lanbonden
-
Posts
276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by lanbonden
-
-
Cool, that sounds good, I can help out with coming up with new fun stages that havent been used in recent competitions based on old dreams about hardware I wanted back when I started out with building my own computers back in the days.
Already got some ideas to build it on
-
Anyone up for organizing the stages like Antinomy did for the first rounds?
Are you locked out from participating if you organize it?
Does it include more work then coming up with the stages, seting the rules for them and moderation of the submissions?
-
I just want to make a comment or two about this competition, not sure if this the place or not, but here goes.
First, absolutely love the idea of this competition but here is my criticisms.
The stages are very, very specific. This is probably the thing, next to time available, that kept me from even participating. Strictly in my opinion, a stage like 6600GT SLI or a specific chipset on Socket 462 is too narrow or specific to get widespread participation.
The stages have two different sets of requirements, the rounds only have 2 stages (which I like) but each stage has different hardware requirements. Wouldn't it be easier for guys that want to participate to not have to buy/find two sets of hardware?
Not a huge fan of the staggered rounds, I don't know why, just it messes with my own internal organization. For me at least, it takes away from the round ending, excitement for new round feel, but might just be me.
That's my comments on the first Season, wish I could have participated more but couldn't find the time to get it done. Hope to see this return!
I agree to some points and disagree with others. Like I really liked how specific it was, but I do agree with the point about one platform (Socket or depending on first stage even motherboard) for the whole stage would be great as old CPUs and GPUs are cheap and easy to buy but good old motherboards are a pain to find.
As an example of a future season, stage one could be gpupi on a socket 370 celeron, and the other part could be 3dmark01 with socket 370, free to choise CPU and a geforce4 MX gpu.
Then stage two could be socket 754 memory test and a gpu test and so on.
-
Sure I can kill the CPU-Z processes... but that cannot give me to win 1st place, not to mention the results with most of the batches invisible will be contraversial. Sure _mat_ will check the file and it will pass as good, because nothing wrong was done there, but... people will still complain. I can made it to last about 730h top, then it will be time to speed-up the calc and hurry to submit it.
What that could give...?
Well, a second or third place is not a win but still a good place to finish in.
And yea Im still a tad grumpy that my GF killed my 700h run (at batch 14) when I was away
-
yea, really looking forward to see what kind of Hardware will be used this time
-
If this is an issue you're having on older motherboard then try going to the install folder and edit the .cfg file. You'll want to change the value of the sensor part to 0. This will stop the voltage from reading but you'll be able to open two CPU-Z programs without it crashing
Hope this works for you.
You are a hero! made that change and it was no problem whatsoever to open 10 windows of CPUz in a row!
-
And something few generations back? Let see...GTX 260 or 460? would not be good idea?
I Think saint is on the right way here, a good way to lower the cost barrier is to use a card from a few generations back that sold in huge amounts so its very easy to get on the second hand market but at the same time fits and runs well with a modern system.
Some examples of suitable cards just from my head
6850/6870 (is starting to get cheap nowdays)
5770
5450 (advantage that its sold as new aswell)
4850/4870/4890
Gtx 560ti
gtx 460
gtx 260
gts 250
Could even go back to the 8800 cards thats availible in big quantitys for a very low price here atleast.
-
Nothing magical. We just wait
Never open multiple CPU-Z windows at the same time. Wait until it's fully open.yea always let the first one load up completly first and normaly even check so both cpu and memory tab show up correctly before opening second window but still took like 50 tries to get a second with no errors on this last submission.
-
Im sure Im not the only one that got huge problems when it comes to the final part with the screenshoot, and this problem is always due to the same programe CPUz. First window always opens up nice but to get a second window is a pain in the ***, to not mention those times when you need a third for the motherboard aswell!
How about some Mutex Locked for half an hour before it magicaly works?
I got the same problem on both my socket 754 system and 775 system, both with winxp and win7 x64. So whats the secret to open multiple seasons of this program for those screenshoots?!
