CUDA Factorial Benchmark from TOC.ru

http://total-oc.ru/download.php?id=101

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/600721/TOCFactorial2.JPG

Show me what you got. Interested in high end NVIDIAs. :up: Remember... shader and on card memory clocks are essential.

you might want the problem size to be bigger, just a thought. i know you already have seen my results. im just trying to get this thread goin. i wonder if anyone on XS has access to a tesla system. memory is at 1200 and shaders are at 1500.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/710/factorial.jpg

Its fine. You can do any problem size you want. :up: Your GFX is a 260? Is that 216 shaders?

I wonder what algorithm it uses...

750000! can be done well under a second with Mathematica 6.0 single-threaded on any i7.

Yet it takes 1+ minutes using CUDA? :confused:



*Sorry for being off topic. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poke349

I wonder what algorithm it uses...

750000! can be done well under a second with Mathematica 6.0 single-threaded on any i7.

Yet it takes 1+ minutes using CUDA? :confused:



*Sorry for being off topic. :rofl:

---

Have you got mathematica? Can you show us the result? We already know there are insanely fast algorithms and approximations that can be used http://www.luschny.de/math/factorial/Benchmark.html .... but we also know there are many algorithms for calculation Pi to 1million places.. all with diff times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Have you got mathematica? Can you show us the result? We already know there are insanely fast algorithms and approximations that can be used http://www.luschny.de/math/factorial/Benchmark.html .... but we also know there are many algorithms for calculation Pi to 1million places.. all with diff times.

---

Code:

---

Timing[750000!;]
{0.405, Null}

---

i7 920 @ 3.5 GHz

Mathematica can't multi-thread high-precision arithmetic. So there's no way see how much better it can go.


On the other hand... I can mod the program in my siggy to do multi-threaded factorials (using a sub-optimal algorithm)... And I'm certain I can beat 0.405 seconds.

But again... off topic. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poke349

Code:

---

Timing[750000!;]
{0.405, Null}

---

i7 920 @ 3.5 GHz

---

Can you export all the digits? I mean does it deliver all the digits? There should be 4080578 digits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Can you export all the digits? I mean does it deliver all the digits? There should be 4080578 digits.

---

That run of 0.405 seconds did only binary digits. Printing it out in decimal requires an expensive conversion.

Code:

---

750000!
\!\(\*
TagBox[
RowBox[{"2646896442810456334473283390526976189442958803731348335812907\
9334567747113504796887022327350144664381155203676817108918748679291696\
6443372148573575453227479621798163102781469763477812875007762400556456\
3838296982600913849826449820515029294880777450379489322119687361868491\
51503071358153700424169800424565",
RowBox[{"<<", "4079973", ">>"}],
    "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
0000000000000000000000000000"}],
Short[#, 5]& ]\)

---

Took roughly 6 seconds including conversion.

(Thanks for the Benchmark link.)

I have a question. When I ran the CUDA Factorial Benchmark program, I set it up for 900,000 and 4 threads @ 3.81GHz on my Q6600.
My GPU is listed as GTX 295, and is running 2.5 times faster than my CPU. Just for the record, that GPU test is only calculating on 1/2 of my 295, correct?
(Basically, running on the equivalent of a single GTX 275.)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6...acbench.th.jpg
CPU takes 3 minutes, 20.828s
GPU takes 1 minute, 21.580s
2.5 x faster...


Note that if I set the benchmark for 999,000 my GPU moves up to 3.1 X as fast as my CPU. The bigger the order, the more the GPU appears to gain.
CPU takes 4 minutes, 23.231s
GPU takes 1 minute, 27.306s
Checksum: 578712543720173939 :)

I would love to find the app, that checks to see if you have more than 1 GPU in your system, then use them all.
3 instances of folding, can load up 3 GPU's... (But that is 3 separate programs running...)
A game with PhysX can run graphics in SLI, and PhysX on another... (Still, that's Graphics on 2 or more, and PhysX on the other...)
But still not 1 benchmark program to use all GPU's in your system.

To be fair, I think CUDA apps couldn't grab cards in SLI until a recent release... I believe?
I would love to see this CUDA Factorial benchmark, grab all available GPU's in your system, in a later update.

If 1/2 of my 295 can be 3 X as fast as my Q6600, I have to wonder how many times faster it would be with both my 295 and 280 in on the deal... ;)

I imagine DX11 will also use just 1 GPU for video transcoding, not all GPU's in your system?

