New Multi-Threaded Pi Program - Faster than SuperPi and PiFast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

if you compiled for linux and the cell i could run this thing on my ps3.:D actually the cell has been beaten in flops by x86 by now though and its a PITA to work with.

I can't "just" compile it. :(
I would need to learn how to use the linux threading libraries first.

To compile for Linux without any code modification, I'd have to disable multi-threading... :mad: which pretty much defeats the purpose of the program.

Judging by the examples I found on how the linux "pthread" library is used, it should be a simple drop-in replacement for the Windows threading library...
But I don't have a machine with linux to try it, nor do I have the time.

As for cell processors... It's a different type of processor so much of the program would have to be rewritten and re-optimized to be efficient.

Have you looked at the boost library?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Have you looked at the boost library?

Thanks for the input.:cool: No, I haven't heard about it.

Seems interesting and it appears to be a "semi-standard" that VS supports...
I didn't know VS actually supported a thread-library other than itself. :eek:

If VS supported pthreads, I would've use pthreads from the start since it's more portable... but no... it just HAS to force you to use the windows one... :down::down::down:

The thing I don't like about Boost right now is that it's C++. The source code for the program is 99% C - and I kinda want to keep it that way.

It also doesn't look it can be drop in replacement for WinAPI because of all that object management stuff... :mad:
Wheras, WinAPI and pthreads have almost the same usage format.

Also, v0.4.2 should be out in a week or so...:D I added a batch mode as requested by a number of people. Right now, I'm still testing it...

The only thing is that the batch benchmarks aren't validated. It'd be kind of a mess if I generated a checksum for every single benchmark.
I might add validation for them in the future. But as of right now, I'll leave it out.

Got a test cpu, mobo & ram to goof around with. When I get bored with it I'll throw in a Q9550 or similar and give it to the wife. :)

Pentium 4 661 in Windows XP 64 bit running the SSE3 x64 executable @ 4.7GHz with and without HT:

25m no HT

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,549,367 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 1 Digits: 25,000,000 Total Time: 73.1281 seconds Checksum: 65cb672d996bc3240db0fda7909acc3b

25m+HT

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,524,888 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 2 Digits: 25,000,000 Total Time: 65.6558 seconds Checksum: 085dd47af97911d30c9fa6d03a9ce1e0

50m no HT

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,561,175 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 1 Digits: 50,000,000 Total Time: 168.288 seconds Checksum: cd31559715e07e3619136cc16cd2cf2b

50m+HT

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,547,001 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 2 Digits: 50,000,000 Total Time: 153.715 seconds Checksum: 7b0843fca01a0b691b42d7d33fe11537

100m

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,545,210 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 1 Digits: 100,000,000 Total Time: 377.512 seconds Checksum: ae6656d43ce984db08c62a84afc1ec02

100m+HT

Code:

Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK. Program Version: 0.4.1 Build 7412 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz CPU Frequency: 4,717,527,780 Hz (frequency may be inaccurate) Thread(s): 2 Digits: 100,000,000 Total Time: 343.165 seconds Checksum: 1f7061c8731d2da31a774b0d16de8145

Yep, even at 4.7GHz a P4 is still garbage. :yepp:

Ooh...

64-bit P4... :clap:

Wouldn't shoving a C2Q into a an old 775 require more than a BIOS update?

I thought about putting a Q6600 into my Pentium D machine... but then I checked that the chipset doesn't support C2Q even with a bios update. :(

Here's a screenie of v0.4.2:
It should be out in a couple days. It isn't quite ready for release right now - there's (yet another) a bug in the VS compiler that I'm wrestling with... :down:

http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...0.4.2_peak.jpg

The text file can be copy and pasted into excel. :)

I've found 3 bugs in the VS compiler in the last 8 months... :yepp: 2 of them related to high memory usage in x64... I think it's safe to say that not too many people use VS for high-memory programming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poke349

Ooh...

