CUDA client now available!

[alpha]

There is now a CUDA client available for AMD64 Linux on the pre-release download section (http://www.distributed.net/download/prerelease.php). Currently only RC5-72 is supported.

Post your benchmarks here!

[Brucifer]

so being totally ignorant on the nvida graphics cards, what will this work on. What's the power draw? What size PS does the system need? What cuda stuff that they mentioned on the dnetc site needs to be installed?? Is anyone here trying this stuff out? Can multiple cards be loaded into a system? Etc., etc., blah blah....:corn:

It's only money................

[alpha]

I don't have any practical experience with this stuff yet, but I might be able to answer some of your questions..

The distributed.net pre-release download page linked above says that you require "CUDA libraries and drivers", which I'd guess you can get here (http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_get.html).

According to Wikipedia, CUDA will run on:


CUDA works with all NVIDIA GPUs from the G8X series onwards, including GeForce, Quadro and the Tesla line. NVIDIA states that programs developed for the GeForce 8 series will also work without modification on all future Nvidia video cards, due to binary compatibility.

A full list of CUDA-enabled hardware can be found here (http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_learn_products.html).

I picked a card at random - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and checked on nvidia.com for the technical specs (http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_8800_gt_us.html). The maximum power draw is 105W and states the minimum required PSU is 400W.

[Brucifer]

Well as I suspected, I don't have a compatible card. So I think that I'll wait a bit before I purchase one and see how things go with those knowledgeable and brave enough to venture forth and experiment. :)

[Bender10]

I just cranked up my *nix 64, GPU box on this project. Brucifer got me curious..

AMD 9550
9800GX2

I never ran this project before. This is more of a test, than anything else.

It is running about 470 Mkeys/s. Is this Fast?? Average??

[Brucifer]

well it's all relative... :) But how long was the system running when it gave you that mnodes number in the summary?

Since you were just testing today, and it was most likely just one system, I'd have to say you were ripping along at a good click. :)

[Bender10]

Yeah,

I guess jumped in with a number too fast, anyway...

To make a better test of it, I suspended the PS3grid wu's, to take the extra load off the GPU's. Boinc is still running, Just no GPU tasks.

The 'work-o-meter' in the Dnet client went down from 470 Mkeys/s to a steady 225 Mkeys/s, with 2 GPU tasks crunching.

The 'work-o-meter' has started to go up again, with the GPU tasks suspended. Right now it is at 270 Mkeys/s and climbing. This setup is completing ~50 packets every 5 minutes. I'll keep track for a couple of hours to get a better idea.

[Death]

can you run "dnetc.exe -bench" and post results here.

[Bender10]

Ok,
I am kind of a dnet noob.

Right now I am running Boinc wu's, PS3grid (gpu) wu's and RC5 on the same box. The RC5 output is reduced due to having to 'share' the gpu with PS3grid (which is also taking a performance hit). So I did 2 '-bench' runs. With RC5 and PS3grid wu's sharing (A). And RC5 running solo on the gpu (Boinc still running) (B).

A results:

[Dec 01 14:08:18 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe).
[Dec 01 14:08:37 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe)
0.00:00:16.11 [197,038,435 keys/sec]
[Dec 01 14:08:37 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe).
[Dec 01 14:08:55 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.19 [172,660,517 keys/sec]

B results:

[Dec 01 14:10:59 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe).
[Dec 01 14:11:17 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe)
0.00:00:16.14 [241,531,335 keys/sec]
[Dec 01 14:11:17 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe).
[Dec 01 14:11:37 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.84 [202,234,189 keys/sec]

I hope this helps.

[Death]

check http://distributed.net/speed/

you are 10 times faster than xeon ))

[Bender10]

Good to know,

I just wanted to test out the gpu setup since I had a system that would run it (and someone else got me curious :D).

I'm building another *nix box to try out a different gpu...

[Death]

Bender, can you check the possibility to crunch rc and ps3grid in parallel.

