Posts by Jim1348

1) Message boards : News : Future of the Project (Message 3311) Posted 11 Aug 2022 by Jim1348 Post: If you could post the manufacturer and part number of the hard disk, I'm sure one could be found and sent to you to have as a spare. Certainly. Are they regular SATA interface drives? What size? I have SSD's and rotating platters to spare. That would be easier than getting funds through the university.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3220) Posted 8 Feb 2022 by Jim1348 Post: I have been running an RX 570 for almost a day and have reported about 150 valids on a Ryzen 3600 machine (Ubuntu 20.04.3). https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/results.php?hostid=2798526&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= So I have a good average time of 8 minutes 15 seconds. At about 87 watts power, this gives an energy of 718 watt-seconds, or even slightly better than the Nvidia card, not that it matters with numbers this close. But the RX 570 is helped a little by the fact that it is supported by four free cores of the Ryzen 3600, whereas previously it was only one free core (the others are on BOINC, being WCG/ARP at the moment). As I recall, the Nvidia GTX 1060 is about one generation later in technology than the RX 570, so this is a good performance. I think this is a keeper.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3135) Posted 4 Oct 2021 by Jim1348 Post: I have now been running these for 3 1/2 days, using "<rec_half_life_days>1.000000</rec_half_life_days>" in cc_config.xml to speed up the convergence on the time estimates. They run on average for 11 minutes, 4 seconds (664 seconds). So the energy is 664 seconds X 67 watts / 60 = 741 watt-minutes per CUDA work unit. That is a pretty accurate value by now, and nice speedup on this card on Linux.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3121) Posted 1 Oct 2021 by Jim1348 Post: I can try a GTX 1650 Super on Linux later. That should be the best I would think. Well I was able to do a GTX 1060 first, which will be almost identical to the 1650 Super. It is on a Ryzen 2700 machine operating Ubuntu 20.04.3, and supported by one free virtual core (the others are on Universe). 4.02 Get Decic Fields (cuda 30) GTX 1060 on Ryzen 2700: 9.7 minutes at 67 watts (14 samples) 35% CPU usage => So energy is 652 watt-minutes That is quite nice, about half the energy of the others, and I like the low CPU usage that CUDA provides also. That makes it a good fit on that machine for me. EDIT: BoincTasks initially estimated a run time of about 20 minutes, so I will let the rest of them finish (another 24 in the buffer) and see if the actual run time average changes. The one currently in process is taking around 19 minutes. I will just let it run for a few days and let BoincTasks figure out the average.
5) Message boards : Science : How a Strange Grid Reveals Hidden Connections Between Simple Numbers (Message 3116) Posted 25 Sep 2021 by Jim1348 Post: In 1983 the prolific conjecturer Paul Erdős posed a math problem: Take any set of numbers you like. These could be the whole numbers from 1 to 12, the first 10,000 prime numbers, or the dates of every birthday in your extended family. Arrange these numbers in a square grid, with your list of numbers arranged both across the bottom and up one side. Then fill in the grid with either the sums or the products of the crosswise pairs. Erdős and his collaborator on the problem, Endre Szemerédi, were interested in the number of distinct entries in such a grid. (By “distinct,” they meant that if a number appears twice — for instance, if the number 4 appears as a product of both 1 × 4 and 2 × 2 — you only count it once.) They conjectured that the number of distinct entries in either the sum or the product grid (or both) must be at least a certain value. They even established an exact threshold that the number of distinct sums or distinct products always had to meet. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-a-strange-grid-reveals-hidden-connections-between-simple-numbers?utm_source=pocket-newtab I have no idea if this is at all relevant here, but it looks like it could lend itself to a computer project.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3111) Posted 1 Sep 2021 by Jim1348 Post: I think you mean units of "watt-minutes", correct? Yes! I used minutes for all my data, but listed seconds. Thanks.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3109) Posted 31 Aug 2021 by Jim1348 Post: In more detail, for the GTX 1650 Super under Win10, I measured the average board power with GPU-Z, and it was 67.7 watts. And I averaged the time over 26 samples, and got 18.6 minutes, so the energy per work unit is 1262 watt-seconds. That is probably as good an accuracy as I can get. With the RX 570 under Ubuntu 20.04.3, I saw a power of 89 watts, though that is averaged by eye using a Linux utility. And the time was measured for only six samples, and was 13.7 minutes, so the energy per work unit is 1220 watt-seconds. So that number is not as accurate at the other one, but good enough for my purposes. So that is close.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3107) Posted 31 Aug 2021 by Jim1348 Post: Thanks. By the way, I ran a test for the efficiency (energy per work unit) between an RX 570 under Ubuntu 20.04.3 and the GTX 1650 Super under Win10. Somewhat to my surprise, they were about the same. I can try a GTX 1650 Super on Linux later. That should be the best I would think.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : CUDA work units? (Message 3105) Posted 30 Aug 2021 by Jim1348 Post: I am getting only open_cl work units for my GTX 1650 Super under Win10. Are there any CUDA work units being sent out?
10) Message boards : News : New GPU OpenCL versions available (Message 2887) Posted 2 Oct 2020 by Jim1348 Post: You will also notice the AMD version has a much smaller CPU time than the Nvidia version, meaning the AMD version uses less of the CPU. Note that Nvidia cards operate the same with both the OpenCL and Cuda versions, so the difference between AMD and Nvidia is due to their drivers (the openCL implementation is part of the driver). Yes, the RX 570 uses only 26% of a CPU core (i7-4771), whereas the GTX 1060 uses 99.6% of a Ryzen 2700 core. CUDA used to use less CPU power, but that was a few years ago. Maybe they changed the driver, or the options for using it.
11) Message boards : News : New GPU OpenCL versions available (Message 2885) Posted 2 Oct 2020 by Jim1348 Post: My RX 570 with the Radeon 20.9.1 drivers (Win7 64-bit) is completing them OK in about 20 minutes. It consumes 66 watts according to GPU-Z. https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/results.php?hostid=1918394&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= My GTX 1060 (Ubuntu 18.04.5) is completing them about twice as fast. And it consumes about 58 watts according to nvidia-smi -l. https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/results.php?hostid=2726664&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= I don't know how that compares to a CPU core for efficiency, but it would be an interesting test.