Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Benchmark results - times wanted for any hardware, CPU or GPU, old or new!


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Benchmark results - times wanted for any hardware, CPU or GPU, old or new!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
WES

Send message
Joined: 22 Feb 14
Posts: 10
Credit: 198,555
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge6 year member badge
Message 61223 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 13:17:03 UTC - in response to Message 61222.  

sorry when I googled and went to the site it said last updated March 2013, I'll give it another try next chance I get...

Regards,
Wes

ID: 61223 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileMumak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Apr 13
Posts: 89
Credit: 517,085,245
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge7 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61224 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 14:27:29 UTC
Last modified: 24 Feb 2014, 14:28:40 UTC

OK, so the new Gigabyte 280X is up and running:


There are 2 GPUs in the machine:
#0 - HD7770 @ 1020 - Left graph column
#1 - R9 280X @ 1100 - Right graph column

Tasks: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=534385&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=
So the slowest times belong to the HD7770.
For the 280X and slower units, I see times 70-75 secs so far...
ID: 61224 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
WES

Send message
Joined: 22 Feb 14
Posts: 10
Credit: 198,555
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge6 year member badge
Message 61225 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 14:34:07 UTC - in response to Message 61223.  

Hey Mumac, v4.34 using now. Wow nice...tons of data at the scroll of the mouse. Looks like a keeper! Thanks for your work on this and will be looking out for updates.

Regards,
Wes

ID: 61225 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Sunny129
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jan 11
Posts: 271
Credit: 346,072,284
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61226 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 14:37:12 UTC - in response to Message 61224.  
Last modified: 24 Feb 2014, 14:38:06 UTC

For the 280X and slower units, I see times 70-75 secs so far...

looks like most are around ~75s, and i see 2 outliers - a ~70s run time and an ~81s run time...if we average the 8 valid 213.76-point tasks you have so far, we get 74.7675s, or ~75s, which is just about right in line with my 7970's run times when clocked at 1100-1150MHz, give or take a second or two due to small, but irreconcilable factors...
ID: 61226 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileMumak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Apr 13
Posts: 89
Credit: 517,085,245
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge7 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61227 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 15:04:57 UTC
Last modified: 24 Feb 2014, 15:24:15 UTC

I agree ;-)
I'm still checking and tuning few things there, so it might change..
BTW, that cooling solution works pretty nice - 68 C max (with a side fan in the case). Without the side fan, ~71 C.
ID: 61227 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61228 - Posted: 24 Feb 2014, 19:55:55 UTC - in response to Message 61221.  
Last modified: 24 Feb 2014, 20:16:36 UTC


And forgive the cherry picks guess I didn't understand the "average of 5 WU times" or "average 5 of the longer 213.76 credit WUs only" parts completely, though its nice to see I can get occasional results matching cards with up to 200MHz higher OC.

Regards,
Wes


Longer 213.76 WUs refers to the WUs which are approx. 1/3 longer that the other type of 213.76 WUs, it's in the latter table & description updates but not the 1st post as I can't edit that!
But equally I hadn't expected someone to cherry pick the best of the long 213.76 WUs, no probs anyway :).


*****************************************************************************

Also started a new thread at the KWSN forum

Will update table at a latter point.

Mumak
Nice card, & good temps! :), I'm sure you'll be setting new MW records ;)
Will add the 75s time anyway, your not at the top yet ;) (Sunny was 1st so he gets to stay there).
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61228 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61233 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 15:09:08 UTC
Last modified: 25 Feb 2014, 15:23:24 UTC

I'm using a NVIDIA GTX 770 OC(1333 MHz core clock) Driver version 334.89, on Windows7, Boinc 7.2.39 (x64) having a theoretical 170 GFLOPS DP capability

My 5 fastest times are 537.16, 537.19, 537.30, 538.18, 538.19.
Average is 537,60 seconds

I am having a GPU utilisation of just 70% and 50% TDP when on single WUs. But at least it seems as I am the one with the fastest core clock.
CPU results are not ready yet as I am recieving no CPU WUs with modified fit code.
ID: 61233 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61234 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 17:14:34 UTC

Hi Stojag
Whilst I agree ~538s is a reasonable average of your 'optimally' processed WUs, with only a GPU util. of 70% you would be able to get much quicker times if you can bump that upto near 100%. That's why I say you should dedicate a CPU core for the GPU (at least just for benchmarking purposes) to get the GPU crunching at its best, it would be good to have your 770 on the table :).

