20140716, 17:26  #1 
Feb 2013
Charlotte, North Carolina
31 Posts 
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 speed results benchmark
I've read the FAQ and the PDF guide and I have some questions.
I have an NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and I can't seem to find much benchmark information on it. Here's some output from two exponents I've run LL tests on so far: Code:
Starting M86243 fft length = 4608 Iteration 5000 M( 86243 )C, 0xd441a52cc693a4eb, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4157 ms/iter, ETA 0:33) Iteration 10000 M( 86243 )C, 0x23992ccd735a03d9, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4025 ms/iter, ETA 0:30) Iteration 15000 M( 86243 )C, 0xff29912e0d68a645, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.3989 ms/iter, ETA 0:27) Iteration 20000 M( 86243 )C, 0x89c58d63ebee7ad1, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4012 ms/iter, ETA 0:26) Iteration 25000 M( 86243 )C, 0x52a71c358eeb3457, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4014 ms/iter, ETA 0:24) Iteration 30000 M( 86243 )C, 0x8ad9ad7af5b51d09, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.3991 ms/iter, ETA 0:21) Iteration 35000 M( 86243 )C, 0x5b0123e427f29a72, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4015 ms/iter, ETA 0:20) Iteration 40000 M( 86243 )C, 0xeed70124ff3b4f5a, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.3989 ms/iter, ETA 0:17) Iteration 45000 M( 86243 )C, 0xe4ee04df8f36044b, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4000 ms/iter, ETA 0:16) Iteration 50000 M( 86243 )C, 0x6ef44d2b23c538e1, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4017 ms/iter, ETA 0:14) Iteration 55000 M( 86243 )C, 0x30721775a8cc2eab, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4001 ms/iter, ETA 0:12) Iteration 60000 M( 86243 )C, 0x76f20516c9858691, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4022 ms/iter, ETA 0:10) Iteration 65000 M( 86243 )C, 0x0ee5b3cbbe65ae13, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4003 ms/iter, ETA 0:08) Iteration 70000 M( 86243 )C, 0x1c98576ef37a22df, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4113 ms/iter, ETA 0:06) Iteration 75000 M( 86243 )C, 0x875f23fbc68f3847, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4424 ms/iter, ETA 0:04) Iteration 80000 M( 86243 )C, 0x6809f7b9c9f1e33d, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4005 ms/iter, ETA 0:02) Iteration 85000 M( 86243 )C, 0xde8f08c8df8f7495, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0122 (0:02 real, 0.4036 ms/iter, ETA 0:00) M( 86243 )P, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.03 Iteration 4215000 M( ........ )C, 0x17dd5e869cf760d3, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:02 real, 24.3668 ms/iter, ETA 427:46:24) Iteration 4220000 M( ........ )C, 0x2d714f472bc32c9a, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:02 real, 24.3593 ms/iter, ETA 427:36:23) Iteration 4225000 M( ........ )C, 0x484e0b71c0395242, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:01 real, 24.3714 ms/iter, ETA 427:47:10) Iteration 4230000 M( ........ )C, 0x7455eeed6495d491, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:02 real, 24.4089 ms/iter, ETA 428:24:35) Iteration 4235000 M( ........ )C, 0x535bf19776853a8e, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:01 real, 24.3561 ms/iter, ETA 427:26:59) Iteration 4240000 M( ........ )C, 0x3e83b35304e5da1a, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:02 real, 24.5831 ms/iter, ETA 431:23:54) Iteration 4245000 M( ........ )C, 0x7d4fd2f79217477a, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:02 real, 24.5553 ms/iter, ETA 430:52:36) Iteration 4250000 M( ........ )C, 0xae3ddf2e36775c94, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:03 real, 24.5392 ms/iter, ETA 430:33:38) Iteration 4255000 M( ........ )C, 0xc186c15482785129, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0826 (2:03 real, 24.5423 ms/iter, ETA 430:34:54) Iteration 4260000 M( ........ )C, 0xa9a712f4cd548353, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:06 real, 25.1284 ms/iter, ETA 440:49:44) Iteration 4265000 M( ........ )C, 0x4c1b2f4cf3a408df, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.3625 ms/iter, ETA 427:21:31) Iteration 4270000 M( ........ )C, 0xe1c84663109f99a8, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.3674 ms/iter, ETA 427:24:39) Iteration 4275000 M( ........ )C, 0xec8c21a537c82f5a, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.4065 ms/iter, ETA 428:03:43) Iteration 4280000 M( ........ )C, 0xc3d6022cbfe47db9, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.5533 ms/iter, ETA 430:36:10) Iteration 4285000 M( ........ )C, 0xae1ff4acc09453db, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:03 real, 24.6085 ms/iter, ETA 431:32:14) Iteration 4290000 M( ........ )C, 0x4dae1a2a5ecedd68, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.3771 ms/iter, ETA 427:26:41) Iteration 4295000 M( ........ )C, 0x39ad5a2fa37d46cc, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.3737 ms/iter, ETA 427:21:08) Iteration 4300000 M( ........ )C, 0x7fc062edc96f3d34, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:03 real, 24.6717 ms/iter, ETA 432:32:33) Iteration 4305000 M( ........ )C, 0x6e130f7db734c5a1, n = 3932160, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0878 (2:02 real, 24.4130 ms/iter, ETA 427:58:25) Last fiddled with by sixblueboxes on 20140716 at 17:34 
20140716, 21:06  #2 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11010111111_{2} Posts 
As far as I know, the professional series of GPU's aren't actually very fast. They're reliable as hell, though.
What is the second exponent? Even just a ballpark like how many million? 
20140716, 22:08  #3  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9,391 Posts 
Quote:
I'll give you a hint: ETA_in_seconds*1000/millisec_per_iteration + num_iter_already_done = fairly precise number (precision = + 1000) 

20140717, 00:25  #4 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
43×59 Posts 
around 64 109 081 ? (24.5 ms by itÃ©ration)

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A dream, will stay a dream ( new Nvidia Quadro)  firejuggler  GPU Computing  0  20180328 16:02 
Nvidia 364.xx drivers returning incorrect results  UBR47K  GPU Computing  2  20160611 22:38 
Strange benchmark results  AlTonno15  Information & Answers  3  20130129 02:23 
Wrong CPU speed reported in mprime benchmark  James Heinrich  Software  5  20090613 12:56 
no speed gain in Prime95's benchmark when overclocking  forcemaker  Hardware  8  20060402 15:18 