Welcome to MilkyWay@home

CPU/GPU Comparison (do we need CPU apps when GPU app is available)


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : CPU/GPU Comparison (do we need CPU apps when GPU app is available)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61855 - Posted: 9 Jun 2014, 11:25:54 UTC

Hello,

I'd like to discuss the issue.
There are still many CPU only applications in BOINC world. Should the project allow CPU computations for applications that have their GPU counterparts?
CPUs are 5-10+ times less power efficient, thus it might be a good idea to redirect CPUs to projects that does not have GPU applications (yet or ever since some tasks are not that paralellizable).

My GPU (AMD Radeon R9 280X - 1.125GHz Core/975MHz Mem) takes 285W from the wall (system with two of those takes ~570W on full load of 2 R9 280X, no CPU load, everything else on low power). Taking into consideration Power Supply loss, some CPU wattage, SSD, fans, mainboard etc. I can assume that R9 280X is indeed rated for 250W max (and I use it all).

My GPU does MilkyWay@Home workunit in ~23.1s.

Energy requirements for single MW@H workunit.
R9 280X: 250W * 23.10s = 5.8kJ
i3-530: ( 73W / 4) * 9682.71s = 176.7kJ
i5-2400: ( 95W / 4) * 3129.85s = 74.3kJ
i5-2400: ( 95W / 4) * 3110.54s = 73.9kJ (shohhh-----h)
i5-3570K: ( 77W / 4) * 2762.16s = 53.2kJ (CANTV)
i7-3930K: (130W / 12) * 3521.26s = 38.2kJ (DutchDK)
i7-3930K: (130W / 12) * 4583.91s = 49.7kJ (ratibor)
C2D T7100: ( 35W / 4) * 7704.83s = 67.4kJ
C2Q Q6600: (105W / 4) * 5889.53s = 154.6kJ
C2Q Q6700: (105W / 4) * 4719.61s = 123.9kJ (Matt)
T5600: ( 34W / 2) * 7045.18s = 119.8kJ (paris)
E5400: ( 65W / 2) * 4933.48s = 160.3kJ
C2D E6400: ( 65W / 2) * 6317.05s = 205.3kJ (Night Owl)
E5620: ( 80W / 8) * 4575.28s = 45.7kJ (wiffle)
X5570: ( 95W / 16) * 3376.00s = 20.0kJ

Athlon x64 X2 DC 4400+: (110W / 2) * 31167.34s = 1714.2kJ (Byrnes)

Those are extracted from oldest not-yet-verified MilkyWay@Home workunits in my "to-validate" queue.
Last CPU is the prime example of wasting energy... (300+ times less efficient than my GPU).
Best example DutchDK is ~7 times less efficient than my GPU. Although it might be overclocked so it's TDP would be greater...

If MilkyWay@Home would not decide to remove CPU from computation then I would at least suggest removing certain CPU's. Possibly by using ProjectConfiguration element (<ban_cpu>regexp</ban_cpu>)
IMHO Athlon 4400+ should be forbidden to do any work for this project... :/
ID: 61855 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61861 - Posted: 10 Jun 2014, 11:50:03 UTC - in response to Message 61855.  

While gpu's are screamingly fast they can only do certain things that fast, so while your idea sounds great it just won't work for everything everywhere. A gpu for instance does not do 10 decimal place math, but a cpu can and does it with ease. A gpu, because it often has hundreds or thousands of teeny tiny cpu's on it, is limited in the amount of data you can shove into those teeny tiny cpu's before they become overloaded and says 'that does not compute', or it starts to take increasingly longer and longer to finish a task. A cpu on the other hand says 'is that all you got!'. So while a gpu works very well for a small subset of projects, it just won't work for every project, or even every problem at every project. Now all that being said I am sure there will be even more projects coming on line with more gpu projects, Poem for instance is in the beta testing phase of their new gpu app. Rosetta on the other hand paid a group of programmers to make a gpu app but then figured out their project is NOT suitable for porting over to a gpu. It seems at Rosetta the data size is huge and won't fit onto a gpu, so it is constantly swapping and ends up taking over 3 times as long as a cpu takes. To use a smaller data size isn't practical for what they are trying to do right now, they did not rule it out in the future though. DistRTgen, on the other hand, is using brute force in their project, that is a great use of a gpu and they are doing great using them.
ID: 61861 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61863 - Posted: 10 Jun 2014, 12:26:00 UTC

I can't see where I have said that it would apply for EVERY project.
Even in the topic subject there is a condition :)

I just see that most (90 < x < 98) CPUs are not efficient when it comes to calculating MilkyWay@Home (and most likely separation) tasks.