I mean that if you running 2 projects rc5 keyrate not HALFED. so can you check ps3grid speed with rc5 running in background?
75% of one project + 75% of other project means that you use your GPU at 150% ))))

[Bender10]

I already checked that out. I have been running PS3grid most of the time with RC5.
1. run 2 grid wu with rc5 on both cores.
2. run 2 grid wu with rc5 on 1 core. completed ~2000 in 1 day.

When crunchig rc5 and ps3grid (at the same time), the rc5 key rate was down ~50%. the PS3grid total run time went up ~40%.

*disclaimer...ymmv

These were Short term test.

I just shutdown my ps3grid wu's to get a 24 hr avgon just rc5.

Edit: I'll fire up 1 grid wu after the 24 hour run. And I'll be more careful about the numbers I use....(noob here, remember??). It seems that in the summary, the key rate is an average?? of keys processed?? I just picked up on that.

[Death]

well I look at bench

241,531,335 keys/sec / 197,038,435 keys/sec = 80% not 50%

[Brucifer]

Bench is fine for exactly what it is ----- bench.

Bender10 is posting what he actually is getting in actual use which is the real world application of the client. Sort of like Detroit advertisement for gas mileage of a car which normally is nothing like what really happens with the car under actual loading conditions. :)

[em99010pepe]

Is there any windows client?

[alpha]

Nope, doesn't seem so. However, if you can get the source you could try compiling it yourself.

[em99010pepe]

Nope, doesn't seem so. However, if you can get the source you could try compiling it yourself.

I'm too lazy to do that.

Carlos

[Brucifer]

Well I decided I couldn't wait.... :) So I ran out to my local friendly "Best Buy" store and picked up a 9800GT. Have to say I'm pretty impressed. Running it on 64-bit linux and crunching rc5. Anticipating somewhere between 5600 to 5900 completed units in 24 hours, just from the gpu. Definitely moving along it is... :) If one is in to crunching rc5, it's a good little item to have.

Now all I need to do is figure out how I'm going to get one of those super Tessla setups... :rotfl:

[IronBits]

Wow! Nice boost eh? :)

[the-mk]

yes, sounds nice :thumbs:
btw: how many does a PS3 do in 24 hours?
and does the CUDA client also support 2 GPUs (SLI, etc)?

[Brucifer]

yes, sounds nice :thumbs:
btw: how many does a PS3 do in 24 hours?
and does the CUDA client also support 2 GPUs (SLI, etc)?

IRT 2 gpu's, yes. Thats basically what Bender10 is running, is a dual gpu card. But if you go look at the higher end nvida stuff out there, they have multiple gpu systems that are all cuda supported. The fancy Tessla systems are something else to behold :) and so is the price! LOL In the hard core gpu world, we are at the low end of things. They have really boosted some stuff along for scientific and heavy duty graphics stuff for engineering, etc. But most of that stuff is way out of reach for the basic home cruncher.

As for the PS3 output, I don't know myself. I seem to remember IB mentioning something like 3,000 a day. Maybe he will pipe up with what he has gotten out of them.

[IronBits]

I'm getting about 9T, or 8,666 blocks, per day, per PS3.

[IronBits]

That Tesla C1060 card has 3GB more ram than a GTX280, same amount of processors, and bandwidth is higher. power consumption is much less, but costs $1,695 each.
The GTX280 can be had for much much less...
You could put 4 GTX280s in SLI mode into a whole newly built computer and save money. :)

[IronBits]

After doing more research on the difference on both of these cards, in relation to performance, there is no advantage to using a C1060 over a GTX280, it's the exact same 'card'.
The C1060 card has no video out port so you can not hook it up to your monitor, but, you will also pay four times as much for that missing feature. ($1695 vs $400)

[Brucifer]

Interesting. So if no video, then do you load video drivers to run it, or what????