64-bit P4... :clap:

Wouldn't shoving a C2Q into a an old 775 require more than a BIOS update?

I thought about putting a Q6600 into my Pentium D machine... but then I checked that the chipset doesn't support C2Q even with a bios update. :(

I was going to built her a quad setup anyway so I got the DFI DK P35-T2RS which supports the duo/quad chips. I saw a cheapo P4 661 so I figured I'd get it and test how far it'll go and how it compared with my old Opteron @ 3GHz. So far even at 4.7GHz and with some low timings on some Crucial BallistiX Tracer memory it isn't looking good vs the Opty. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by poke349

Here's a screenie of v0.4.2:
It should be out in a couple days. It isn't quite ready for release right now - there's (yet another) a bug in the VS compiler that I'm wrestling with... :down:

The text file can be copy and pasted into excel. :)

I've found 3 bugs in the VS compiler in the last 8 months... :yepp: 2 of them related to high memory usage in x64... I think it's safe to say that not too many people use VS for high-memory programming.

Good news about the release of v0.4.2, I'm glad to see the batch mode added. :) Have you tried testing the Intel compiler? I had some decent luck with it even on AMD machines. The profile guided optimization can really give some programs a boost. I have a feeling most of your cpu time is spent on hand optimized assembly so PGO likely wouldn't be of any benefit but I figure I'd mention it just in case you haven't messed with it yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdycpu

I was going to built her a quad setup anyway so I got the DFI DK P35-T2RS which supports the duo/quad chips. I saw a cheapo P4 661 so I figured I'd get it and test how far it'll go and how it compared with my old Opteron @ 3GHz. So far even at 4.7GHz and with some low timings on some Crucial BallistiX Tracer memory it isn't looking good vs the Opty. :D

Good news about the release of v0.4.2, I'm glad to see the batch mode added. :) Have you tried testing the Intel compiler? I had some decent luck with it even on AMD machines. The profile guided optimization can really give some programs a boost. I have a feeling most of your cpu time is spent on hand optimized assembly so PGO likely wouldn't be of any benefit but I figure I'd mention it just in case you haven't messed with it yet.

Actually... There's is no assembly whatsoever in the entire program. :p:
As an undergraduate, my programming knowledge is too narrow to write good assembly. So that right there is a major potential for improvement.

Although I haven't run a profiler on it yet, my guess is that it spends most of it's time pipeline-stalling and waiting for memory (cache misses, or simply insufficient memory bandwidth...)

Specifically, I have a feeling that unprefeched cache misses are significant, but I haven't played with my memory timings nor have I run a profiler to determine its impact.

Version v0.4.2 is out!

Here's a screenie of that stress tester...

Temperature-wise, it's on par with Prime95.
But I don't know if it can detect stability issues as well as Prime95 - let alone Linpack.

http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...test_small.jpg

hey poke, there is a 16 core quad socket system in WCG section by jcool and i think it would pwn on this benchmark. its only got 4 gigs right now but it supports a junkload of memory. i wonder how much ram this would use idling in windows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

hey poke, there is a 16 core quad socket system in WCG section by jcool and i think it would pwn on this benchmark. its only got 4 gigs right now but it supports a junkload of memory. i wonder how much ram this would use idling in windows?

I think he already knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcool

Oh heh, a new benchie - I'll def. check it out sometime :)

But the fact the there's no ram is gonna be severely limiting... With THAT many cores, you're gonna need a massive computation size to keep them busy. 4 GB won't be enough to keep those cores fed... But... it might be enough to break some of the current speed records anyway. :D

25,000,000 digits:
Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3)
Processor(s): Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3520 @ 2.67GHz
CPU Frequency: 2660015200
Thread(s): 2^3
Digits: 25000000
Total Time: 12.924
Checksum: c90910e6b1387d740fe4352132ee4855

2,500,000,000 digits:
Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3)
Processor(s): Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3520 @ 2.67GHz
CPU Frequency: 2660034352
Thread(s): 2^3
Digits: 2500000000
Total Time: 2404.996
Checksum: c2abaca2a09340b91922847dd0ffc278

Here is my Dual Shanghai System.