^^ you realize we came to the conclusion cpu was faster. just read the posts above.

Is that using Mathematica, and a different equation?

I don't know if we can do a valid comparison that way...

http://www.hearne.com.au/products/mathematica/pricing/
Looks pricey!! :)

cpu's and gpu's use different algorithms to get the best performance. it would be an invalid comparison if we used the same algorithm. both of these processors have advantages and drawbacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Is that using Mathematica, and a different equation?

I don't know if we can do a valid comparison that way...

http://www.hearne.com.au/products/mathematica/pricing/
Looks pricey!! :)

---

Mathematica uses GMP - which is open sourced and free, so price doesn't matter.
You'd get the same fast timings using GMP directly than through Mathematica.

Obviously this isn't a fair comparison at all.
GMP uses state-of-the-art algorithms which are much faster, but probably not as easily paralleled as whatever this CUDA benchmark uses.

Thanks for the info guys..

Hi ALL.

I am from www.total-oc.ru and can answer any your question about this benchmark

Now it use only one GPU from all, but we will work to make it universal. So this test can use all of CPU and CPU core simultaneously or in any combinations.

And about speed of calculation - it more slowly because is applied uniform algorithm of calculation on the processor and GPU that there was a comparability of results. Aim not to receive as much as possible fast algorithm, and universal.

This is my world record on GPU in this test - 4.331
On CPU in this test world record make community XtremeLabs.org - 6.888

Discussion n our forum in English and some results here.

I am ready to answer all interesting questions under the test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

Hi ALL.

I am from www.total-oc.ru and can answer any your question about this benchmark

Now it use only one GPU from all, but we will work to make it universal. So this test can use all of CPU and CPU core simultaneously or in any combinations.

And about speed of calculation - it more slowly because is applied uniform algorithm of calculation on the processor and GPU that there was a comparability of results. Aim not to receive as much as possible fast algorithm, and universal.

This is my world record on GPU in this test - 4.331
On CPU in this test world record make community XtremeLabs.org - 6.888

Discussion n our forum in English and some results here.

I am ready to answer all interesting questions under the test

---

Welcome. :up:

I haz a question however. There seems to be a discrepancy once you go above ~>3000n between the CPU result and the GPU result. Is there an approximation that is diff from the CPU and GPU? A different algorithm?

My Core 2 Duo E6400 + XFX 8800GTX :D

System:

CPU: Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13Ghz) @ 3.20Ghz
Video: XFX 8800GTX @ standart
Ram: 4x512 OCZ Platinium @ 400Mhz

Results:

CPU: 5m 46.113s
GPU: 3m 4.773s

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5391/76750009.th.jpg

How can you see, my E6400 @ 3.20Ghz is little bit too week against 8800GTX, so need some Quad power :up::doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeUeR

My Core 2 Duo E6400 + XFX 8800GTX :D

System:

CPU: Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13Ghz) @ 3.20Ghz
Video: XFX 8800GTX @ standart
Ram: 4x512 OCZ Platinium @ 400Mhz

Results:

CPU: 5m 46.113s
GPU: 3m 4.773s

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5391/76750009.th.jpg

How can you see, my E6400 @ 3.20Ghz is little bit too week against 8800GTX, so need some Quad power :up::doh:

---

Dude... there's plenty of mileage left in that GTX.... Push it!

[XC] riptide maybe you can help, and little bit tell me about 8800GTX card OC and such things ? Pm me with more info, im intrested to oc my card to check how far it is going ::up:

[XC] riptide
This is nuances working of algorithm on GPU and CPU. If you calculate <=3000!, GPU not working, but CPU is.
I improve my personal record on CPU - 7.188 :cool:
http://toc.hashed.ru/getth.ashx/fcc3.2009-09-25-20-16
check file
generate with help AntiCheat TOC 0.9.8.3

Hi again,

got new score in gpu test with my XFX 8800GTX :up:

OLD Result:

GPU: 3m 4.773s

NEW Result:

GPU: 2m 54.065s (~10s faster)

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1930/cudaf.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

Hi ALL.

I am from www.total-oc.ru and can answer any your question about this benchmark

Now it use only one GPU from all, but we will work to make it universal. So this test can use all of CPU and CPU core simultaneously or in any combinations.