Those can be excluded from those sub-projects to free them to do work where it is needed - as you have said some projects will never have GPU support.

When it comes to DistrRTgen, one would notice that currently GPU support is broken :) bug fix pending :)

Also each of my GPU does have 4GB GDDR5 RAM... so I think that 99% of current tasks that fits on CPU, will easily fit in GPU :)

Like I have said, some old CPUs should be banned. If their efficiency is 300 times worser than my single GPU, it suggests that my PC is doing work of 600 such PCs... those PCs would be a gigantic waste of electricity...

IMHO currently only TOP AMD, Intel i7 (or i5) and some Xeon do have appropriate efficiency to be used effectively.

This can be done in a manner:
System picks slowest CPU every week.
Someone checks it's TDP and threads amount.
If it is deemed inefficient, ban it.

It should not be done much more often in order to not create congestion (since those CPUs will most likely migrate fast to other projects), or rapid decrease in project processing speed, or just to monitor the transition :)

It is for project to decide, but I think it should be done.
ID: 61863 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61872 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 11:05:54 UTC - in response to Message 61863.  


When it comes to DistrRTgen, one would notice that currently GPU support is broken :) bug fix pending :)


I did not know DistRTgen was down, thanks for telling me.

Also each of my GPU does have 4GB GDDR5 RAM... so I think that 99% of current tasks that fits on CPU, will easily fit in GPU :)


Unfortunately that is not the norm, just the latest trend, most people do not have anywhere near that amount of onboard ram. This means a project would either have to have multiple sized units or you could just run multiple units at once.

Like I have said, some old CPUs should be banned. If their efficiency is 300 times worser than my single GPU, it suggests that my PC is doing work of 600 such PCs... those PCs would be a gigantic waste of electricity...


This has been done over the years, 25mb cards are no longer able to be used here, but you are talking about alienating your user base, ie your work force. And that is most likely not a viable option for a volunteer project.

IMHO currently only TOP AMD, Intel i7 (or i5) and some Xeon do have appropriate efficiency to be used effectively.

This can be done in a manner:
System picks slowest CPU every week.
Someone checks it's TDP and threads amount.
If it is deemed inefficient, ban it.

It should not be done much more often in order to not create congestion (since those CPUs will most likely migrate fast to other projects), or rapid decrease in project processing speed, or just to monitor the transition :)

It is for project to decide, but I think it should be done.


That would work great were they to pay people to crunch, but with this being a volunteer thing letting as many people as possible join and participate is a VERY good thing. Credits kind of sort the user base now, those with faster and newer cpu's and gpu's earn credits faster then those with older and slower cpu's and gpu's. Those that feel the need to advance their credits can go out and buy newer parts and earn credits faster, but to just exclude people who came here on their own and get no payment, other then credits that are worthless in real life, seems pretty silly when the project needs people to crunch in order to finish the job of mapping.

As you said in the News thread when you responded about the fundraising, people already spend their own hard earned money to participate here, telling them to either upgrade or hit the road doesn't seem like the best idea if they ever want to finish. As the new cpu's and gpu's come out and set newer and higher performance standards, suppose they had adopted your ideas and in 2 years they told YOU to hit the road because YOU no longer measure up, what would you do? Like most people you would assess the risk versus reward benefits and take your hardware somewhere else to crunch. Most project gain and lose people on a regular basis, ALOT of people sign up for many projects but never return a single unit, Seti being a prime one, retaining everyone that you can helps the project hits it goals, kicking people off doesn't seem to be inline with those. In this case the MilkyWay is a HUGE place, we are not going to finish mapping this thing in the next 2 years. Reducing the numbers of people that can then help extends that time line out for possibly generations.

If a single core pc can finish a unit in 10 days, it is one less unit the rest of us have to crunch, they are helping, and in the big picture that is a good thing. Sure your i7 did a hundred units in those same 10 days, or a thousand units, but who cares you didn't have to do THAT unit too.
ID: 61872 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61873 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 12:37:28 UTC - in response to Message 61872.  


If a single core pc can finish a unit in 10 days, it is one less unit the rest of us have to crunch, they are helping, and in the big picture that is a good thing. Sure your i7 did a hundred units in those same 10 days, or a thousand units, but who cares you didn't have to do THAT unit too.


