Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

For me it's interesting to see that Vince's run is faster for all finished batches after the first one with an advantage of up to 28 ms after batch 9 finished. From "Batch 19 finished" to "PI value output" however his system needs 114 ms, while Slinky is noticably faster with 98 ms. At first you might think that the higher-clocked 7980X with faster RAM outperformed the lower clocked 7960X with slower RAM in this phase of the benchmark in some way, but watching at the statistics segment it seems that some small hickup with Titan V #2 lead to the loss of the WR. Slinky's values are way more even in comparison. Anyway, congratulations!

Posted
..., but watching at the statistics segment it seems that some small hickup with Titan V #2 lead to the loss of the WR. Slinky's values are way more even in comparison. Anyway, congratulations!
Actually card #1 and #3 are the problem, card #2 was the most efficient. You have to look at the percentage of batches calculated, #2 did 32% of the whole calculation in about the same time as #1 did only 21%.

 

On the software part, there was only a minor upgrade of the CUDA toolkit between 3.0 and 3.1, so there shouldn't be much difference. I think this is a good case for hardware efficiency through better stability.

 

Well done, H2o! Try GPUPI 3.2 as well, it should have a little less overhead, because it doesn't use a physical log file on a disk anymore. That could scrape off another ms maybe. :P

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...