[IronBits]

Yes. You can run a real video card in the same computer, hopefully at least an nVidia brand, so they can share the same video driver ;)

[Death]

i read tread at /., and it says tesla is a 8800 nvidia. just without video output, and optimized for running 24/7

[Brucifer]

Yes. You can run a real video card in the same computer, hopefully at least an nVidia brand, so they can share the same video driver ;)

That make sense.... :) Duh :)

[Brucifer]

So now there is a second cuda beta out as the first one expires in less than 12 hours. The first one would look in the local directory for the libcudart.so.2 library files. However the second one doesn't look in the local directory for the files. So does some enterprising soul know how the "real" library files are installed in to ubuntu 8.10 without compiling the whole cuda sdk kit? In looking at one ref out there, they said that the latest cuda wasn't supported by ubuntu 8.10, and that to stuff it in anyway, one would have to install an earlier version gcc and such... It would seem that there would be an rpm file out there in the big cloud to dump the libcudart files in for those that aren't doing software development and just want to run a precompiled client. Otherwise it's easier to just give the gpu's to the local gamer phreaks and go back to hard core 4x4 wheeling... :eek:

:confused:

[IronBits]

I have no idea... I'm going to wait until it's out of beta, or at least a beta that will last longer than 12 hrs. ;)


i read tread at /., and it says tesla is a 8800 nvidia. just without video output, and optimized for running 24/7
That would have been the older/first Tesla card they made.
The new one is built from the 280...

[Brucifer]

Per AMDave, copy the libcudart.so.2 file into the /usr/lib64/ directory.

I might add that if you had selected a specific core and done away with the auto selection to save time, set it back to auto and run it a few times to verify which new core each gpu likes.

[Death]

well, there IS windows client )) but it not even in pre-release stage. chech this topic. I really made a miss...
http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17078 topic title should read WINDOWS CUDA CLIENT.

[gopher_yarrowzoo]

Post Title Edited :)

[Death]

pre release 508 avail.

windows cuda on it's way!

[IronBits]

Distributed.net released a BETA of the Windows CUDA client.
If you have an nVidia GeForce 8000-series or later card, it will provide a significant speed increase.
I'm getting over 500 MKeys/sec on my GTX-280.

The client is available at http://www.distributed.net/download/prerelease.php

It takes about 7 seconds to complete a wu now. ;)
TaskManager shows dnetc running at 11-13 so almost no cpu impact on other projects using cpu only.

With Boinc running and using my browser, I'm getting 526.37 Mkeys/s :D
Thats one wu completed about every 7 seconds :)

[IronBits]

I get 545 Mkeys/s using dnetc.com instead of dnetc.exe.

[IronBits]

8800GTX gets 248 Mkeys/s

[Brucifer]

Nine seconds on a GTX260

[TheOtherPhil]

My lowly 9600GT gets 171Mkeys/s

[Bender10]

I'm running about 585 Mkeys/s (...GX2), sure is fun breaking the speed limit....

[IronBits]

My CUDA GPU dnetc client stopped working! :cry:
This beta release expired on Jan 19 11:39:23 UTC.
Please download a newer beta, or run a standard-release client.
Is there a newer release that works with nVidia/CUDA ???
Where is the link to the download?

[Brucifer]

you are s.o.l like the rest of us.... :-(

[[NGS]Cpt00Kirk]

well guys ..... in the good old days we turned back the system clock a couple of days!! to run a program.

so i tried it with the beta and guess what? it works like a charm!! :lmao:

because of the time difference we had the same problem 1 day earlier, so take back you clock and it will run. blocks are counted @ dnet so happy crunching untill the new one comes out :bigtrain:

Dutch Power Cows at your service :thumbs:

ps.. my 8800GT is doing 315+ Mkeys/s

[guru]

I'm getting a steady 637K on my GX2 with the latest beta.

[IronBits]

:rock:
GTX280 gets 450 ish :(

[guru]

For DC projects the GX2 is faster then the GTX280 and costs about half. It does use more power but you that is to be expected. I have a board that will hold three but I don't have another two cards and a nuclear reactor to power it. :(

[IronBits]

GTX295
[Jan 28 06:04:11 UTC] RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
[Jan 28 06:04:22 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:08.64 [502,692,486 keys/sec]
:cry:

I'll be watching your performance closely ;)

http://teamstats.macnn.com/rc572/stats.php?page=a2&TID=26268&sort=StatsWeek

[guru]

GTX295
[Jan 28 06:04:11 UTC] RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
[Jan 28 06:04:22 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:08.64 [502,692,486 keys/sec]
:cry:

I'll be watching your performance closely ;)

http://teamstats.macnn.com/rc572/stats.php?page=a2&TID=26268&sort=StatsWeek

Yea but that's only one core. My score is for both cores.

