mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-10-01, 11:18   #2531
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

3·17·59 Posts
Default

The one I'm using that works is CUDA6.5. But they claim now that the bugs in CUDA7 and 7.5 should be fixed in CUDA8. That's why I wanted to try it, but I guess it is not that important.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-02, 04:55   #2532
flashjh
 
flashjh's Avatar
 
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA

1,123 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
The one I'm using that works is CUDA6.5. But they claim now that the bugs in CUDA7 and 7.5 should be fixed in CUDA8. That's why I wanted to try it, but I guess it is not that important.
Hello everyone!

I uploaded a new Windows file to sourceforge with the CUDA 8.0 version of CUDALucas. It's here.

Remember to download the CUDA 8.0 Libs from here.

Please note that I couldn't locate the cufft32_80.dll file, so I didn't compile a 32 bit version for CUDA 8.0. As far as I can tell nVidia didn't include it with this version of CUDA. If someone has it, get it to me and I'll compile and upload the other files.

I ran several tests on a GTX 750ti, but I don't have any of the newer cards to see if this works or not. Can someone test this and let me know if it's producing errors or zero results similar to the other problems? Thanks!

Last fiddled with by flashjh on 2016-10-02 at 04:59 Reason: Can't spell
flashjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-02, 12:09   #2533
Karl M Johnson
 
Karl M Johnson's Avatar
 
Mar 2010

3×137 Posts
Default

Hello, Jerry!

Thanks for the new binary, I can confirm that on a GTX 1080 it's a bit faster than the old v8.0 RC binary & the exponents match.
II did a quick test on M1000003, and the runtime was 76s for the old binary and 66s for the new one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by flashjh View Post
Hello everyone!

I uploaded a new Windows file to sourceforge with the CUDA 8.0 version of CUDALucas. It's here.

Remember to download the CUDA 8.0 Libs from here.

Please note that I couldn't locate the cufft32_80.dll file, so I didn't compile a 32 bit version for CUDA 8.0. As far as I can tell nVidia didn't include it with this version of CUDA. If someone has it, get it to me and I'll compile and upload the other files.

I ran several tests on a GTX 750ti, but I don't have any of the newer cards to see if this works or not. Can someone test this and let me know if it's producing errors or zero results similar to the other problems? Thanks!
Karl M Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-09, 09:58   #2534
mognuts
 
mognuts's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Bromley, England

2·3·7 Posts
Default CUDA binary benchmarks

Just run a benchmark using my new card (GTX 780ti) and the various CUDA binaries.
Driver = 373.06. Test number = M2976221. Card not driving monitor.

CUDA 4.2 32bit = 13min 11sec
CUDA 4.2 64bit = 13min 01sec
CUDA 5.0 32bit = 12min 18sec
CUDA 5.0 64bit = 12min 24sec
CUDA 5.5 32bit = 12min 24sec
CUDA 5.5 64bit = 12min 36sec
CUDA 6.0 32bit = 12min 13sec
CUDA 6.0 64bit = 12min 19sec
CUDA 6.5 32bit = 12min 19sec
CUDA 6.5 64bit = 11min 38sec
CUDA 8.0 64bit = 13 min 56sec

I'm not that surprised at CUDA 8.0, but CUDA 6.5 64bit was a bit out of character compared to how by GTX580 behaves.

Last fiddled with by mognuts on 2016-10-09 at 10:32 Reason: Rounded off values for clarity
mognuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-09, 10:47   #2535
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

3·17·59 Posts
Default

I did a -cufftbench 2592 8192 20 on the different versions (only the 64 bit versions) so it does 20x 50iterations on each FFT and takes the average.

In most cases 6.5 is fastest but a few of them has 8.0 as the fastest (on a Titan Black, but this is probably GPU dependent).

CUDA 4.2 was quite a bit slower on all of them, so I left it out.


Code:
		     8.0     6.5       6.0      5.5      5.0
 2592   48471289   1.6135   1.6683   1.6897   1.6145   1.6166
 2744   51250889   2.0056   1.8606   1.8682   1.9980   1.8714
 3136   58404433   2.0937   2.0480   2.0710   2.0201   2.0337
 3200   59570449   2.4195   2.3907   2.4056   2.4150   2.4175
 3240   60298969            2.4266   2.4388   2.4404   2.4435
 3375   62756279            2.5147   2.5301
 3888   72075517            2.5348   2.5584            2.4558
 4000   74106457   2.4631   2.5498   2.5821   2.4590   2.4639
 4096   75846319   2.5115   2.5800   2.5976   2.5200   2.5375
 4320   79902611   3.2614   3.2573   3.2760   3.2685
 4374   80879779   3.3753   3.2784   3.2924   3.2946   3.3003
 4500   83158811            3.3535   3.3845   
 4536   83809729            3.3810   3.4006
 5184   95507747   3.4279   3.3836   3.4208   3.2994   3.3273
 5292   97454309                              3.9568
 5488  100984691   3.8843   3.8345   3.8336   3.9979   3.7484
 5600  103000823   4.1630   4.3082   4.3430   4.1882   4.1943
 5832  107174381   4.5283   4.3644   4.3842   4.3847   4.3903
 6000  110194363            4.5328
 6048  111056879   4.5338                     4.5138   4.5275
 6075  111541967                                       4.5586
 6125  112440191            4.5530   4.5645   4.5780   4.5867
 6144  112781477   4.6858   
 6250  114685037   4.8079   4.6418   4.6620   4.6714   4.6787
 6272  115080019            4.6678   4.6820   4.6835   4.6908
 6400  117377567   4.9088   4.7531   4.7721   4.7719   4.7809
 6480  118813021   4.9438   4.8401   4.8670   4.8669
 6561  120266023   5.1164   4.8818   4.9012   4.8968
 6750  123654943   5.1792            5.0356   5.0432
 6912  126558077   5.1957         
 7776  142017539   5.2343   5.0001   5.0441            4.8219
 8000  146019329   5.2537   5.1762   5.2350   5.0527   5.0997
 8192  149447533   5.3838   5.2219   5.2593   5.1617   5.2106