---

Outstanding!! Thanks for the post. GPU's rule.

HeUeR
Calculate 250000! on your video please. We get statistics about any hardware :)
Talonman
Our project develops more test packages of comparison of speed of video cards and processors and useful utilities. I shortly will place here a theme that we could test speed and in them.

[XC] riptide
Please fix title of theme from TOC.ru to Total-OC.ru ;)

Hi,

OverFoxtrot i got some score for you :up:


750000 bench:

GPU: 2m 45.140s

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7456/750kp.th.jpg


250000 bench:

GPU: 27.903s

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3176/25k.th.jpg

Both results ar with same clocked 8800gtx and same clock cpu, just in 750000 bench i forgot to take photo from gpu-z :shrug:

HeUeR Thanks. Results on stock 9600GT is better than yours. I was sure that you can overtake it (~23.500s)

Q9550 @ 4Ghz
GTX260 216SP @ 720/1485/2400


CPU: 1m 49.641s
GPU: 1m 0.507s


http://i770.photobucket.com/albums/x...unreal/ese.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

HeUeR Thanks. Results on stock 9600GT is better than yours. I was sure that you can overtake it (~23.500s)

---

hmz, what cpu you have?! I think my score is that low because i have only Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 3.2Ghz, so my cpu can't handle 8800GTX fully :down::confused:

HeUeR I have Core i7 920 @ 4.2-4.4GHz.
I think that I will test dependence on the processor.

I just cant wait for the post, officially letting us know that 3 GPU's can be used. I want to run my new numbers with both sides of my 295 and 280 in on the deal.

Wonder how the implementation is progressing? :)

New version with MultiGPU will appear one of these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

HeUeR I have Core i7 920 @ 4.2-4.4GHz.
I think that I will test dependence on the processor.

---

Here you go mate, i have E6400, but you have new Core i7 920, so thats why we have diference and my vga can't work faster than yours. I have plan to change my E6400 to some quad core, then will see vga boost :up::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

New version with MultiGPU will appear one of these days.

---

Hurry up!! :stick: :p:

BTW, love the Avatar. Kamov Ka-50. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Hurry up!! :stick: :p:

---

I will try to release new version tomorrow :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

BTW, love the Avatar. Kamov Ka-50. :cool:

---

You wrong. It is Ka-52 Alligator, one of the best helicopter in the world. Now I try found foto of Ka-58 Black Phantom :rolleyes: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

I will try to release new version tomorrow :)

---

Gasp!!! I can't wait... :up:

Would I have an issue having my 295 in SLI Mode, and 280 in dedicated PhysX mode? Could I just leave my systems config as is, and your app would still find all GPU's?

(Note that when the new version is completed... I will insure my friends at EVGA get the news Big Time!)
The QUAD SLI boys will want to test it our for sure. :rocker:

I also believe you should receive Official Credit for the first app ever released to use all GPU in ones system. Even dedicated PhysX GPU's. You sir, are my Hero.

Talonman You can check now - in version 0.3.6 can you choose any of yours GPU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

You wrong. It is Ka-52 Alligator, one of the best helicopter in the world. Now I try found foto of Ka-58 Black Phantom :rolleyes: :up:

---

Hey! It was hard to look at the small Avatar.

And Ka-58 not exist yet. Maybe easier to get PAK-FA photos soon. :up:

BETA Tester reporting in!
Yes, all GPU's are selectable... :up: Fine job!
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9522/frac01.jpg


I was hoping to be able to use all 3 GPU's, at the same time... (I know, have patience.) :D
Running on 1/2 of my 295. Note: Getting 3.3X Acceleration.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9458/frac02.jpg


I did make sure the program could actually access my 280... It can indeed. Test ran fine. :cool:
Just for fun, I then set my 280's clock settings, to exactly match what my 295's were in the first test.
That was a mild C=650, SH=1515, and M=1188. (Q6600 was at 3.81GHz)
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6227/frac04.jpg
My 280's performance took a dive on the second run, and dropped to 1.3X as fast.
I'm confused, about my 280's performance drop:
I was getting 3.1 to 3.3 X as fast.

