Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 65 of 65

Thread: CUDA client now available!

  1. #41
    Junior Member Bender10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    17
    I'm running about 585 Mkeys/s (...GX2), sure is fun breaking the speed limit....
    Out of My MIND!!!! Back in 5 minutes........

    Blogging Found Here

  2. #42
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    My CUDA GPU dnetc client stopped working!
    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?

  3. #43
    you are s.o.l like the rest of us.... :-(

  4. #44

    Lightbulb

    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!!

    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

    Dutch Power Cows at your service

    ps.. my 8800GT is doing 315+ Mkeys/s
    Dutch Power Cows jumping along

  5. #45
    Big Fat Gorilla guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Warren, OR
    Posts
    501
    I'm getting a steady 637K on my GX2 with the latest beta.
    I'm having fun!!! I'm just not sure if it's net fun or gross fun.

  6. #46
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619

    GTX280 gets 450 ish

  7. #47
    Big Fat Gorilla guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Warren, OR
    Posts
    501
    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.
    I'm having fun!!! I'm just not sure if it's net fun or gross fun.

  8. #48
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    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]


    I'll be watching your performance closely

    http://teamstats.macnn.com/rc572/sta...sort=StatsWeek

  9. #49
    Big Fat Gorilla guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Warren, OR
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by IronBits View Post
    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]


    I'll be watching your performance closely

    http://teamstats.macnn.com/rc572/sta...sort=StatsWeek
    Yea but that's only one core. My score is for both cores.
    I'm having fun!!! I'm just not sure if it's net fun or gross fun.

  10. #50
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    How do you get it to work with more than one gpu?

  11. #51
    Unholy Undead Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Posts
    907
    Blog Entries
    1
    dnetc.exe -multiok
    afaik
    wbr, Me. Dead J. Dona \


  12. #52
    Big Fat Gorilla guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Warren, OR
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by IronBits View Post
    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.
    I'm having fun!!! I'm just not sure if it's net fun or gross fun.

  13. #53
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    Guru, you BIG PHAT Gorilla!

    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 .

  14. #54
    Xtreme Friend riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    161
    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/dne...gi?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???
    Last edited by riptide; 08-07-2009 at 06:38 PM.

  15. #55
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    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

  16. #56
    Xtreme Friend riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by IronBits View Post
    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.

  17. #57
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    I think it's the CUDA drivers, because my GTS0 could get almost as much as that to.

  18. #58
    Xtreme Friend riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by IronBits View Post
    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.
    Last edited by riptide; 08-08-2009 at 12:06 AM.

  19. #59
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    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).

  20. #60
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    Smoking now, thanks for the tip!
    300,717,520 keys/sec

    PHP Code:
    [Aug 08 04:14:40 UTCRC5-72using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:14:57 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:14.76 [300,717,520 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:14:57 UTCRC5-72using core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:17 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:17 UTCRC5-72using core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:36 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:36 UTCRC5-72using core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:56 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:56 UTCRC5-72using core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:16 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,914,864 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:16 UTCRC5-72using core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:36 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.01 [163,986,486 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:36 UTCRC5-72using core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:56 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:56 UTCRC5-72using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:17:16 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.25 [177,540,098 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:17:16 UTCRC5-72using core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:17:37 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.03 [179,131,744 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:17:37 UTCRC5-72using core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait).
    [Aug 08 04:17:55 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72using core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us).
    [Aug 08 04:18:13 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72using core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic).
    [Aug 08 04:18:32 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72 benchmark summary :
                          Default 
    core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    Fastest core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd) 

  21. #61
    Xtreme Friend riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by IronBits View Post
    Smoking now, thanks for the tip!
    300,717,520 keys/sec

    PHP Code:
    [Aug 08 04:14:40 UTCRC5-72using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:14:57 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:14.76 [300,717,520 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:14:57 UTCRC5-72using core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:17 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:17 UTCRC5-72using core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:36 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:36 UTCRC5-72using core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:15:56 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #3 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:16.32 [268,265,609 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:15:56 UTCRC5-72using core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:16 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,914,864 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:16 UTCRC5-72using core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:36 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #5 (CUDA 2-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.01 [163,986,486 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:36 UTCRC5-72using core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:16:56 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #6 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.32 [181,761,737 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:16:56 UTCRC5-72using core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:17:16 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.25 [177,540,098 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:17:16 UTCRC5-72using core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd).
    [Aug 08 04:17:37 UTCRC5-72Benchmark for core #8 (CUDA 4-pipe 256-thd)
                          
    0.00:00:17.03 [179,131,744 keys/sec]
    [
    Aug 08 04:17:37 UTCRC5-72using core #9 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait).
    [Aug 08 04:17:55 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72using core #10 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us).
    [Aug 08 04:18:13 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72using core #11 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic).
    [Aug 08 04:18:32 UTCRC5-72Benchmark 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 UTCRC5-72 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.

  22. #62
    Dungeon Master alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by riptide View Post
    Also it hints that maybe ALL the CUDA work prior to this was a waste???
    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.

  23. #63
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    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 ...

  24. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by alpha View Post
    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.

  25. #65
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •