MilkyWay@H Benchmark thread Spring 2014 - Summer 2016

[Assimilator1]

Yikes! Didn't see what the temp's were then?

**************************************

swiftmallard from the Milkyway forum has PM'd me a time for his rig.
HD 5870 GPU 850 MHz, RAM 600 MHz - 46.18s

Pretty good , not far off a stock 7950!

Btw can someone with a 280X post a time with the card at stock speeds?
We don't have a time for that yet, also I'm not clear about the boost speed when at stock, if you could tell me what MHz it is actually running at when crunching that would be useful.

I assume with the 280Xs o/ced the speed is fixed at that??

*************************************************

Tony
Is that 4850 time from 5+ 106.88 credit WUs?

 

[TennesseeTony]

I'll get you a more precise number on the 4850. See EDIT below.

My 280X's all have different top clocks, from the factory, and some will let me slow them down, but most are stuck at top speed.

EDIT: I have two 'identical' machines, dual Xeon X5650, with dual Radeon HD4850. One runs at 120.775 seconds (avg of 20 tasks) per WU, and the other 'identical' machine runs a bit slower, at ~123.5 seconds, both with about 3.2 seconds of CPU time.

 

[Assimilator1]

Odd that their times are different, all 106.88 credit WUs right?
Different OS's? Or different grx drivers?

Thx for the time anyway , seeing as their isn't much in it I'll pick the 1st one's time.

 

[Orange Kid]

Running WIN 7 X64
Graphics Card Core Clock speed is 1114, Boost Core Clock Speed is 1253

AuthenticAMD
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor [Family 16 Model 4 Stepping 3] (4 processors)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 347.88 OpenCL: 1.1

Completed and validated 165.50 12.18 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 165.17 12.26 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 164.19 12.62 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 165.17 12.93 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 165.20 10.48 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 164.12 12.79 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 165.17 13.21 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 164.12 13.43 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 164.17 12.73 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)
Completed and validated 165.19 12.26 106.88 MilkyWay@Home v1.02 (opencl_nvidia)

 

[TennesseeTony]

Odd that their times are different, all 106.88 credit WUs right?
Different OS's? Or different grx drivers?

Thx for the time anyway , seeing as their isn't much in it I'll pick the 1st one's time.

Same OS, same drivers. And definitely the same 106.88 credit WU. The other WU's only take 24 seconds if my memory isn't failing me. After the MW race I'll check to see if the RAM is in the optimal 3-channel slots on both machines and upgrade the thermal grease on the CPU's. Could be some RAM bandwidth differences or perhaps thermal throttling of the CPUs on the slower machine.

 

[Assimilator1]

Curious, let us know what you find.

OK
Thanks for the stats , err times . (been a while since you did stats IIRC ).
Oh & thx for averaging them for me , although theirs not much in it, I reckon 165s on the nose will be pretty close.

Btw do you know what clock speed the GPU is actually at when crunching MW?
I'm just wondering with all these new GPU's which have boost speeds, whether they run at their max crunching MW?

 

[Orange Kid]

Curious, let us know what you find.

OK
Thanks for the stats , err times . (been a while since you did stats IIRC ).
Oh & thx for averaging them for me , although theirs not much in it, I reckon 165s on the nose will be pretty close.

Btw do you know what clock speed the GPU is actually at when crunching MW?
I'm just wondering with all these new GPU's which have boost speeds, whether they run at their max crunching MW?

Ya, don't do that much any more DC wise. Had been into fantasy football (American), but out of that now too.

Don't know the actual speed that the GPU is running at.

 

[TennesseeTony]

I'm just wondering with all these new GPU's which have boost speeds, whether they run at their max crunching MW?

Yep, they do, AMD R9-280X's do anyway.

.

 

[GLeeM]

I have results for my R9 280X at stock - core 1000-1100, mem 1500
I see the core speed switching between 1000 and 1100 ... hmm?

Average of ten WUs = 24.21 seconds per 106.88 point WU

 

[TennesseeTony]

I have results for my R9 280X at stock - core 1000-1100, mem 1500
I see the core speed switching between 1000 and 1100 ... hmm?

