Welcome to MilkyWay@home

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

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 375
Credit: 64,677,969
RAC: 1,722
Message 68018 - Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 19:28:37 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jan 2019, 19:29:18 UTC

tictoc
Got it, thanks :).

hoppisaur
Ok I'm confused now lol, so previously your AMD A12-9800 APU @4.2 GHz managed a time of 120s, but now it's at 3.8 GHz & managing 101s? You mentioned you tweaked the bios, did you by chance increase the iGPU clock? (if that's possible?).
Sorry to hear about the dead m/brd :(.

vseven
What CPU does that machine have? (I'm not trawling through pages of this thread & I don't see you listed in the AnandTech thread).

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

Btw, apologies folks, I meant to post a link here to the new benchmark thread in this forum & forgot! :o

After the 3 folks above have answered their questions here, I'd appreciate it if further benchmarks were posted to the new thread. Thanks :)

New benchmark thread here! - http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=4379
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: 68018 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
vseven

Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 18
Posts: 24
Credit: 102,912,937
RAC: 0
Message 68026 - Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 15:17:19 UTC - in response to Message 68018.  


vseven
What CPU does that machine have? (I'm not trawling through pages of this thread & I don't see you listed in the AnandTech thread).


For that benckmark (Tesla T4) it was a Intel Xeon CPU E5-2683 v4 @ 2.10GHz but only had 8 cores assigned to the Ubuntu VM. Don't think HT matters since it was single WU at a time.

I can also rerun the Tesla V100 to get you the CPU on that but from what I remember it was the same.
ID: 68026 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
vseven

Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 18
Posts: 24
Credit: 102,912,937
RAC: 0
Message 68028 - Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 16:34:57 UTC - in response to Message 68018.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2019, 16:35:31 UTC


Btw Vseven, you mentioned 'new software', what new s/w?
Also what CPU was that V100 running on?

Sorry, just saw this. New software was CUDA 10.0, old was 9.2, and a driver update. And here is a updated Tesla V100 on the same computer as above. The WU credits changed on me...getting a mix of 243.63 and 227.?? where the last digits are changing. I'll just post both:

121234701 1710812038 17 Jan 2019, 15:53:19 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 11.02 8.83 243.62 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121234702 1710812041 17 Jan 2019, 15:53:19 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 11.02 8.84 243.62 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121234703 1710812771 17 Jan 2019, 15:53:19 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 11.02 8.84 243.63 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121234713 1710700163 17 Jan 2019, 15:53:19 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 11.02 9.69 243.63 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121234930 1710821654 17 Jan 2019, 15:53:19 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 12.01 9.79 243.62 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121233199 1710670465 17 Jan 2019, 15:51:40 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 12.02 9.83 243.62 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121233201 1710698699 17 Jan 2019, 15:51:40 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:13:24 UTC Completed and validated 12.01 9.74 243.63 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)

So for the 243.63 WU's I'm averaging 11.45 seconds per WU. And the other ones:

121250325 1710802738 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 11.04 9.63 227.17 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250345 1710762998 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 10.02 8.04 227.13 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250348 1710815959 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 12.04 9.95 227.17 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250493 1710818169 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 10.02 7.97 227.13 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250495 1710818832 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 8.03 227.13 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250244 1710765704 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 10.06 8.76 227.15 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121249480 1710829880 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 7.90 227.13 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
121250523 1710454414 17 Jan 2019, 16:15:01 UTC 17 Jan 2019, 16:27:26 UTC Completed and validated 12.06 10.10 227.17 MilkyWay@Home v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)

For the 227.?? WU's I'm averaging about 10.7 seconds per WU.


But as I mentioned a couple posts up the sweet spot is 5 WU at a time. Taking into account all the different WU's this nets around a 27.9 second average which divided by 5 at a time is around 5.6 seconds per WU.


NOTE: There are two different Tesla V100's, a PCIe version and a SXM2 version. The SMX2 is what I'm using and runs faster then the PCIe version due to a quicker interface. The exact model is NVIDIA Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB. In my testing for Milkyway the SXM2 version runs about 10% faster. Might want to note "Tesla V100 (SXM2)" in the benchmarks.


If you want a Tesla P100 I can probably get that too. I can tell you it will be roughly half the speed of a V100.
ID: 68028 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 375
Credit: 64,677,969
RAC: 1,722
Message 68086 - Posted: 31 Jan 2019, 19:05:31 UTC

Yea over in the AnandTech thread we've noticed the 227.62 WUs have gone & been largely replaced by 227.1x WUs :/, not sure how they compare to the former time wise yet.
Even so, 10s for a 227.1x WU seems bloody fast! :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: 68086 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
hoppisaur

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 16
Posts: 9
Credit: 781,179,553
RAC: 16,933
Message 68098 - Posted: 6 Feb 2019, 3:11:19 UTC - in response to Message 68018.  


hoppisaur
Ok I'm confused now lol, so previously your AMD A12-9800 APU @4.2 GHz managed a time of 120s, but now it's at 3.8 GHz & managing 101s? You mentioned you tweaked the bios, did you by chance increase the iGPU clock? (if that's possible?).
Sorry to hear about the dead m/brd :(.