-
Yep... Rasparthe had 160h loops on his run and lost power while he was out of town
Dear contest organizers - No more slow this and that, please. It's too frustrating!
Agreed, low score is one thing, but dont do it in a benchmark that slowsdown from it!
-
ohh the feeling when you to get home from a 5 days vacation to hear that the PSU sudenly fel in the floor so she had to turn it of and end that gpupi run that had been runing for 700h already.. guess its a huge coincidens that she was cleaning and moving things to my desk at the same time
-
You generally become arrogant?!
It does not work for all!!! Then and for me add all results
I have no personal contact with GENiEBEN but found a post in the bugreport thread where he offered his help with the unsuported cards which should be all geforce2, geforce3 and the Geforce4 MX cards.
I would totaly understand if you where frustrated if this was an competition submission but now its just 0.1 HW points for a service everyone actualy can use. So go ahead and beat me as a 12place shouldnt be much problem to beat
-
You speak the truth...
It is already simply too slow...
Really hope that problem with rounds not showing up fixes itself when the run finishes so its valid, couse that run is slow!
-
My 2 cents on this situation.
Its one thing when its a random submission that gives a few HW points and maybe a Cup. But when it comes to competitions and world records it should be done according to the rules. If your motherboard doesnt work with CPU-z or your GPU doesnt work with the wrapper just use a card that does work if its for a competition like everyone else.
I meen I also got alot of those unsuported Nvidia cards and Im sure many others do aswell, and they are easy to get really low scores with in Aquamark, but part of the challenge is to choise the best hardware for the job and if the card isnt suported its clearly not the best choise.
tldr: I dont care if you get those score posted for some HW points, I even think you should get help with that part as the submitted scores for these old cards are just a mess, but they dont belong in a competition.
-
Oh, no double precision... That suxx... I was planing oh this move too, but with Socket 775 Celeron
775 celeron worked for sure with the last version, havent tested with 2.2 as Im doing the run on another socket atm.
-
Grattis till ett nytt toppressultat, dags att kyla det på riktigt
-
Question about the longest 1B run.
Do you have to have uniform speed on the run for it to be alowed or would it be ok to remove some load after lets say 15 batches to speed it up in the end if it takes to long?
how exact does the run need to be, would a run with an old motherboard without HPET that got a slight rounding error be valid? Aka a run where the batch times looks like the following example, yes I know its not valid or even complete like the screenshoot is now but wonder on the principle of the times.
-
It's possible for sure, but I want to keep a certain standard for the output, so results are easy to moderate. Custom loop sizes won't help with that and might get banned from HWBOT for that reason.
Sounds more like a bad resolution of your OS timer. Try using the HPET timer (see the FAQ on the download page of GPUPI), you will get more precise results.
Btw, testing batch sizes on 32M is not a good strategy, because only the fast loops will be measured. You should take the high precision loops of 1B into account as well.
Same motherboard as before when I had the time out of sync problem so no HPET to fix it.
Now a few rounds later am I sure that its not just second that rounds but it rounds to 5 sec intervalls even.
Doubt it affects very many motherboards but might be interesting to see for you anyways.
And more important for now, would a submission with times looking as the above picture be accepted in the slowrun for the teamcup? But runing 1B instead and with CPUz open showing mem and cpu ofc.
-
That's normal behaviour. There are two different kinds of loops for 1B results. The loops to calculate the partial results until 500M use less precision and are therefor faster. The loops between 500M and 1B have to use 128 bit integer algorithms, which is much slower. This behaviour is repeated for 4 times, so it's like this:
fast loops
slow loops
fast loops
slow loops
fast loops
slow loops
fast loops
slow loops
=> result
The number of loops that are fast/slow and how slow/fast they actually are is determined by the batch size. But don't worry, the batch size only slows down or speeds up the whole calculation, depending on how the hardware can process the work load (too small and not all cores can be used at once, too big and the hardware is overwhelmed). It will influence the loops, but it's not like fiddling with the batch size will introduce more slow loops. As I tried to explain, the whole calculation time will just be split differently between those loops. That's because the loops, that are show are just a visual thing and do not really show these two different parts of the calculation.
