![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Oct 2011
Maryland
2·5·29 Posts |
![]() Quote:
But as long as everything is adequately cooled, it probably doesn't shorten it all that much. I would try it out and take a look at your temps. Anything over 80 is probably alarming (though I prefer all mine under 70). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
52×211 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Dec 2010
Monticello
111000000112 Posts |
![]() Quote:
And, as long as the heat is managed, your computer's life won't change much...it will probably be replaced by upgrade before it dies.... CPU-Z and GPU-Z are your friends on Windows, sensors on Linux.... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
722110 Posts |
![]() Quote:
The only thing I've found that works was something like GKrellM, and that didn't pick up my 2600k when I installed it... (although my Linux has been down for a few months.) Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2011-12-02 at 05:29 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Nov 2002
Anchorage, AK
3×7×17 Posts |
![]()
Wow, you only have a slight overclock over stock and you're at 80C? Yeah perhaps an upgrade to your heatsink would be wise. Seems anything better than the stock heatsink would provide much better cooling. As a comparison, I have a 2500K at 4.5 GHz at 60C using an H80 at lowest fan speeds.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Oct 2011
Maryland
2×5×29 Posts |
![]() Quote:
The stock intel heat sinks are a joke. They finally removed them completely from the 3930 and 3960. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..
7·131 Posts |
![]()
Okay. Well I will definitely consider adding my GPU to the effort. Will this also slow down the LL testing?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Oct 2011
12478 Posts |
![]()
Not sure how your quad compares to mine (Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz), but mine runs 'faster' with the GPU running. To explain a bit, the Core 2 Quad seems to share something between core 'pairs' that slows them down depending on the work being done. I started off using P95 with 4 LL's running, and all 4 had around 90ms per iteration. I found out if I switched core 2 and 4 to TF that the LL's now were at around 60ms per. So, using batch files and the start command to run mfaktc on cores 2 and 4 while setting P95 to 1 and 3 keeps the LL's around 60ms. My other GPU machines are i5's and I see a slight change with mfaktc running (2-4ms slower).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..
7×131 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Should we move my question(s) on this thread to another? I am sorry for moving the thread off topic; I merely had a couple of questions regarding the GPU project and potentially adding my efforts to it. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Oct 2011
7·97 Posts |
![]()
I'd reccommend doing like I did then, set P95 to use core 1 and 3 and set up mfaktc/o to run on core 2 and 4. Doing this you will see a significant speed up in your LL processing per core if you currently have all 4 cores doing LL. 2 core = 6 exp in the same time 4 core = 8 exp with this setup.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
2·5·157 Posts |
![]()
No worries. Thread hijacking is part of the thrill. It happens all the time.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Status | Primeinator | Operation Billion Digits | 5 | 2011-12-06 02:35 |
62 bit status | 1997rj7 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 27 | 2008-09-29 13:52 |
OBD Status | Uncwilly | Operation Billion Digits | 22 | 2005-10-25 14:05 |
1-2M LLR status | paulunderwood | 3*2^n-1 Search | 2 | 2005-03-13 17:03 |
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M | 1997rj7 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 25 | 2004-06-18 16:46 |