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 2900166909 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 25000000 Total Time: 11.406 Checksum: e195c35a015ca7c4079e7e2c4c727037

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 2900164958 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 50000000 Total Time: 23.549 Checksum: 8d2ea0a8ccbda4511edad184dd0c405f

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 2900166047 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 100000000 Total Time: 49.112 Checksum: 77fec20038094164021df20c23143c6c

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 2900172767 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 250000000 Total Time: 139.788 Checksum: e0befcb870941172171bfc300fa992bd

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 2900162991 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 500000000 Total Time: 301.514 Checksum: cf5090c8ca14560219b83cc1de7f90e2

Edit: I will run more over the next couple of days. I have 8gb of ram currently, and when I get to 16gb I will run the larger ones

@ SamHughe
Nice 2.5b run. Haven't been seeing many of those. :yepp::D;)

Did you pretty much have to close everything to get it to fit into 12GB?
Or did you just let it page out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077

Here is my Dual Shanghai System.

Edit: I will run more over the next couple of days. I have 8gb of ram currently, and when I get to 16gb I will run the larger ones

Woah... the first AMD dualie. :cool:

Quick question: Is that running at 2.9 GHz as the program says or is it @ 3.3 GHz (in your siggy)?

Since it's the first time I've seen this program run on an AMD dualie, would you be able to do benchmarks for:
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000,000

I'd love to add it to the comparison chart that's here: :D
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#Benchmarks

The 1m and 10m aren't in the benchmark options, so you'll need to use either the batch-mode or the custom compute option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poke349

@ SamHughe
Nice 2.5b run. Haven't been seeing many of those. :yepp::D;)

Did you pretty much have to close everything to get it to fit into 12GB?
Or did you just let it page out?

Thanks!
I ran msconfig and selected diagnostic startup. I still think it paged out some though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poke349

Woah... the first AMD dualie. :cool:

Quick question: Is that running at 2.9 GHz as the program says or is it @ 3.3 GHz (in your siggy)?

Since it's the first time I've seen this program run on an AMD dualie, would you be able to do benchmarks for:
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000,000

I'd love to add it to the comparison chart that's here: :D
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#Benchmarks

The 1m and 10m aren't in the benchmark options, so you'll need to use either the batch-mode or the custom compute option.

Was at 2.9 GHZ.. I will rerun @ 3.33

As above here is my dual Shanghai 2389 @ 3.33ghz.

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 3336182273 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 25000000 Total Time: 9.720 Checksum: 409d8961151453331ebd8fd5b49ffab9

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 3336181988 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 50000000 Total Time: 20.084 Checksum: f18969bf2caaadc01bd3a3a05bdca6c0

Code:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3) Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389 CPU Frequency: 3336180534 Thread(s): 2^3 Digits: 100000000 Total Time: 42.306 Checksum: 9af038030bc9e0370ee84f1c8ad8babf

Quote:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3)
Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389
CPU Frequency: 3336181279
Thread(s): 2^3
Digits: 250000000
Total Time: 113.583
Checksum: c7a217871dbd8aac1fd1a0a86c0c6b23

Quote:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3)
Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389
CPU Frequency: 3336180470
Thread(s): 2^3
Digits: 500000000
Total Time: 249.244
Checksum: 330ec95f5a05c4971e373ab94be5664d

Quote:

Program Version: 0.4.2 Build 7438 (x64 SSE3)
Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2389
CPU Frequency: 3336183313
Thread(s): 2^3
Digits: 1000000000
Total Time: 552.905
Checksum: 52c37453ac4eb2ba0abec8f7913ea03b

Code:

1,000,000 Digits Writing Decimal Digits: 1,000,001 digits written Total Computation Time: 0.617 seconds ( 0.000 hours ) Total Time (including writing digits): 0.709 seconds ( 0.000 hours )

Code:

10,000,000 Digits Writing Decimal Digits: 10,000,001 digits written Total Computation Time: 4.288 seconds ( 0.001 hours ) Total Time (including writing digits): 4.659 seconds ( 0.001 hours )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077

As above here is my dual Shanghai 2389 @ 3.33ghz.