Did you have a free core for the GPU?
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61234 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileMumak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Apr 13
Posts: 89
Credit: 517,085,245
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge7 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61235 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 17:22:54 UTC
Last modified: 25 Feb 2014, 17:23:14 UTC

I don't think that it's possible to utilize the NVIDIA GPU well using OpenCL. NVIDIA drivers are just not well optimized for OpenCL and they don't care about it either...
ID: 61235 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61236 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 17:47:36 UTC
Last modified: 25 Feb 2014, 17:59:21 UTC

Oh ok, so you think that's why util. is only at 70%?
Well we'll see what Stojag says anyway.

Added result (7750) :-

So 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.

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 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)
GTX 780 Ti (stock) .............................................. 403s ... Linux - 395s biodoc
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
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 Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
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.

I've also created a thread at the MW forums http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=3465 , although the daft 1hr edit limit might means I can only post updated tables at the end of the thread!

Also started a new thread at the KWSN forum
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61236 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61237 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 17:58:44 UTC
Last modified: 25 Feb 2014, 18:04:51 UTC

To get the 100% GPU utilisation seems to be tricky.
To make sure no other tasks limit the GPU I shut down all other CPU WUs.
I used the app_config.xml to alter the CPU value on the WUs.

The "de_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_1_XXXXXX" runs at ~60% utilisation although i assigned 1 CPU + 1 GPU to the WU.
On the other hand the "ps_modfit_15_3s_modbpl_128_wrap_1_XXXX" runs at 99% utilisation with 1 CPU + 1 GPU.


I've also tried to alter the CPU process priority from normal to high but that made no difference.

I'll post some results as soon as possible.
ID: 61237 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61238 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 18:02:44 UTC

Ok cool, thx :)

Btw you could untick other MW apps to temporarily force the client to get mod fit WUs.
And as before, you want the 213.76 credit WUs.
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61238 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61239 - Posted: 25 Feb 2014, 18:56:55 UTC - in response to Message 61238.  

I've done some utilisation tests now

It seems like WUs with "modbpl" in their name get full utilisation, while the others work far below the limit. (on my NVIDIA card)

99% utilisation:
de_modfit_15_3s_modbpl_128_wrap_1_XXXX
de_modfit_86_3s_modbpl_128wrap_rev_4_1_XXXX
ps_modfit_15_3s_modbpl_128_wrap_1_XXXX
ps_modfit_16_bplmodfit_128_wrap_1_XXXX

60% utilisation:
de_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_1_XXXX
de_modfit_86_3s_128wrap_rev_4_1_XXXX
ps_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_2_XXXX
de_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_1_XXXX

I can't say where the bottleneck is, but it dosen't seem like having half or a full CPU assigned to the GPU makes any difference. Windows task manager shows 0 to 1% CPU usage for the GPU WU. As Mumak said above it is most likely a OpenCL driver issue.
Therefore I think I can't make my WUs times much faster.

ID: 61239 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61240 - Posted: 26 Feb 2014, 8:54:24 UTC

Got some times for my CPU (Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 @ 3.30GHz,up to 3.7 GHz Turbo speed)

9,709.11, 9,709.04, 9,707.05, 10,117.93, 10,163.91

average 9881,41 seconds

should be the "longer" WUs of the 213.76 WUs as i had some with ~7500 seconds runtime too.
ID: 61240 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61243 - Posted: 26 Feb 2014, 20:50:23 UTC - in response to Message 61240.  
Last modified: 26 Feb 2014, 21:07:51 UTC

Ok thx for the times.
Oh, did you check to see if your CPU was going full turbo running MW?