Just looking at this specific project - it is a good thing.
In the big picture it is stupid :)

Electricity to power my rig when crunching for MilkyWay@Home for a month costs ~1/25 of rig cost. But my equipment is top notch and one of the very best efficiency (as stated in first post).

(possibly second hand) rig with single two generation old GPU (ie. 5870?) would cost less than 10 times its monthly electricity cost, and will crunch 100 (?) times more work than such Athlon, even though I will take twice as much electricity. Oh well... it could be idle each second day to ease on electricity cost...

IMHO people sometimes needs slap in the back that says - "you're using 10 year old equipment which is NOT anymore effective for BOINC apps. Please spend 10 times current electricity bill, and upgrade to 100 times more efficient equipment. In the long run it will cost LESS!".
Athlon 4400+ was released in 2005. In the long run those people will pay far LESS for the same amount of credits if they will upgrade.

I would be able to do month worth of Athlon x64 X2 DC 4400+ work during 50 minutes crunching spree and I would use 300 times less electricity.

suppose they had adopted your ideas and in 2 years they told YOU to hit the road because YOU no longer measure up, what would you do?


I have most efficient GPU at this moment. I doubt that even in 5 years anyone will have 300 times more efficient equipment that will be available to anyone within reasonable budget.
But if it will happen, I WILL upgrade. As stated above, I use my brain. I would see advantage in spending less... I hate to pay more than I need to.
ID: 61873 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61875 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 14:08:02 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2014, 14:10:02 UTC

suppose they had adopted your ideas and in 2 years they told YOU to hit the road because YOU no longer measure up, what would you do?


Also I think it should be about my EQUIPMENT. Not about me.

This should be clear. I'm not speaking about banning USER(s). I speak about banning certain Family/Model/Stepping of CPU.

It would not say someone to hit the road. I would just suggest that if (s)he would like to continue participation, (s)he should retrofit his/her rig or just switch to newer equipment. Even 2-3years newer will be good for another year or two, if we will go this road, and will cost nothing (most people will give 6 year old stationary equipment for pennies/free). And it will be more power efficient.
ID: 61875 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61879 - Posted: 12 Jun 2014, 11:15:28 UTC - in response to Message 61875.  

suppose they had adopted your ideas and in 2 years they told YOU to hit the road because YOU no longer measure up, what would you do?


Also I think it should be about my EQUIPMENT. Not about me.

This should be clear. I'm not speaking about banning USER(s). I speak about banning certain Family/Model/Stepping of CPU.

It would not say someone to hit the road. I would just suggest that if (s)he would like to continue participation, (s)he should retrofit his/her rig or just switch to newer equipment. Even 2-3years newer will be good for another year or two, if we will go this road, and will cost nothing (most people will give 6 year old stationary equipment for pennies/free). And it will be more power efficient.


You are assuming that everyone has the cash flow to do that kind of thing, ALOT of people are doing because they just want to help and can't afford a new pc. So if it meant upgrade or stop crunching they would just stop crunching and say 'oh well I tried' and walk away and never come back. I don't see how that can be a good thing ever.

As for this part you said "This should be clear. I'm not speaking about banning USER(s). I speak about banning certain Family/Model/Stepping of CPU." USERS own those pc's, they are not just things in the middle of some field run by aliens, they are owned, run and managed by USERS! You ARE talking about banning USERS, you are just trying to put it 'nicely', trying to suggest the project give them the 'option' to upgrade or leave. But you are STILL talking about USERS!!
ID: 61879 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61882 - Posted: 12 Jun 2014, 11:57:21 UTC

As far as I understand single PC can have single User.
Single User can have multiple PC.

Then I'm talking about banning PC. Not User.
If the user changes PC, he will be able to participate.

Also... I'm talking about banning CPU. Not PCs.
User with Athlon 4400+ can just buy 3 generation old GPU (ATI HD Radeon 4890) or even 4 generation old GPU (ATI HD Radeon 38x0). Cost... marginal - less than 100$.

If someone doesn't have 100$ on hand. Why should he spend 100$ more each month on electricity?

Some CPUs should be banned. Cost of upgrade is less than monthly (or at most two month) cost of use.
ID: 61882 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 09
Posts: 620
Credit: 100,587,625
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61884 - Posted: 12 Jun 2014, 15:14:50 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2014, 15:24:21 UTC

If someone doesn't have 100$ on hand. Why should he spend 100$ more each month on electricity?

