1333 MHz) .................................... 609s Stojag HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (1st post) HD 7770 GHz ed. (GPU 1100 MHz) ........................ 724s Mumak HD 7770 GHz ed. (stock) ..................................... 807s Deerslayer GTX 660 Ti (GPU 1046 MHz) ................................. 816s - Linux biodoc GTX 560 Ti (stock) .............................................. 836s Deerslayer HD 7750 (GPU 900 MHz, RAM 1300 MHz) ............. 1096s branjo GTX 460 (GPU 750 MHz) 768 MB ......................... 1127s - Linux Ken g6 Current CPU statistics ~ Average Time to Complete 1 'long' 213.76 credit WU :- Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 (Turboing to 3.7 GHz) ...... 9881s Stojag Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1 Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey AMD Phenom II X4 965 (3.41 GHz) .................. 13,774s JumpinJohnny Intel Core 2 Q8300 ........................................ 14,949s mikey AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ............................... 14,950s mikey AMD FX 6300 ................................................ 15,521s mikey AMD FX 6100 ................................................ 17,449s mikey Intel Core 2 Q8200 ........................................ 19,542s mikey AMD Phenom 9850 ........................................ 25,844s mikey OS Windows, unless otherwise stated. CPU at stock clock where no speed shown. Sorry for the busted links but it's the poor software this forum uses! You can manually edit the url in the address bar or just go to the threads linked below. KWSN forum thread http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204042#204042 AnandTech forum thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366988 Team AnandTech - SETI@H, DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP, WCG Main rig - Ryzen 5 3600, MSI B450 G.Pro C. AC, RTX 3060Ti 8GB, 32GB DDR4 3200, Win 10 64bit 2nd rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 16GB DDR3 1866, Win7 ID: 61345 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
|
Send message Joined: 8 Feb 08 Posts: 261 Credit: 104,050,322 RAC: 0
|
That 3870 talked about before is using cat 12.4 which in general has openCL support. After some search I found that the 3870 has no openCL support from the driver because the driver expects compute shader mode which the 3870 does not have. So openCL 1.0 starts with the 4xxx series. The app table shows no x86 mod_fit apps for Windows, so I expect that to be the reason why noone on Win x86 gets them automatically. Since the download folder has Win x86 apps it should be possible to run them with an app_info. Question is: Why aren't they in the official app list? Are they untested? Do they have a bug? Or simply forgotten to put them in the table for automatically downloadable apps? ID: 61348 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group