Re 60% util & 99% util tasks (weird btw!), I don't suppose each type was a particular credit WU was it?
*******************************************************************************

Updated table & description :-

So 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
HD 7970 (GPU 1100 MHz) ....................................... 77s Sunny129
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 (this post)
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
HD 4830 512 MB (GPU 670 MHz) .......................... 615s Assim1 (this 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 (crunching speed TBD) ..... 9881s Stojag
Intel Core 2 Q9550 (3.6 GHz, 424 MHz FSB) ..... 12,532s Assim1
Intel Core i7-3612QM ..................................... 13,068s mikey
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, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61243 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61247 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 20:51:30 UTC - in response to Message 61243.  
Last modified: 27 Feb 2014, 21:28:42 UTC

Oh, did you check to see if your CPU was going full turbo running MW?

CPU times were with full turbo (3,7GHz)

Re 60% util & 99% util tasks (weird btw!), I don't suppose each type was a particular credit WU was it?


Both 213.76 and 106.88 credit WUs have those 60% utilisation problem.
And on the other hand some of the 213.76 and 106.88 credit WUs have 99% utilisation.

So it doesn't depend on the credits.

If it's true that the TITAN get only 18% utiliisation on one WU than there might be some software issue. (Source: http://www.kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=204096#204096)
ID: 61247 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61250 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 23:15:55 UTC - in response to Message 61247.  

Their are 2 types of 213.76 WU (long & short), which of the 213.76 got 99% util?

Re Titan & MW, yea looks like it :(
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61250 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stojag

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 10
Posts: 12
Credit: 673,916
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61252 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 11:59:59 UTC - in response to Message 61250.  
Last modified: 28 Feb 2014, 12:00:17 UTC

If summarized some facts about the different Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) GPU WUs.
First comes the WUs name, then the typical runtime and the credits.

99% utilisation:
de_modfit_15_3s_modbpl_128_wrap_1_XXXX 608-610s (213.76 credits)
de_modfit_86_3s_modbpl_128wrap_rev_4_1_XXXX 306-308s (106.88 credits)
ps_modfit_15_3s_modbpl_128_wrap_1_XXXX 570-620s but mostly 608-610s (213.76 credits)
ps_modfit_16_bplmodfit_128_wrap_1_XXXX 608-610s (213.76 credits)

average for those "long" 213.76 credit WUs is 609s.

60% utilisation:
de_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_1_XXXX 537-538s (213.76 credits)
de_modfit_86_3s_128wrap_rev_4_1_XXXX 271-272s (106.88 credits)
ps_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_2_XXXX 536-540s (213.76 credits)
de_modfit_15_3s_128_wrap_1_XXXX 536-538s (213.76 credits)

Another iteresting fact is, that 213.76 credit WUs with 99% utilisation have an average CPU time of about 70 seconds whereas 60% utilisation WUs just have about 5.5s CPU time.
ID: 61252 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61265 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 19:09:37 UTC - in response to Message 61252.  
Last modified: 28 Feb 2014, 19:41:31 UTC

Ah, so by pure fluke the "long" 213.76 WUs are the ones getting 99% util!, so we can use the average for the benchmark :)

Thx for your effort Stojag :), will add the 609s time to the table.

Oh btw, by another flukey coincidence your o/c 770s DP power of 170 GFLOPs nearly matches my sons o/c HD 4830 at 171.5 GFLOPs! ;) and unsurprisingly thus have very similar times.
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61265 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 365
Credit: 61,243,809
RAC: 299,369
50 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61266 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 20:25:20 UTC - in response to Message 61265.  

Updated table, GTX 770 & another 5850 score :-

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 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.
Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, A@H, LHC@H, POGS, R@H, Einstein@H, DHEP.

Main rig - i7 4930k @4.1 GHz, RX 580 8 GB, 16 GB DDR3 1866, Win 7 64bit
2nd rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 7870 XT 3GB(DS), 8 GB DDR2 1066, Win 7 64bit
ID: 61266 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Benchmark results - times wanted for any hardware, CPU or GPU, old or new!

©2020 Astroinformatics Group