That's his choice not yours. Each User has their own reasons for doing what they do in BOINC. Some chase the 'ol Ego thing, some don't give a rats whatsit about Credits and just do it for pure fun when they feel like it. Often the truth lay in the middle. The great strength of BOINC is it (by in large) caters for (nearly) all machine types. Its not for BOINC to "Police" Machines, and long should that remain as a principle.

The software is designed by the Authors for their target batch of Crunchers, but its entirely up to individuals what they do - and long should that remain free of artificial boundaries. At the Open end of the scale Collatz is designed to cater for both the incredibly low powered out of date machine that cant even start - let alone crunch - other projects, as well as the up to date latest Behemoth cards. Some Projects you'll be lucky if the card works only being one generation out of date.

Some CPUs should be banned. Cost of upgrade is less than monthly (or at most two month) cost of use.

Never ...... BOINC draws its strength from being capable of attracting a wide variety of people and motivations. From the Utterly Crazy Barking Mad Credits-addicted-at-all-costs Crunchers beavering away with sweating forehead and clenched teeth at 3am, to the casual Cruncher who does it from time to time just for Fun or a Team Based exercise.

BOINC must stay away from "Elitist" labels. Its not for BOINC or the software designers to dictate to their Crunchers (or the other way round). BOINC is a wide spread vastly varied beast that is capable of supporting many many different levels of PC, and User abilities alike - the day it goes elitist in hardware terms, is the day the Team Based culture dies, then BOINC itself dies.
ID: 61884 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61885 - Posted: 12 Jun 2014, 15:46:33 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2014, 15:48:15 UTC

There is an option in boinc project configuration. That is a fact.
So... not never, of this I'm sure.

And I'm not saying that only best CPU/GPU should stay. That would mean that BOINC would be elite.

I never expected that three/four generation old, so 7 years old GPU will be considered elite... that is at least... surprising.

Also I'm not saying (and never will) say, that BOINC should ban CPU. I was saying about MilkyWay@Home. Please do not extrapolate from what I say/write. Since those are as I can see mostly incorrect extrapolations. Even more so, since I have said that those crunchers will just switch project.
ID: 61885 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61888 - Posted: 13 Jun 2014, 11:56:56 UTC - in response to Message 61885.  

There is an option in boinc project configuration. That is a fact.
So... not never, of this I'm sure.

And I'm not saying that only best CPU/GPU should stay. That would mean that BOINC would be elite.

I never expected that three/four generation old, so 7 years old GPU will be considered elite... that is at least... surprising.

Also I'm not saying (and never will) say, that BOINC should ban CPU. I was saying about MilkyWay@Home. Please do not extrapolate from what I say/write. Since those are as I can see mostly incorrect extrapolations. Even more so, since I have said that those crunchers will just switch project.


After all this one thing I could agree on is a sub project that ONLY the 'elite' cpu's and gpu's would be able to crunch for. THAT seems like a no brainer, but would involve near constant management from the project to keep it alive and well. I have seen that before at other projects, where the lowest allowed cpu or gpu is NOT the lowest allowed at the project in general. I guess this would allow the project to design a sub project to be done both quickly and with higher parameters then the generic type units everyone else usually gets, ie no dumbing down for the older cpu's and gpu's.

But I too could NEVER agree to outright banning of anyone who wants to crunch, as they say 'every little bit helps' and if a user wants to spend what they have inefficiently who am I to tell them they can't, or what project they MUST contribute too. As for sub-projects though as I said that is okay with me, PG sort of does that now when they designed some sub-projects to work far better on Intel cpu's than on AMD cpu's. Most projects also favor one gpu over another, due to the differences in how AMD and Nvidia gpu's are programmed. GpuGrid for instance does not even allow AMD gpu's to be used there, they just don't have the technical knowledge to make them work.
ID: 61888 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alez

Send message
Joined: 15 Sep 12
Posts: 20
Credit: 101,595,972
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge7 year member badge
Message 61930 - Posted: 21 Jun 2014, 1:07:26 UTC

Arivald,
I have a very mixed selection of cpu's / gpu's , ranging from i7's driving multiple 7970's to a single core p4 driving a 660ti simply because it can. What systems I choose to dedicate to Boinc is my choice. How much I choose to spend on electricity is my choice.
What you choose to crunch on which systems and how much you choose to pay is your choice.
Your choice is not my choice.
My choice should not be forced on you as neither should your choice be forced on me.
If a system is still capable of producing meaningful work within the due date decided by the project in question then whether or not I choose to run that system is my choice.
Take a minute to reflect on the words ' my choice ' as they apply to me as much as they apply to you.
oh, and if you want power efficiency , stop running Boinc and turn your system off.
ID: 61930 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61932 - Posted: 22 Jun 2014, 12:11:26 UTC - in response to Message 61930.  