Next I closed, and then restarted the app back up.
I didn't adjust the GPU selector in any way, other than add the check-mark, to activate it.
It is sitting at it's default setting, with my 295 selected.
This run, I want back to running on 1/2 of my 295. Now it's performance looks low too, getting 1.2X. :)
I can't figure this out. Hmmm :p:
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1214/frac05.jpg


Running on my 280, right after a fresh reboot.
Right back up to 3.1X Acceleration. :)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1237/frac06.jpg


If I try and run the benchmark a second time on my 280 without rebooting, I run out of GPU RAM: ;)
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8923/frac07.jpg
Bug report: I would say the GPU's memory does not free back up after each run, or by closing the program. Currently a reboot is required for good numbers, after each run...
FYI - I ran one run on my 295, closed the app, did not reboot, then tried to play BatMan, and the game froze. (Lack of memory issue I'm sure.) ;)
After a reboot, BatMan runs fine again.

Still looking foward to this: :wiggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

Now it use only one GPU from all, but we will work to make it universal. So this test can use all of CPU and CPU core simultaneously or in any combinations.

---

The 'Use all GPU's found' button will be BIG! I want to see my 9X as fast light up. :)

Talonman
Thanks for your test. Now we try make MultiGPU version. We have small problem with CUDA programming code. It is necessary to alter a part of a code for its solution.

I wish you the best of luck, finding the answer.

Glad to help on the testing. :up:

774/1836/1404/2gb
http://i34.tinypic.com/35iyfki.png

Never mind. I see them

sub 4 sec @ 783/1908/1431/2gb/stock+air cooling

http://i35.tinypic.com/eb5w1s.png

^ yep stock cooler/70F air/cap+ocp mod

http://i35.tinypic.com/2ezha2r.png

http://i37.tinypic.com/2zom8gw.png

NapalmV5 nice scores you have there, great work :up:

Edit: anyone tested stability yet? Just wanted to know, if this soft can be used as good stability checker for oc'ed rig's?

NapalmV5 Very good! Your result is best in the world. Amazing GTX285!
HeUeR I try to use this bechmark as stability test and:
For CPU - ~ as wPrime 1024M
For Shader blocks - weak requirements to stability
For GPU memory - good test of stability

Were you guys also having your video RAM, not free up after each run in v0.3.6 too, or was that just me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeUeR

NapalmV5 nice scores you have there, great work :up:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

NapalmV5 Very good! Your result is best in the world. Amazing GTX285!

---

thanks guys :toast: as for best in the world lol wait till the guys at sub zero start posting results :)

heres my fastest so far.. 1gb 285 this time.. arctic accelero gtx280 cooler/70F air cooling/cap+ocp mod

cpu: q9650 @ 4.5ghz/ddr2: 600mhz

http://i37.tinypic.com/33m8vsz.png

http://i34.tinypic.com/zisk9f.png

final result on air cooling before moving onto vapochilling

cpu: q9650 @ 4.5ghz/ddr2: 500mhz

http://i35.tinypic.com/2w68029.png

nice Napalm nice :up: brrr, i cant wait till i will move on some quad core cpu, my cpu is so week, that i cant get normals score with my 8800GTX :down:

Here's what i got,

http://www.tech-caffe.com/gfx/factorial.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeUeR

nice Napalm nice :up: brrr, i cant wait till i will move on some quad core cpu, my cpu is so week, that i cant get normals score with my 8800GTX :down:

---

thanks.. do you get any hang time after it reaches 99.6-9% ??

i took the 8800 ultra out and installed it for you to see what 8800 gtx does @ quad :)

i clocked my ultra to your gtx clocks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeUeR

250000 bench:

GPU: 27.903s

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3176/25k.th.jpg

---

q9650 @ 4.5ghz/ddr2 @ 500mhz
this includes ~8 sec hang time.. actual time = 14 seconds
http://i33.tinypic.com/s5czls.png


http://i34.tinypic.com/330ss4z.jpg

only a few times i get it right ^

cooled by arctic accelero/70F ambient also/cap+vmod ^

What do you mean with that hang time, didnt understand i think. You mean soft freeze for some sec, or ... !?