Sorry for late response.

Normal freq of chip is 3.8 with capability to boost to 4.2. Main change I made in was to disable C6 as it was freezing when left alone for a while.

If I watch clockspeeds via lscpu, the most it boosts is ~4.0 so call it whatever. AMD CnQ is on because that allows it to drop frequency on the cpu cores to give power to the graphics cores.

It is on a A320 chipset mobo so iGPU is not possible to OC.

The 227s have been in the 100-101 range and the 243s are in the 107-108 range. My computer is visible so verification is available to anyone who wants to see.
ID: 68098 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim1348

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 17
Posts: 100
Credit: 16,967,906
RAC: 0
Message 68108 - Posted: 7 Feb 2019, 19:58:46 UTC - in response to Message 68098.  

The 227s have been in the 100-101 range and the 243s are in the 107-108 range. My computer is visible so verification is available to anyone who wants to see.

Do you use all of the CPU cores to support the GPU?
Have you compared Linux to Windows?
ID: 68108 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
keputnam

Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 10
Posts: 16
Credit: 144,400,263
RAC: 3,238
Message 68135 - Posted: 11 Feb 2019, 7:12:41 UTC

I’ve got an I-7 5820 over clocked to 4.1 GHz with a Radeon 7870 2 GB video card


I’m averaging right at 410 sec run time with 10.5-11 sec CPU time

I do have this in my APP_CONFIG file

<app>
<name>milkyway</name>
<max_concurrent>4</max_concurrent>
<cpu_usage>4</cpu_usage>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.45</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.5</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>

If I didn’t limit GPU time,the keyboard and mouse were almost unusable
ID: 68135 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 375
Credit: 64,677,969
RAC: 1,722
Message 68163 - Posted: 16 Feb 2019, 11:35:35 UTC - in response to Message 68135.  

How are you limiting GPU time?

What credit WUs were those?
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: 68163 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Tretboot

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 10
Posts: 10
Credit: 63,514,783
RAC: 0
Message 68454 - Posted: 29 Mar 2019, 1:05:14 UTC

I get around 120 seconds on my old milkyway workhorse from day 1, my powercolor Radeon HD 5850 overclocked to 875mhz. Recently got a 2nd one cheap on Ebay. My computers should be public. Impressive how these old cards still seem to beat whatever when i check my results in runtime. The "new" 5850 runs a lot hotter... Maybe its the years of 24/7 Milkyway running burn in that is missing. Impressive old Hardware, but i gotta stop running them too much, may be cheap on ebay, but not on the powerbill :)
ID: 68454 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hurr1cane78

Send message
Joined: 7 May 14
Posts: 57
Credit: 206,540,646
RAC: 328
Message 68463 - Posted: 1 Apr 2019, 6:15:49 UTC - in response to Message 67960.  

19s WU's , stock out of the box , RADEON VII just stock I'm really impressed , all the best USA
ID: 68463 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hurr1cane78

Send message
Joined: 7 May 14
Posts: 57
Credit: 206,540,646
RAC: 328
Message 68563 - Posted: 20 Apr 2019, 12:26:22 UTC - in response to Message 68463.  

19s WU's , stock out of the box , RADEON VII just stock I'm really impressed , all the best USA

update figured how to use instances //using 2instances WUs for one1 Radeon VII =24s each WU
ID: 68563 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Peter van Kalleveen

Send message
Joined: 1 Feb 19
Posts: 1
Credit: 23,085,917
RAC: 0
Message 68589 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 17:35:20 UTC - in response to Message 68563.  

I can confirm this with my VII, it is indeed around 25 WU with 2 instances.
ID: 68589 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hurr1cane78

Send message
Joined: 7 May 14
Posts: 57
Credit: 206,540,646
RAC: 328
Message 68839 - Posted: 6 Jun 2019, 6:42:52 UTC

update Radeon VII _ 3 instances , I have uploaded to youtube including config for 3three instances
https://youtu.be/4xKy9wGKmz4
ID: 68839 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
vseven

Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 18
Posts: 24
Credit: 102,912,937
RAC: 0
Message 68883 - Posted: 8 Jul 2019, 17:08:22 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jul 2019, 17:09:09 UTC

Rechecking with the latest nVidia drivers and the updated CUDA software.