Your choice is not my choice.


That is exactly why no one is forcing people to running BOINC. That would be making people unable to choose.
Banning CPU (not PC with certain CPU), is not preventing the choice. It's just redirecting this CPU to a different project, where it can make more significant contribution. One can still run BOINC. One can still run BOINC for this project, just on a better PC.

oh, and if you want power efficiency , stop running Boinc and turn your system off.


Not really. Those calculations are scientifically relevant, or at least that is what I hope is true. For example Collatz Conjecture is IMHO not. Since I'm almost certain that the theory that they want to disprove is correct.

Supercomputers are not better in power efficiency, since currently they use consumer grade equipment, and they also require massive cooling/air ventilation/climate control systems.
Thus 1000 PC on the same level as mine will be more efficient than many of the TOP 500 supercomputers, and also will be more powerful.

Please use logic in post. Right now I saw just "flames"...
ID: 61932 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61933 - Posted: 22 Jun 2014, 14:04:15 UTC - in response to Message 61932.  

Your choice is not my choice.


That is exactly why no one is forcing people to running BOINC. That would be making people unable to choose.
Banning CPU (not PC with certain CPU), is not preventing the choice. It's just redirecting this CPU to a different project, where it can make more significant contribution. One can still run BOINC. One can still run BOINC for this project, just on a better PC.

oh, and if you want power efficiency , stop running Boinc and turn your system off.


Not really. Those calculations are scientifically relevant, or at least that is what I hope is true. For example Collatz Conjecture is IMHO not. Since I'm almost certain that the theory that they want to disprove is correct.

Supercomputers are not better in power efficiency, since currently they use consumer grade equipment, and they also require massive cooling/air ventilation/climate control systems.
Thus 1000 PC on the same level as mine will be more efficient than many of the TOP 500 supercomputers, and also will be more powerful.

Please use logic in post. Right now I saw just "flames"...


I think the 'flaw' in your logic is that you assume that everyone that crunches for Boinc, and has an ultra fast pc, wants to ALSO crunch for Milkyway. That almost certainly not being true means that for the project to work on its goals it NEEDS whatever cpu's/gpu's it can get. Basically I am saying 'beggars can't be choosers'. There are a WHOLE LOT of people out there that couldn't care less if the MilyWay is mapped or not, there is NO WAY in the foreseeable future for any humans to EVER get there. If you can't get there why map it, is their thinking.
ID: 61933 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61936 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 10:37:59 UTC - in response to Message 61933.  


I think the 'flaw' in your logic is that you assume that everyone that crunches for Boinc, and has an ultra fast pc, wants to ALSO crunch for Milkyway.


I think that I never have had such a though.

As an example I have already mentioned Collatz Conjecture. There are many users and hosts that do work for this project and none other. Many are top notch. I'm an old BOINC user (Over 10 years now? For last 3 years and 4 months crunching every day), I use BOINCstats. I seem to know more than you think I do.
ID: 61936 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61937 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 11:32:59 UTC - in response to Message 61936.  
Last modified: 23 Jun 2014, 11:38:40 UTC


I think the 'flaw' in your logic is that you assume that everyone that crunches for Boinc, and has an ultra fast pc, wants to ALSO crunch for Milkyway.


I think that I never have had such a though.

As an example I have already mentioned Collatz Conjecture. There are many users and hosts that do work for this project and none other. Many are top notch. I'm an old BOINC user (Over 10 years now? For last 3 years and 4 months crunching every day), I use BOINCstats. I seem to know more than you think I do.


No I try to never underestimate people, it is a character flaw. If I just click on your name I can see you started Seti on 9 May 2003, and if you click on my name you will see I started Seti on 17 Dec 1999. Seems we are both long time crunchers.