6 sec difference between same cards @ dual core vs quad core :up: Quad is doing what he needs to do :) Il pm you, i want to check some more benches with setup: same card freq @ dual vs quad :up:

yeh freeze.. after it reaches ~99.9% it hangs/freezes for ~8 sec sometimes more

@ 1620 shader it reaches 99.9% in 14 seconds just like @ 2106 shader it reaches 99.9% in 11 seconds ^

if you dont get the freeze/hang time then its probably my 8800

lol more benches ?? one bench before i pull it out ok ? :)

either way get a quad asap.. everything will get faster i guarantee you :up:

Napalm check private messages, i sent you pm with 2 more benches what i want to see and very big tnx you for spending time for me. And yea i know quad core will blast my vga much more higher :up::D

finally got it.. my 8800s been thru a lot.. mods wars sickness :D

http://i36.tinypic.com/10fater.png

about pm/benches - alright you got it :up:

how did ya get bench done without freez?:confused::up:

i ran and reran the bench until it posted the right time i had the same troubles @ 2106 shader

i know whats wrong with my 8800 i didnt think it would affect the bench since it doesnt affect games/other benches

when ill get it fixed if results are any diff ill repost..

subzero

http://i34.tinypic.com/5f2m83.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Were you guys also having your video RAM, not free up after each run in v0.3.6 too, or was that just me?

---

Bump!

Hi All. I was return from Moscow :)
Yours result is super! And i have MultiGPU alpha version of this benchmark. Do you want try to test it? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

Hi All. I was return from Moscow :)
Yours result is super! And i have MultiGPU alpha version of this benchmark. Do you want try to test it? :)

---

What a silly question. Of Course they want to test it!! This is Xtreme Systems. :D :up:

YES!!! :p:

Post up a download link.

yup, give us the new version, i will make little bit popular this soft in my country oc forum :)

Rest assured my friends at EVGA will also get the word! :cool:

nVidia already knows my stance...
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=105567

"For future CUDA Superhero Challenges, I would rather not see a problem assigned.

I think the creative programs that might be submitted, will be more exciting for us nVidia fans to look at. They would also make for a better advertising video too.

This CUDA app is my current favorite: The CUDA Factorial Benchmark
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=233280
(It is also ready to be downloaded and run as is.) We need more apps like that. I downloaded your .cu file, but have no idea how to run it.

The CUDA Factorial Benchmark lets us see how much faster our GPU's are, over our CPU. That is exactly the kind of app we need to help educate the non-believers in the GPU Revolution.

I want the version of the CUDA Factorial Benchmark that uses all 3 of my GPU's, instead of just 1/2 of my 295. I have been told they are working on it. ;)

If anybody knows of a CUDA program that I can download, that will use both sides of my 295, and my 280 dedicated PhysX processor all at once to solve a problem, please post up a link!
I want that program real bad, whatever it is. :)

I had the incorrect idea that new apps were going to be submitted by CUDA programmers, that would be up for download, and that we could also run. That was bad on my part.
I assumed that was what the CUDA Superhero Challenge was all about."



Off topic: I can't post in the GPU section yet, so i have to get my posts in where I can! ;)

It is a well known fact that PhysX can run on the CPU... Just much slower. Nvidia did optimized PhysX to run on the GPU for added performance, as expected. It is also well known the today's GPU's offer much more performance than the ageia PPU ever did.

We have all seen this video, of 8 cores making 3,500 boxes swirling in a tornado running on a CPU. This is nothing more than an honorable mention for what a top of the line CPU can do, but not anything that directly challenges the PhysX performance that we can get from a single GPU.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/HardOCP/videos/36/
That's OK, and providing you have 8 cores to calculate on. I wish they would have used a Q6600 or a dual core CPU for that test.


The real deal...
http://www.nvidia.com/object/gpu_tec...ml#livewebcast

In the video section under: Recording of the keynotes and general sessions...
'Opening keynote with Jen-Hsun Huang'
About 1/2 way through his presentation, when speaking on Visual Computing:

An example is posted about analyzing the New Orleans levee break.
# of Particles: 163,000
# of steps per particle: 1,000,000
CPU (Core 2, @ 2.5GHz): 24 Days to calculate...
(1) GTX 260: 4 Hours to calculate...
Total Speedup in performance = 144 X as fast.

Looks like running on the GPU was the correct choice for them.

In the 'Day 3 Keynote: Richard Kerris, CTO, Lucasfilm'
In the first 1/2 of the video, there is the Industrial Light & Magic, 2009 example.
Projuct GPU: Benefit from the use of GPU simulator, animation and rendering techniques for production, when they can provide a distinct advantage over the CPU based processors.