[IronBits]

How do you get it to work with more than one gpu?

[Death]

dnetc.exe -multiok
afaik

[guru]

How do you get it to work with more than one gpu?

I just ran it normally and it detected two GPU's and started two crunchers.

[IronBits]

Guru, you BIG PHAT Gorilla! :D

I just tried dual GPUs and got it working with two inexpensive cards. Pretty simple with the MultiOK=1 switch.

9800GT ... [247.29 Mkeys/s]
9600GSO . [114,428,713 keys/s]

I stopped dnetc Cuda, shutdown, pulled the 9600GSO, rebooted.
Put the 9800GT back on F@H where it gets ~4,000 PPD . ;)

[riptide]

A fellow team member from XS has kindly informed me that any CUDA clients prior to 2.2 compatible that return WU's will not be accepted. So that means we have to use the current CUDA client, which is CRAP slow (about half speed).

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/cgi/dnet-finger.cgi?user=bovine


Dear friends,

We have discovered our nVidia CUDA clients prior to v2.9105.512 had a
problem that would cause RC5-72 results to skip part of the
block. This issue turned out to be caused by a bug in the CUDA
compiler itself, which was fixed beginning in the CUDA 2.2 SDK. Going
forward we will only be releasing clients for CUDA version 2.2 and
higher.

The fixed behavior unfortunately reveals that new CUDA clients will be
about half the speed of the older buggy CUDA versions. We understand
that the apparent speed decrease will seem disappointing, but it's
important to note the earlier speeds were not measuring useful
work. Going forward, speed comparisons should only be made with CUDA
2.2 or higher speeds, as these are the "correct" speeds. Also, please
remember the CUDA clients are still much faster than traditional CPU
clients.

If you are still running a CUDA beta client, we encourage you to
update to the current versions available on our pre-release page:
http://www.distributed.net/download/prerelease.php Results returned by
any earlier clients will no longer be accepted by our keymaster. Users
with prior stats credit from affected clients will not be
retroactively removed.

Due to aspects of our network communication protocol, we are not able
to remotely shutdown only the older, buggy, CUDA clients so we will be
implementing a method to send large, dummy blocks to older CUDA
clients instead.

Since all dnetc CUDA versions released so far have only been "beta"
clients with built-in expiration dates, the impact should be
contained. The last round of beta CUDA clients would have expired at
approximately the end of August 2009.

Thanks again to all of our beta testers that have been helping us
validate this exciting new technology.


Also it hints that maybe ALL the CUDA work prior to this was a waste??? :couchsleep::rolleyes:

[IronBits]

That was posted on
:: 27-Jul-2009 03:02 GMT (Monday) ::

Latest pre-release version
[x86/CUDA-2.2] v2.9105.512 (beta8) 2009-07-26

I'm using
dnetc v2.9105-512-GTL-09072609-*dev* for CUDA 2.2 on Win32 (WindowsNT 6.0).
nvcuda.dll Version: 8.15.11.9038
[Aug 08 01:05:27 UTC] *** This BETA release expires in 37.08:20:23.00. ***

Seems to be working fine at 158.56 Mkeys/s with a GTX 275 ;)

[riptide]

That was posted on
:: 27-Jul-2009 03:02 GMT (Monday) ::

Latest pre-release version
[x86/CUDA-2.2] v2.9105.512 (beta8) 2009-07-26

I'm using
dnetc v2.9105-512-GTL-09072609-*dev* for CUDA 2.2 on Win32 (WindowsNT 6.0).
nvcuda.dll Version: 8.15.11.9038
[Aug 08 01:05:27 UTC] *** This BETA release expires in 37.08:20:23.00. ***

Seems to be working fine at 158.56 Mkeys/s with a GTX 275 ;)

I'm seeing 148Mkeys on a 8800GTX @ 1729 shaders (was>350 before this :( ). Something is very wrong with your core/setup.

