Posts by Mutiny32*

1) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Requirements [OLD] (Message 42171) Posted 15 Sep 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: They natively do double-precision FP operations and the GTX460 is rated at 907 GFLOPS. That's at the 675 MHz clock speed. I am currently running mine at 850MHz completely rock solid crunching Collatz WUs in the ~600 seconds/WU range. And it doesn't even phase Aero performance on Windows 7. Temp is currently at 66C with fan speed at around 70%. I would argue that they currently blow anything ATI has out there away barring the dual-GPU cards. they haven't even introduced a "full" Fermi card that has all 512 CUDA cores enabled. They are working with TSMC to get the wafer yield up and power consumption. The GF104 was a giant leap forward in thermal efficiency, power usage, and overall performance. Let me put it this way: "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit."
2) Message boards : News : started a new nbody search: de_nbody_model1_1 (Message 42148) Posted 15 Sep 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Is this new, drastically longer nbody search in preparation for new GPU apps, or are they just longer to keep less load on the server? Yeah, I'm being a intentionally aannoying about wanting a GPU app because quite frankly, I'd like to be putting my processing power towards something a bit more important than trying to prove/disprove a mathematical conjecture.
3) Message boards : News : looking for a linux pro :) (Message 42048) Posted 11 Sep 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: But really, I thought we were going to have OpenCL builds. If you're gonna build new ATI builds, can you build new CUDA builds that actually work too?
4) Message boards : News : looking for a linux pro :) (Message 42046) Posted 11 Sep 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: You could try 10.10 Beta and see if that works, as the X server version is newer as are the ATI drivers. Ubuntu isn't very agile or keen at making any kind of sense on version upgrades to programs or drivers after the final release of a particular version of their OS. 10.04 isn't even fun to install on a system with a Fermi card. The suggestion on reddit ;) to burn the CD at as low as possible speed is very wise. I've made more coasters burning Linux CD/DVDs at a higher speed. They seem to be VERY sensitive to ANY burn errors. Or you could simply dd an image of a distro onto a USB thumbdrive and install that way.
5) Message boards : News : starting/stoping new assimilators working (Message 41987) Posted 7 Sep 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Please please please say it is an OpenCL or CUDA/ATI app. I noticed that there is an example nbody app in Nvidia's GPGPU toolkit; not sure if it even has any semblence to what your app does, but it's worth mentioning.
6) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : MILKYWAY_NBODY_0.03_WINDOWS_X86_64.EXE is a SpyWare?!!! (Message 41764) Posted 26 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Ah, good 'ol Zbot.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : WUs dying on GTX460 (Message 41763) Posted 26 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Who knows. They're working on moving it all over to OpenCL to be able to support one piece of code for both ATI and Nvidia cards. But now the new Catalyst drivers crash and burn on WUs and the CUDA 2.3 app isn't working for a lot of cards, I'd say something needs to be fix and fixed fast.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Requirements [OLD] (Message 41761) Posted 26 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Actually, Fermi's solution to double precision is much less crippled than ATI's approach to it. One thing Nvidia did cripple somewhat was its capability in the consumer line of Fermi cards due to the lack of ECC by reducing the double-precision to 1/8 that of their pure Tesla GPGPU Fermi cards. The performance in benchmarks shows that even that it's stated that the performance has been cut to 1/8, benchmarks show that is really only around 1/3 of the amount of performance loss. It all has to do with memory.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Not D/L WU's (Message 41760) Posted 26 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: I think the problem is that there is too much emphasis on getting an OpenCL app out there instead of taking some time to make a stop-gap fix for CUDA (& newer card recognition) and AMD's API. They're going to lose a lot of resources if they don't keep up with projects that make good use of their GPU or at least compile new apps with newer APIs like CUDA 3.1. This project in particular that requires FPU64 is really shooting itself in the foot in regards to not supporting Fermi well or at all in some apps. Actually, it doesn't make much sense to use the CPU only app on this project because it is simply not well suited for it and is a waste of resources that could be much better used on other projects.
10) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : MILKYWAY_NBODY_0.03_WINDOWS_X86_64.EXE is a SpyWare?!!! (Message 41735) Posted 25 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Fine. You want a reply? It's the way the json handler scans your appdata folder for relevant pieces of the app and data. There's your answer. If you weren't so busy arguing semantics and being generally obtuse, you could have looked through the github repo and found that information in the source code.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Not D/L WU's (Message 41660) Posted 22 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: I agree. In fact, I've given up on this project until they can support Fermi. Every other project that supports CUDA works perfectly on my GTX 460 compiled with the old SDKs. The problem is the binary simply doesn't recognize the newer Fermi cards. The solution is simple and yet it is an ongoing problem that is wasting a TON of WUs and everyone's time, only making the problem worse.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Not D/L WU's (Message 41647) Posted 21 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: They could always set up a crontab to perform a reboot every 5 days or say, every Sunday at 00:00GMT.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Requirements [OLD] (Message 41602) Posted 19 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Even if on the back-end you guys are refactoring your programs to use OpenCL for better cross-hardware and cross-platform support, wouldn't it be worth it to update the old code to accept newer cards as a stop-gap solution?). It would actually be less work to just finish the OpenCL. I haven't been able to get the existing CUDA to build since I started working on the project. I actually expect to have the OpenCL actually working later today, and ready to send out within a week or 2. The existing CUDA won't build? You mean with the 3.1.1 toolkit? Couldn't you just use the old toolkit and code to make an exception for the newer cards? From what I understand, Fermi will pretty much run Tesla code out of the box unless the original coding wasn't done properly. Nvidia even has compatibility documentation for Fermi at http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/3_1/toolkit/docs/NVIDIA_FermiTuningGuide.pdf and even a tuning guide at http://developer.nvidia.com. Like someone else said, you're going to have a LOT of failed WU's since you're doing the nbody-simulation now and the program downloads them before checking the GPU and subsequently having a ton WU's crash and burn on Fermi machines. Yeah, I know you can turn off the use GPU, but what if someone has a bunch of GPUs that CAN do the work as well as some Fermi cards? That wouldn't be ideal for them.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Requirements [OLD] (Message 41590) Posted 19 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Just curious, what is the difficulty in recompiling the software to support newer GPUs like the GF104 or other cards that have double-precision floating point operation support? Why the big delay? I'd consider Fermi support to be important considering the massive performance increase it brings. That is the whole point of projects like this; to crunch a vast amount of information as quickly and efficiently as possible, is it not? Even if on the back-end you guys are refactoring your programs to use OpenCL for better cross-hardware and cross-platform support, wouldn't it be worth it to update the old code to accept newer cards as a stop-gap solution? My GTX 460 can literally chew through anything I can currently throw at it without breaking a sweat. I'd love to see how it handles MW when it has WUs that don't just get discarded because the binary doesn't think it has a Compute Capability 1.3 or newer card (the GF104 actually has Compute Capability of 2.1).
15) Message boards : Number crunching : WUs dying on GTX460 (Message 41539) Posted 18 Aug 2010 by Mutiny32* Post: Wish the GF104 were supported...