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2016-10-09 at 10:49
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-09, 11:47   #2536
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

236468 Posts
Default

Many thanks for the info above. I had forgotten what version of CuLu I was running, and I'm still not sure. However, I switched in the CUDA 6.5, 64 bit version, and the GTX460 went from 7.4304 to 7.3026 ms/it.
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-10-09, 12:33   #2537
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11×47 Posts
Default

I upgraded a couple systems from 6.5 to 8.0 last night. My Titan/Black based systems saw a 4.6% gain after letting everything burn up to normal temps. I'm not sure how effective any one off benchmark will be given the amount of active thermal/power management on most GPUs. Titan X from 7.5->8.0 saw no improvement.
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-11-06, 04:06   #2538
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2·3·13·23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flashjh View Post
I uploaded a new Windows file to sourceforge with the CUDA 8.0 version of CUDALucas. It's here.

Remember to download the CUDA 8.0 Libs from here.
Thank you! I had been looking for the libraries for a day or so. I'm only lacking an INI file. It replies "using defaults for non-specified options." then goes on. Where can I find the INI file?

Thanks,
Dwayne.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-11-06, 05:30   #2539
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2×3×13×23 Posts
Default

Disregard the request above. I found it with a bit more searching.

I changed the screen output options so I could see what was going on. I reserved one doublecheck from PrimNet. CUDALucas reports it can complete it in a little under six days.

Now for my quandary: Prime95 indicates it can do the test in the same amount of time. Six days for a LL test is nothing to sneeze at. CUDALucas did not seem to be utilizing my GPU as much as I thought it might. It's a GTX-750Ti. I could tell by observing the core temperature. mfaktc runs it in the upper 50's one the C scale. CUDALucas only made it into the low 40's.

Just in case anyone wonders about my setup, it all runs with CUDA 8.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-11-06, 06:54   #2540
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

236468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
Disregard the request above. I found it with a bit more searching.

I changed the screen output options so I could see what was going on. I reserved one doublecheck from PrimNet. CUDALucas reports it can complete it in a little under six days.

Now for my quandary: Prime95 indicates it can do the test in the same amount of time. Six days for a LL test is nothing to sneeze at. CUDALucas did not seem to be utilizing my GPU as much as I thought it might. It's a GTX-750Ti. I could tell by observing the core temperature. mfaktc runs it in the upper 50's one the C scale. CUDALucas only made it into the low 40's.

Just in case anyone wonders about my setup, it all runs with CUDA 8.
That card should do better. I run CuLu on a (very overclocked) GTX 460 with the 6.5 libraries. You would probably do better with 6.5, as well. CUDA 8.0 mainly seems to benefit GTX 10-series architecture. The 750ti has 640 CUDA cores, at a base clock of 1020 MHz. The 460 has 336 CUDA cores, and mine is running at 848 MHz. I did have to slow the memory from 1900 to 1700 MHz to get reliable results with CuLu.

Temperature is not a good guide comparing mfaktc and CUDALucas. In my experience, mfaktc runs a card hotter. This may have to do with greater (throttled) floating point usage under CuLu. (I could be wrong on this point.)

The 460 mentioned above, with all conditions (voltage, clock, no competition from P95, same ambient) stabilizes at 64 C with CuLu, at 7.2521 ms/it.. It does a 40.8M LLDC in 3-4 days. This is about twice as fast as an FX-8350 worker, when running 2 workers with 4 threads each. Just about any i5 or i7 chip from Sandy Bridge on would beat the snot out of the AMD CPU.

The 460 holds at 67 C running mfaktc, where it delivers ~206 GHz-d/d.. In both cases, usage was 100%, according to MSI Afterburner. This is a secondary card. It is not driving the display.

If you are running Windows, I really recommend Afterburner. Even if you don't use it to OC, it has nice, configurable monitoring functions. Finding out what the actual usage is would be a good start to analyzing your performance.

Here is a question: have you run CUFFTbench and threadbench on this card?

Last fiddled with by kladner on 2016-11-06 at 07:31
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-11-06, 13:48   #2541
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

132428 Posts
Default

Doesn't the 460 have a much better single precision/double precision ratio than the 750ti?
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't DC/LL them with CudaLucas LaurV Data 131 2017-05-02 18:41
CUDALucas / cuFFT Performance on CUDA 7 / 7.5 / 8 Brain GPU Computing 13 2016-02-19 15:53
CUDALucas: which binary to use? Karl M Johnson GPU Computing 15 2015-10-13 04:44
settings for cudaLucas fairsky GPU Computing 11 2013-11-03 02:08
Trying to run CUDALucas on Windows 8 CP Rodrigo GPU Computing 12 2012-03-07 23:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:09.

Thu Jan 21 05:09:36 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 1:20, 0 users, load averages: 2.20, 2.40, 2.41

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.