Nice results. I've added your Opterons to that comparison list. :D

The results are interesting. Compared with my dual-Harpertown rig, it beats it for less than 100m. But any higher and it starts to get slower.

Smaller cache? :scope:

heres mine, can do more later. this is 32m

4.51ghz, 3.87ghz Uncore. 32m 11.297s

http://i25.tinypic.com/2a5dt2p.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peen

heres mine, can do more later. this is 32m

4.51ghz, 3.87ghz Uncore. 32m 11.297s

Woah, nice. New single socket record! :D

Was turbo-throttling in effect during the run? Your temps are hitting 88C, but 75-80C is usually the point where turbo throttling starts.
Are you on air?

As for all the suggestions about the Intel Compiler.
I've tried it, and the results are interesting.

Initially, after messing with the compiler options, it couldn't do any better than 5% slower than the current build (with the Visual Studio Compiler).
After tweaking the source code a bit, I've gotten it to about 1% faster than Visual Studio. :D:D:D And I don't think I'm done yet. :yepp:

I'll need to finish my tweaks (and hopefully do better than 1%) and do a ton of other tests on my workstation to make sure it's consistently faster.

On the other hand... The binary (when compiled with ICC) is HUGE... :shocked:

I think I ran prime earlier thats why it said it was so hot. But my chip is already high leakage chip so it runs hot. My chip starts throttling at 100c, Oh and this is on water too. Ill try 4.6ghz later but my brand new DFI X58 UT just died, went pop!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peen

I think I ran prime earlier thats why it said it was so hot. But my chip is already high leakage chip so it runs hot. My chip starts throttling at 100c, Oh and this is on water too. Ill try 4.6ghz later but my brand new DFI X58 UT just died, went pop!

You killed your DFI? :( Sorry to hear that... RMA?

The "main" throttling occurs at 100C, but Turbo mode gets disabled when you hit 80C or so. So the multiplier drops from 21 to 20.

It will actually bounce back and fourth between 20 and 21 many times per second. Once you get high enough (85+ C), then it pretty much stays at 20.

Core i7 920 @ 3.927GHz

SuperPi 32M - 9m31.187s
y-cruncher:
250M - 127.051s
500M - 280.013s
1 Billion - 616.635s
2.5 Billion - 4129.34s

http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/q...rsuperPi-1.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurumi

Core i7 920 @ 3.927GHz

SuperPi 32M - 9m31.187s
y-cruncher:
250M - 127.051s
500M - 280.013s
1 Billion - 616.635s
2.5 Billion - 4129.34s

Oh :D Large runs. :p: Cool.

Was the 2.5b paging like crazy? It shouldn't be that slow.

Unless you were doing tons of stuff in the background, it should've kicked everything else out of ram to allow 2.5b to run without much page-thrashing.

It was trashing like crazy for 2.5b. I wasn't running anything else in the background other than my normal apps. I expected 2.5b to be hard on my system though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poke349

Version v0.4.2 is out!

Here's a screenie of that stress tester...

Temperature-wise, it's on par with Prime95.
But I don't know if it can detect stability issues as well as Prime95 - let alone Linpack.

Quote:

Temperature-wise, it's on par with Prime95.

yes it is.

your software is very good.

If i run Multi-Threaded Pi with 350.000.000, i run well Prime95 small FFT in 30 minutes without any error.

My PC Q9550 @ 4GHz.

P.S : Sorry my english.