A research example is posted of a cube comprised of over 12,000 rigid bodies, calculated in 1 hour and 13 minutes using 1 GPU.

The next example is a colored cube comprised of over 100,000 rigid bodies, it took 3 hours and 20 minutes to calculate.

Keeping in mind that the most they were ever previously able to send, was 14,000 rigid bodies spanning multiple machines. The GPU is giving them much more performance than the CPU ever could, and they are enjoying a productivity increase, along with a substantial cost savings. It would be a tough sell to them, that the CPU is the correct choice now.

In the new FERMI presentation, it was specifically mentioned how PhysX will enjoy a speedup running on the new GPU's. Any concern about performance running PhysX on the GPU will be even smaller of an issue than it is now.

You can bet that when the Havok Physic engine is successfully ported over to OpenCL, and running on GPU's, the Havok boys will be looking for a performance gain. In fact, I dare say WAY more performance! If not, their effort was just in vein.
Most nVidia guys won't want Havok if we have to only run it on out CPU's. We already have been spoiled by PhysX. You can bet that the more demanding Havok effects will run much faster on the GPU.

I just love how GPU's are being put to more serious processing tasks than just playing games. :)

I do believe it to be the way of the future, and the next big thing. :up:

The CUDA Factorial Benchmark helps to show this, and a big reason why it is one of my favorite CUDA apps.
Keep up the fine job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Bump!

---

the issue youre having @ post #38 is due to heat: throttle clocks kick in

more cooling or lower clocks and youll get constant results :up:

as for running out of gpu ram.. i had the same @ 8800 ultra

no reboot i just had to restart the app..

http://i33.tinypic.com/2d7ucue.png


edit: i just ran the bench on the 280.. cooled by arctic accelero/vmodded

i dont get the "Not enough memory on GPU device"

@ 1728 constant/correct results

http://i33.tinypic.com/2d9e0rq.png

though @ 1782 shader i get erratic results like you do get on your 280

CUDA Factorial Benchmark 0.3.7 alpha
It is necessary to restart the program after each start. Wait for results ;)
Thanks to all for support :up:
P.S Somebody fix title of theme(wrong site name)?

- erratic results fixed @ 280 :up:

- faster than 3.6 :up:

- higher shader clock :up:

http://i34.tinypic.com/1erkph.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

CUDA Factorial Benchmark 0.3.7 alpha
It is necessary to restart the program after each start. Wait for results ;)
Thanks to all for support :up:
P.S Somebody fix title of theme(wrong site name)?

---

Thanks for the new version, and conformation that the app must be restarted after each run.

I get home in 5 more hours, and will test it out... :up:

Love the ALL box. :)

We have some results on our forum and now working at beta version.
If you want see real diffrence - use 750000! calculation and bigger. Now speed is small because some calculation make on CPU and need optimization.

Odd...

If I use my normal 999,000, the program will not run for me with all GPU's selected.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2396/cfb1.jpg



If I use your suggested 750,000, the program runs, but the clocks drop back down from 3D Performance mode, to 2D clock speeds before the run completes...

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2748/cfb2.jpg

If I use 999,000 or 750,000 and select a single GPU, the program runs just fine, and the clocks stay in 3D Performance mode for the entire run.

I don't know if this will help, but here is my event log:

Log Name: Application
Source: Windows Error Reporting
Date: 10/7/2009 9:08:12 PM
Event ID: 1001
Task Category: None
Level: Information
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: MaximusSE
Description:
Fault bucket 1496996379, type 1
Event Name: APPCRASH
Response: None
Cab Id: 0

Problem signature:
P1: CUDA_Factorial_Benchmark.exe
P2: 1.0.3566.40857
P3: 4acbab93
P4: StackHash_f398
P5: 0.0.0.0
P6: 00000000
P7: c00000fd
P8: 75a19bb4
P9:
P10:

Attached files:
C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Temp\WER6DCF.tmp.vers ion.txt