Average of ten WUs = 24.21 seconds per 106.88 point WU

Single task only uses (going on rusted memory here) mid 80% of the GPU. 2 or more tasks will most likely keep it at 1100MHz. Assuming you're not thermally limited, which is not likely unless a fan has died on you.

Also, which CPU is this paired with? I've seen big differences with different processors, MASSIVE differences on POEM with diff CPU.

 

[Assimilator1]

Hmm, IIRC, going by this thread & the previous benchmark thread CPU speed makes little difference to GPU crunching times, unless you've got stats showing otherwise?
Also won't those GPUs boost to full speed once under any '3D' load?

Oh & thx for the 280 clock info :thumbsup:

GleeM
What temp is your GPU running at when crunching MW?

 

[Assimilator1]

New time added for an HD 7970 GE by DrPop from SETI.USA, although I'm not sure what's going on regarding its RAM speed, wiki says it should be 1500 MHz.......
[update]He'd underclocked the RAM to lower temps.

 

[GLeeM]

What temp is your GPU running at when crunching MW?

69C

 

[Assimilator1]

Quite cool then! No explanation there for your speed fluctuations then.

 

[Assimilator1]

New times added, 2 HD 7950s, HD 4830, GTX 750 Ti, Intel Xeon 5650, AMD X2 & an AMD Phenom .

 

[Assimilator1]

Finally benchmarked my C2Q, average of 9 106.88 credit WUs gives 3159s.

Lol, my old Core 2 is 2nd fastest! . Maybe L2 cache size is important??
Still, their aren't many CPU benchmarks, ....... are the rest of you guys chicken?

zzuupp
Did you manage to stabilise your 290X?

Oh & I've only just realised I'd overlooked your Nvidia card times, sorry about that , times added now.
Btw they were at stock clocks right?

17/4/15 7870 XT time added.

 

[Rudy Toody]

FX9590 @4.7 3506 seconds
http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=616876

 

[Assimilator1]

Hi Rudy, thx for your time, but their is something odd about your WU times, looking at the host you linked some of the CPU WU times were around 2800-2900s, which is more like what I would expect for a 4.7 GHz CPU (high clock speed btw! ).
Also my C2Q @3.6 GHz manages ~3160s, I would also expect your CPU to thrash that.

Is your CPU throttling?

 

[Rudy Toody]

Hi Rudy, thx for your time, but their is something odd about your WU times, looking at the host you linked some of the CPU WU times were around 2800-2900s, which is more like what I would expect for a 4.7 GHz CPU (high clock speed btw! ).
Also my C2Q @3.6 GHz manages ~3160s, I would also expect your CPU to thrash that.

Is your CPU throttling?

I think it is throttling down at boot when Linux finds that Power Now firmware issue.
I'm currently getting temps of 48C to 64C depending on the apps. Leiden is higher and in a narrow range, NFS is generally lower and in a wider range.

I plan to regrease with IC Diamond and turn off the throttling.

 

[Assimilator1]

What temps were you getting with MW though?

 

[Rudy Toody]

What temps were you getting with MW though?

I forgot to make a note of that. Less than 60C for sure. I have underclocked 5% to eliminate hanging. My temps are now below 55C.

 

[Assimilator1]

Cool

Btw couldn't you use CPU-Z to watch CPU speed in real-time to make sure it isn't throttling?

***************************

HD 7850 time added

 

[Rudy Toody]

Btw couldn't you use CPU-Z to watch CPU speed in real-time to make sure it isn't throttling?

I'm using Linux. Maybe it will work by using wine.

 

[zzuupp]

For about 100 tasks done on 4/22, the average was 64.25 on an R9 290X.

 

[Assimilator1]

Thx for your score, that's a lot of tasks averaged!

But something's not right their, looking at the DP/FP64 power of a 290X it should place it between the HD 5870 & the HD 7950's time (& slightly faster than an HD 6950 but we don't have a time for that).
So between about 40-46s. Is your GPU throttling still?

Btw re your Nvidia times you posted a while back, were they at stock clocks?