Well, a difficult topic, but I hope I could shed some light on this.
As a question to that bold part, would it be possible to add a setting for how many batches would be dispayed during a run if it doesnt affect the calculation anyways?
I guess it doesnt mater that much on new hardware but would be sweat for those older CPUs where the runs take like an hour+
EDIT:
And I think there is some rounding error, atleast in the smaller tests (running 32m to test how different settings affect the speed) couse all batches end with a time like XX.999s
-
GPUPI 2.2 is out now! Thanks to the feedback from you guys, I was able to fix a lot of things and improve many others. It will be mandatory to use this version in the future, because there are some important changes to make the bench even more bullet proof. But we will wait until the the currently started competitions have finished, including the Team Cup of course.
Last but not least I would like to talk about our next plans with GPUPI. Thanks to HWBOT I can integrate CPU-Z into the next version, which will improve hardware detection a lot and allows several frequencies and even voltages to be automatically submitted to the database. Additionally we are going to include support for HWBOT competitions directly into the online submission dialog. I already have a prototype working, but I didn't want to rush anything.
Full changelog and download here: https://www.overclockers.at/news/gpupi-2-2-english
Reporting that it actually solved the problem with time going out of sync, well done
-
hey I see yours has the samsung memory. Do you know which brand it was? Does anyone know if there was a brand that exclusively used samsung. I have bought 2 on ebay so far with quimonda and it really is horrible.
Only one of my 5 8800gts got samsung memorys and its a Gigabyte card, the other cards are split as 2 with Hynix and 2 with Quimonda.
-
I have looked into this issue now and it seems like your mainboard and OS combination falls back to an invalid and likely bus dependend timer function. That's why the time is skewed.
I have already implemented a more secure way to detect issues with the timer to be able to fall back to RTC on XP accordingly. It will be published with the next version of GPUPI.
I spent some more time experimenting after I repaired the OS.
Lower fsb then standard makes the reported time to be to fast like previous mentioned.
I tested overclocking and then the reported time is slower then it should be just like expected.
I also tested to not be lazy and change fsb in bios as Ive only used SetFSB due to not being able to underclock in bios. The good thing for overclocking atleast is that higher fsb in bios doesn create the time drift and everything works like it should when doing it the real way.
I also tested a fast run of superpi, and it wasnt effected by the time drift when using SetFSB.
Thanks for the response and help and hope its fixed in next version
-
Hmmm, it keep pushing me v10.2 for R 9600 XT:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/legacy?product=Legacy1&os=Windows%20Vista%20-%2064#
So finding a Catalyst 12.1 could be harder... Hopefully this will be it: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Download-AMD-Catalyst-12-1-Display-Driver-248748.shtml
Think 12.1 was the driver you get when you search for drivers to a X800 card.
-
Sh...! That is a problem, because from the list of supported graphic cards:
...I have none. Lowest for OpenCL 1.1 is HD 5400 Series GPUs, for OpenCL 1.2 are Radeon HD 5800 and for OpenCL 2.0 it is Radeon HD 7790
Radeon 9600 XT does not qualify at all. Suxx. So I'm where I was started. Unless these OpenCL drivers cannot be somehow extracted from the drivers, then I'm stuck
It works without a problem to install a driver thats not suported by the card. I installed the driver catalyst 12.1 with a radeon 7000 card (not a HD7000 but a really really old card) and GPUPi worked after that (well, except for my timing problem but that didnt have anything with the driver to do probably).
Old School is Best School - Season 2?
in HWBOT Competitions
Posted · Edited by lanbonden
always open for insipration but couldnt find anything about this Nvidia forever contest, mind telling more about it?
EDIT: Think I found what you refered to, the team cup 2012