Welcome to MilkyWay@home

app v12

Message boards : Number crunching : app v12
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Profile niterobin

Send message
Joined: 11 Mar 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 818,194
RAC: 0
Message 8846 - Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 7:52:55 UTC

0.13 is giving me times of 36 - 37 minutes on X86-64/XP Pro 64-bit, which is what 0.7 was doing.

Nice one. :-)
ID: 8846 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
C

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 36
Credit: 1,224,316
RAC: 0
Message 8926 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 1:32:52 UTC

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C
Team MacNN
ID: 8926 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
zombie67 [MM]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 115
Credit: 502,527,662
RAC: 151
Message 8929 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 7:49:15 UTC - in response to Message 8926.  

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C


Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.

ID: 8929 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Travis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
Message 8934 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 17:46:14 UTC - in response to Message 8929.  

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C


Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.


Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).
ID: 8934 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 8937 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 17:57:22 UTC - in response to Message 8934.  

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C


Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.


Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs. And as always, keep Altivec enabled for PPC Macs.
ID: 8937 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Travis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
Message 8940 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 19:42:42 UTC - in response to Message 8937.  

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C


Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.


Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs. And as always, keep Altivec enabled for PPC Macs.


I've put it in the make.osx file and the next version of the app (0.15) will have it. On the macs, it seems SSE3 is barely an improvement (maybe 1%) over SSE2 so I don't think it's a serious priority.
ID: 8940 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Temujin

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 07
Posts: 77
Credit: 404,471,187
RAC: 0
Message 8944 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 20:00:54 UTC - in response to Message 8937.  

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.


So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(
ID: 8944 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Travis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
Message 8946 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 20:02:50 UTC - in response to Message 8944.  

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.


So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(


ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)
ID: 8946 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Temujin

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 07
Posts: 77
Credit: 404,471,187
RAC: 0
Message 8947 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 20:04:40 UTC - in response to Message 8946.  
Last modified: 24 Jan 2009, 20:08:08 UTC

ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)


NO!!!!

SSE3 is ok
SSSE3 doesn't work on my T2500
;-)
ID: 8947 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Travis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
Message 8948 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 20:07:52 UTC - in response to Message 8947.  

ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)


NO!!!!

SSE3 is ok
SSSE3 doesn't work on my T2500
;-)



lol oh ok :D
ID: 8948 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Travis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
Message 8949 - Posted: 24 Jan 2009, 20:10:37 UTC - in response to Message 8948.  
Last modified: 24 Jan 2009, 20:11:45 UTC

So i should be able to move the x86_64 apple versions to SSSE3? (thats 3 s). How would I go about doing that?
ID: 8949 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 8992 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 1:19:57 UTC - in response to Message 8944.  

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.


So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(

Huh, that's odd... I could've sworn I've used SSSE3 on my MB before, but it doesn't look like any of the Core processors supported it. They all do support SSE3 though.

So i should be able to move the x86_64 apple versions to SSSE3? (thats 3 s). How would I go about doing that?

Look it up using "man gcc", but IIRC it's through the -mssse3 command for GCC.
ID: 8992 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
MB Atlanos

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 07
Posts: 18
Credit: 180,611
RAC: 0
Message 9082 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 10:57:18 UTC

The first line of Intel Macs from 2006 used the Core Solo/Duo with:
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EIST, XD bit

Only the following Macs with Core 2 Solo/Duo has SSSE3 and Intel 64.
Thanks to the stupid labeling by intel, its easy to confuse.
ID: 9082 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 9110 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 18:22:57 UTC - in response to Message 9082.  

The first line of Intel Macs from 2006 used the Core Solo/Duo with:
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EIST, XD bit

Only the following Macs with Core 2 Solo/Duo has SSSE3 and Intel 64.
Thanks to the stupid labeling by intel, its easy to confuse.

Yeah, it stands for Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3. Anyway, Wikipedia cleared it up for me.
ID: 9110 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ebahapo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 07
Posts: 66
Credit: 636,861
RAC: 0
Message 9112 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 18:38:31 UTC - in response to Message 9110.  

I explored the differences among the several SSE flavors starting here.

SSSE3 is probably useless for scientific applications.

HTH

ID: 9112 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile petros
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 08
Posts: 89
Credit: 255,801
RAC: 0
Message 9115 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 19:28:26 UTC - in response to Message 9112.  

I explored the differences among the several SSE flavors starting here.

SSSE3 is probably useless for scientific applications.

HTH


Hi Augustine nice to see you again around,

yes you are right with one small exception, scientific applications with supported code and structure for SSE3 and SSSE3 can get really very much and good performance,what its not the case (even) with the current optimized MW client.

And yes dear Augustine i made the needed changes and tests (ok with a bit of help from some experts) and it works ,much more better it works the spu code for ps3 cell cpu and yes i test it that too, but im done somehow with MW, its too late and disappointed (yes i cant hide it) because the project Administration penalize the improvements!

Have a nice day!
ID: 9115 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ebahapo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 07
Posts: 66
Credit: 636,861
RAC: 0
Message 9124 - Posted: 25 Jan 2009, 20:04:24 UTC - in response to Message 9115.  

yes you are right with one small exception, scientific applications with supported code and structure for SSE3 and SSSE3 can get really very much and good performance...

Note that I said that only SSSE3 is useless for scientific applications. MMX-like instructions are not well suited for scientific applications nor for compiler-generated code, requiring hand-assembly to be taken advantage of.

HTH

ID: 9124 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Number crunching : app v12

©2024 Astroinformatics Group