[IronBits]

I think it's the CUDA drivers, because my GTS0 could get almost as much as that to.

[riptide]

I think it's the CUDA drivers, because my GTS0 could get almost as much as that to.

What drivers? I'm on latest 190.38 / 2.3 CUDA SDK etc + Server 2008 R2 64bit.

Your 275 should be destroying them blocks even at our reduced rates now. Obviously the only other thing really is other apps swallowing your CPU or your GPU OR wrong core selected.

[IronBits]

Oh crap, it was forced on core=7 :(
RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).

Let's see what happens with -1 next
RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).

[IronBits]

Smoking now, thanks for the tip! :D
300,717,520 keys/sec



[Aug 08 04:14:40 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:14:57 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:14.76 [300,717,520 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:14:57 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:17 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:17 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:36 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:36 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:56 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:56 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:16 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,914,864 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:16 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:36 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.01 [163,986,486 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:36 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:56 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:56 UTC] RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:17:16 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:17.25 [177,540,098 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:16 UTC] RC5-72: using core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:17:37 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.03 [179,131,744 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:37 UTC] RC5-72: using core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait).
[Aug 08 04:17:55 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait)
0.00:00:14.71 [297,742,505 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:55 UTC] RC5-72: using core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us).
[Aug 08 04:18:13 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us)
0.00:00:16.36 [267,927,345 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:18:13 UTC] RC5-72: using core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic).
[Aug 08 04:18:32 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic)
0.00:00:16.45 [269,409,506 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:18:32 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
Fastest core : #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)

[riptide]

Smoking now, thanks for the tip! :D
300,717,520 keys/sec



[Aug 08 04:14:40 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:14:57 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:14.76 [300,717,520 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:14:57 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:17 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:17 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:36 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:36 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:15:56 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:15:56 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:16 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,914,864 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:16 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:36 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.01 [163,986,486 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:36 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd).
[Aug 08 04:16:56 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd)
0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:16:56 UTC] RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
[Aug 08 04:17:16 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
0.00:00:17.25 [177,540,098 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:16 UTC] RC5-72: using core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd).
[Aug 08 04:17:37 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd)
0.00:00:17.03 [179,131,744 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:37 UTC] RC5-72: using core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait).
[Aug 08 04:17:55 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait)
0.00:00:14.71 [297,742,505 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:17:55 UTC] RC5-72: using core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us).
[Aug 08 04:18:13 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us)
0.00:00:16.36 [267,927,345 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:18:13 UTC] RC5-72: using core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic).
[Aug 08 04:18:32 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic)
0.00:00:16.45 [269,409,506 keys/sec]
[Aug 08 04:18:32 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
Fastest core : #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)

Ha! Classic mistake that was. Ssssh. I won't tell anyone. :p

[alpha]

Also it hints that maybe ALL the CUDA work prior to this was a waste??? :couchsleep::rolleyes:
Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to after reading that update. What a shame. :( At least they noticed now rather than later, I guess.

[IronBits]

Well now that I know to use -1 and not force 7 (something I did who knows how long ago)

Lets see what a GTX 275, 280, 285 and 295(dual) can do. ;)
300Mkeys/sec x 5 = 1.5Bkeys/sec ...

[Brucifer]

Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to after reading that update. What a shame. :( At least they noticed now rather than later, I guess.

yup, pretty sad for the project really as there has been quite a bit of work done with the cuda clients. :-( Luckily they caught it, and luckily they brand the results so they can go back and remove all the bogus stuff from the results database. Really a shame though.

[Brucifer]

So has anyone done any RC5 crunching with one of the Nvida Quadro cards? If not, does anyone have one that they wouldn't mind running some benchmarks on it? Just really curious how they stack up benchmark wise with the GeForce cards.