OS: Ubuntu 19.04
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.20GHz [Family 6 Model 79 Stepping 0]
GPU: NVIDIA Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB
nVidia Driver: 418.67
CUDA: 10.1 Patch 1


261707342 1777594136 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:53 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.04 8.19 227.53 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
261708170 1777194521 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:53 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.07 8.52 227.53 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
261708449 1777589688 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:53 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 8.25 227.52 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
261707986 1777527520 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:53 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 8.23 227.52 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
261708294 1777626487 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:52 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 8.52 227.53 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
261708298 1777628745 8 Jul 2019, 16:39:52 UTC 8 Jul 2019, 16:48:31 UTC Completed and validated 10.03 8.62 227.53 Milkyway@home Separation v1.46 (opencl_nvidia_101)
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Shaved almost a second from the older driver/software which is impressive considering it was already down to 10.7. The current "244.*" tasks showed a similar decrease from around 11.5 to 10.5. Above were run one at a time. Running multiples gave just slightly better performance then before, I was at 5 WU at a time for a average of 5.7 seconds per WU and now its at 5.2 seconds per (which looks like it scaled correctly like the single WU did at around 10% faster).
ID: 68883 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 375
Credit: 64,677,969
RAC: 1,722
Message 68949 - Posted: 4 Aug 2019, 13:28:54 UTC

Interesting information, some rapid times posted here with the Radeon VII & the Tesla V100! :D

Btw, as you guys have probably noticed, the WU credit/type has changed again, atm it seems the 227.51 & .53 are the most common.
This frequent change in WU type makes it impossible to collect stats over the longer term, so I am no longer posting stats tables.

But feel free to carry on posting valid task WU times along with it's exact credit to compare amongst yourselves :).
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: 68949 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hal Bregg

Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 18
Posts: 14
Credit: 1,419,832
RAC: 0
Message 68957 - Posted: 8 Aug 2019, 6:41:17 UTC
Last modified: 8 Aug 2019, 6:43:45 UTC

Hello,

Here are my results

OS: Linux Mint 19 Tara
BOINC Version: 7.9.3
CPU: Intel i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz @ 2700MHz (HT on)

5 WU
avg run-time - 5,205.49s

I am going to post results for Intel i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz as well once Nbody WUs will finish.
ID: 68957 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 375
Credit: 64,677,969
RAC: 1,722
Message 68960 - Posted: 8 Aug 2019, 18:03:04 UTC - in response to Message 68957.  

And which credit WUs are those?? ;)
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: 68960 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ultraZ
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 09
Posts: 12
Credit: 1,407,921,436
RAC: 0
Message 69331 - Posted: 5 Dec 2019, 2:45:37 UTC
Last modified: 5 Dec 2019, 2:54:04 UTC

RX3900 CPU 12 core 24 thread 51 min per WU per thread
Vega VII WU concurrent,, with 4 WU 12 S avg with .33 CPU per WU.

Edit Grammer
ID: 69331 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
hericks

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 11
Posts: 3
Credit: 73,650,377
RAC: 0
Message 69423 - Posted: 6 Jan 2020, 14:14:55 UTC

Hi,

Happy New Year!

My values are between 31 and 43 seconds with a dual E-5 2630 v2 and a R9-280X, average out of 100 packages is 36.66 sec.

However the deviation between the packages from 31 sec to 43 is not random, or what I first thought, dependent on other stuff going on on the workstation.

All work units from de_modfit_86_bundle4_4s_south4s_bgset_* took more than 40 seconds, and only these, having 227.53 points per unit, while the 31 sec units came from de_modfit_14_bundle4_testing_3s4f_* (227.12 points) and the ones with usually 36-37 seconds came from de_modfit_14_bundle5_testing_4s3f_* (227.52 points). With some fluctuation.

So it seems that the 227odd work units are not very uniform. Some of them take 30% longer than others. I think to compare them, the packages need to come from the same bundle.

It seems that there work units generation for each of the bundles/projects is happening in parallel, at least, when sorting by workorder ID they are all mixed to some extend. But the best consecutive 5 units in this 100 units sample had 31.558 sec, and the worst 40.274.

So to compare, either more samples need to be compared, or the bundle needs to be mentioned, where they came from.

Also I checked power consumption, where crunching m@h with the GPU adds around 140-150 W for the R9-280x. This is way below the 250 W TDP. I assume this is also due to the tiny amount of memory used on the card.

Would be interesting how this looks for other platforms, like the Radeon VII.

Also has anyone tested a Tesla K40? Would be interested in how it performs.

Cheers
ID: 69423 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
hericks

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 11
Posts: 3
Credit: 73,650,377
RAC: 0
Message 69426 - Posted: 7 Jan 2020, 20:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 69423.  

Hi,

2nd measurement:

After checking the error logs I saw that each package consists of several jobs that require some CPU work in between. Apparently some 1,6 seconds several times per package on my machine on the 40+ seconds packages and somewhat less on the 31-37 packages. That actually explains the difference,
It has something to do with the star count in that package. The fast ones had 10 stars, the slow ones some 40k odd.

I currently get 300 packages per batch and it took usually 3:08 to finish them. So 37.6 seconds per Unit effectively, that is reported to take 36,6 seconds. so there was one additional second latency in there somewhere.
With 2 concurrent tasks on the GPU the game looks completely different. Of cause it now takes longer to compute but the 300 unit batch completes in 2:28 hours. So 30 minutes faster and with an effective Average of 29,6 seconds per unit.

So it gains around 20% which is quite a lot. I have not assessed the power consumption though, which was with 150 w lower than expected. I would be very surprised if this would not go up by some 20% as well to around 180 W,

Cheers
ID: 69426 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 19 · Next

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

©2024 Astroinformatics Group