These files may be available here:
C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\WER \ReportArchive\Report0f16aabf
Event Xml:
<Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
<System>
<Provider Name="Windows Error Reporting" />
<EventID Qualifiers="0">1001</EventID>
<Level>4</Level>
<Task>0</Task>
<Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords>
<TimeCreated SystemTime="2009-10-08T02:08:12.000Z" />
<EventRecordID>37229</EventRecordID>
<Channel>Application</Channel>
<Computer>MaximusSE</Computer>
<Security />
</System>
<EventData>
<Data>1496996379</Data>
<Data>1</Data>
<Data>APPCRASH</Data>
<Data>None</Data>
<Data>0</Data>
<Data>CUDA_Factorial_Benchmark.exe</Data>
<Data>1.0.3566.40857</Data>
<Data>4acbab93</Data>
<Data>StackHash_f398</Data>
<Data>0.0.0.0</Data>
<Data>00000000</Data>
<Data>c00000fd</Data>
<Data>75a19bb4</Data>
<Data>
</Data>
<Data>
</Data>
<Data>
C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Temp\WER6DCF.tmp.vers ion.txt</Data>
<Data>C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windo ws\WER\ReportArchive\Report0f16aabf</Data>
</EventData>
</Event>

One more error message from another run:

Faulting application CUDA_Factorial_Benchmark.exe, version 1.0.3566.40857, time stamp 0x4acbab93, faulting module unknown, version 0.0.0.0, time stamp 0x00000000, exception code 0xc0000005, fault offset 0x00000000, process id 0x72c, application start time 0x01ca47c4811d9199.

Talonman Thanks.
Clocks drop back down from 3D Performance mode to 2D clock speeds because CPU make calculation in the end. We will fix this in beta version.
The main thing that the program loads all videocards in system.

I stand ready for more testing... :up:

Acceleration=x8.3
:eek: :shocked:


edit*
26.3x

How is the program progressing with being able to use all 3 GPU's at once? :)

Some problems with a free time for end a beta of tests

OK... :)

Thanks fro the reply.

Some problems in due course for program finishing.

As long as the project is still alive, I am happy. :cool:

heres what i got:
E8400 at 3.6GHZ 8800GT (mainly use for physx)

I was test 8800GS in test )))
I will try speed up working on new version

P5Q-E ~ E8400 @ 3825 ~ GTS250 Gainward ~ 2x2 gb OCZ 850 5.5.5.18 ~ Se77en X64


Default VGA frequency:

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...8_cuda_z_1.jpg



Core/Shader 756/1850:

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...9_cuda_z_2.jpg

New alpha of MultiGPU version - http://total-oc.ru/files/foxtrot/CFB_0.4.0_alpha.zip

Final MultiGPU version - http://total-oc.ru/download.php?id=101

New version with full Fermi support - http://total-oc.ru/files/download/CU...enchmark-a.rar
Works only on GeForce 197.xx and newer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverFoxtrot

New version with full Fermi support - http://total-oc.ru/files/download/CU...enchmark-a.rar
Works only on GeForce 197.xx and newer

---

197.41 + 480gtx
i7 @ 4200mhz

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/615...bench40a25.jpg http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/648...bench40a75.jpg

Some GTX480 lovin

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6717/cudabench2.jpg

Thats some major difference between version 0.4.0a and 0.4.0 , comparing them is like apples to oranges :D

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2136/factorialgpu.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/450...benchmarkg.png



http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3993/gpucpu.png



With i7 4GHz

You can take correct result on GTX 4xx only on version 0.4.0a with drivers GeForce 197.xx!!!
Known issue: double GPU works only with small problem size < 500000

it doesnt work with ATI but my cpus scored well i think :S

Core i7-980X first test
http://toc.hashed.ru/getth.ashx/74dc.2010-06-08-17-02
проверить файл
сгенерировано с помощью AntiCheat TOC 0.9.8.3

Weird... the GPU accelleration does not seem spectacular...An i7-920 @ 2.2 Ghz owned a GTX260 Core 216?

GPU calculations need more optimization. We try to do it in new version and add ATI GPU support

How do you think this is going to happen since CUDA is NVidia only technology?

We will use ATI Stream Computing and wait for normal OpenCL.

:) so its not going to be CUDA factorial bench anymore? And listen i had a problem to run it with SLI GTX 480... may be u fixed it now? Only one of the cards was benching .

Quote:

---

so its not going to be CUDA factorial bench anymore?

---

May be :)

Quote:

---

And listen i had a problem to run it with SLI GTX 480... may be u fixed it now?

---

Yes, we try to change some algorithms to solve this problem

New version - http://www.total-oc.ru/files/downloa..._Benchmark.rar ! We solve all problems with Fermi.

stock cooling no mods
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1894/90256831.png