As for me I started from the very first day crunching 24/7 and have never not crunched that way, except for vacations that last more then 7 days. Yes I leave my pc's running when I am away for 7 days or less. More then 7 days and they do get shut down though. I have had as many as 25 pc's crunching at once but am down to only 15 here at my home right now. I did discover that under XP you NEED a Server if you go over 22 pc's, as even if you tell them which pc is in charge of the ip stuff, they still argue about it. A server is ALWAYS in charge, which is why I now run the 64bit version of Windows Home Server on one of my pc's.
ID: 61937 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 360
Credit: 42,274,497
RAC: 0
30 million credit badge8 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61951 - Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 17:45:42 UTC - in response to Message 61932.  
Last modified: 26 Jun 2014, 17:50:59 UTC

Hi Arivald Ha'gel

A few points, in mentioning the $100 upgrade or the $100/mth electricity bill it looks to me like you've assumed their crunching 24/7. I bet most people who only have 1 old rig don't crunch 24/7 & so the bill would be far less. Also I really doubt you'd be able to burn $100/mth on an old rig anyway, even crunching 24/7.
I recall an old rig of mine (which I retired ~7yrs ago), it was an Athlon XPM 2500 o/c 2.5 GHz, it's power draw at the wall when crunching DPAD was about 180w. No way was that doing anywhere near $100/mth, even accounting for expensive electricity here in the UK (IIRC it was using about £20/mth about $34 at todays rate).
The C2D o/c 3.2 GHz that replaced it did more than double the XPMs output & almost identical power draw! :)

Also a user may not be able to afford or want to spend a 'lump' some of $100 on an upgrade, where as the electricity cost would be spread over many months (assuming they don't run 24/7). You know many people don't think of the longer term cost! ;)
I actually upgraded from a HD 4870 to a HD 5850 ~7mths ago to cut electricity cost, I'm better off within a year including the cost of a 2nd hand 5850! (£65), got £18 for the 4870.
There is an especially big jump in efficiency going from 4800 to 5800 series though. Oh yea & it nearly doubled my MW output :D

Re banning certain CPUs, whilst I agree some old ones are massively in efficient, if the user has only 1 CPU then banning that CPU will ban them. As has been said most wouldn't upgrade but leave MW, MW would end up with less crunching power & upsetting some people. They'd likely not return even if they upgraded latter on.
It would be interesting to know what % of MWs total crunching power is given by 'old' CPUs.

Oh also some owners of those old rigs might specifically want to do MW@H & not another project.

Btw did you use TDP for CPU wattage? Did you know that's not the same as a CPUs power draw?
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: 61951 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Arivald Ha'gel

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 14
Posts: 67
Credit: 160,668,575
RAC: 36,337
100 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 61952 - Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 19:26:36 UTC

and if you click on my name you will see I started Seti on 17 Dec 1999


I even did crunch old Seti@Home workunits :)

A server is ALWAYS in charge, which is why I now run the 64bit version of Windows Home Server on one of my pc's.


I have router with DHCP server :) It's ok :)

I bet most people who only have 1 old rig don't crunch 24/7 & so the bill would be far less. Also I really doubt you'd be able to burn $100/mth on an old rig anyway, even crunching 24/7.


I have two rigs... Well... one notebook and one rig :) Notebook is no longer used to crunch.

Also a user may not be able to afford or want to spend a 'lump' some of $100 on an upgrade, where as the electricity cost would be spread over many months (assuming they don't run 24/7).


Least efficient PC in my first post crunches constantly.

Re banning certain CPUs, whilst I agree some old ones are massively in efficient, if the user has only 1 CPU then banning that CPU will ban them.


As far as I understand server configuration it will only ban work dedicated to CPU.

It would be interesting to know what % of MWs total crunching power is given by 'old' CPUs.


That is exactly what I have suggested - to check first.

Btw did you use TDP for CPU wattage? Did you know that's not the same as a CPUs power draw?


Yes and No. But yes... I assumed TDP is wattage. I do know it is not precise, but I see that TDP of my Radeon is in range of ~5% of power draw from the wall.
ID: 61952 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[TA]Assimilator1
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 11
Posts: 360
Credit: 42,274,497
RAC: 0
30 million credit badge8 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61960 - Posted: 27 Jun 2014, 16:58:04 UTC

As far as I understand server configuration it will only ban work dedicated to CPU.

Yea, & if they don't have a GPU they can crunch with on the their only rig then you've effectively banned them from MW.

Least efficient PC in my first post crunches constantly.

OK, but many owners of old rigs won't be running them 24/7.

Oh I & beat you both on SETI classic, I started in Oct '99 ;).
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: 61960 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 387,264,225
RAC: 350,368
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61963 - Posted: 27 Jun 2014, 21:44:14 UTC - in response to Message 61960.  

Oh I & beat you both on SETI classic, I started in Oct '99 ;).


Mine is a generic date as they lost the original date for alot of us, but it is close enough for me so I am okay with it. I know it wasn't much earlier or later, so yes you did beat me.
ID: 61963 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : CPU/GPU Comparison (do we need CPU apps when GPU app is available)

©2019 Astroinformatics Group