A Fermi benchmark of sorts...

A Fermi benchmark of sorts...

If you do consider folding a benchmark, we have had a Fermi report if you haven't heard.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...1&key=�

I make these bold assumptions about Fermi.

1) It will use about 320 watts when loaded up.

2) (1) Fermi GPU can produce 40K PPD, or more.

3) Fermi will fold near or exceed 4X the speed of the 200 Series GPU's.
What now takes 60 minutes to produce, will soon be done in 15 minutes.

Fermi will also have 1.5GB of memory, and is made up of 3.0 billion transistors and features 512 CUDA processing cores organized into 16 SMs (Streaming Multiprocessors) of 32 cores each.

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.ph...=11717#p114890

btw, Fermi only has 16 cores but with 32 shaders each.

Omg...:d

I've not seen pics yet but what connections will this have? pcie =75w, 6pin = 75w, 8pin = 150w, one of each = 300watts. Going to need to upgrade psu's for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.ph...=11717#p114890

btw, Fermi only has 16 cores but with 32 shaders each.

---

Thanks!

Fixed:

Fermi will also have 1.5GB of memory, and is made up of 3.0 billion transistors and features 512 CUDA processing cores organized into 16 SMs (Streaming Multiprocessors) of 32 cores each.

there's no proof that this is indeed fermi folding .. a lot of information that doesnt add up.. just wishful thinking by the nv fanboys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldChap

I've not seen pics yet but what connections will this have? pcie =75w, 6pin = 75w, 8pin = 150w, one of each = 300watts. Going to need to upgrade psu's for this?

---

PCI-e 2.0 is 150W, 75W is 1.x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

there's no proof that this is indeed fermi folding .. a lot of information that doesnt add up.. just wishful thinking by the nv fanboys

---

^Right

Quote:

---

1) It will use about 320 watts when loaded up.

---

It seems weird, no :eek: :confused: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

there's no proof that this is indeed fermi folding .. a lot of information that doesnt add up.. just wishful thinking by the nv fanboys

---

Wishful thinking that will most likely turn out to be fact. :)

Do you not think (1) Fermi GPU can produce 40K PPD, or more?

BTW - His 24hr PPD is up to 344,845.

http://piro.pirocast.net/badge/nvidi...255/477950.png

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...hp?s=&u=477950

344,845 - 10K PPD for the (4) i7 cores= 334,845.

334,845 / 7 Fermi = 49,263. Wow!! :toast:

It might actually be closer to 50K PPD per Fermi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

there's no proof that this is indeed fermi folding .. a lot of information that doesnt add up.. just wishful thinking by the nv fanboys

---

+1..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jfromeo

PCI-e 2.0 is 150W, 75W is 1.x.

---

A 295's TDP is 289 Watts, and can produce 18K PPD.

If a Fermi's TDP is about 320 watts, not to bad if it can produce 50K PPD... :cool:

It would take 2.777 295's using 802 watts to do the same.

Actually here: http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...not-300w!.aspx

"In case of upcoming high-memory configurations nVidia Tesla, Quadro and GeForce cards, the company had to install a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, getting 300W of power to play with. However, this was a precautionary measure. According to information we have at hand, the GT300 board [yeah, featuring "Fermi" CUDA architecture] barely missed 225W cut-off for the 6+6 pin if the board comes with 6GB of GDDR5 memory."

The power it takes to run (1) Fermi might actually be less than what I am guessing? Near 225W sounds outstanding...

Quote:

---

2) (1) Fermi GPU can produce 40K PPD, or more.

3) Fermi will fold near or exceed 4X the speed of the 200 Series GPU's.
What now takes 60 minutes to produce, will soon be done in 15 minutes.

---

While this is interesing, you can't compare apples to oranges.

He is using GPU3 beta client, not the standard GPU2 client.

How much do today's cards generate with that GPU3 client? He's running 200 instances of GPU3. I think GPU2 only allows for 8 ?

How big are GPU3 workunits?

I don't see how a direct comparison is possible? Especially when you don't even know what he is using ?

But we do know is PPD! :)

And we do know his rig is (1) i7 CPU using 4 cores, and (7) Fermi.

I am thinking the BETA Client lets you run more instances of folding, but probably doesn't give a performance increase all by itself.
It would probably need Fermi to take advantage of that new feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

A Fermi benchmark of sorts...

If you do consider folding a benchmark, we have had a Fermi report if you haven't heard.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...1&key=�

I make these bold assumptions about Fermi.

1) It will use about 320 watts when loaded up.

---

PCI SIG only allows 300 watts.

Quote:

---

2) (1) Fermi GPU can produce 40K PPD, or more.

---

even with 48Kb of cache it still wont get that.

Quote:

---

3) Fermi will fold near or exceed 4X the speed of the 200 Series GPU's.
What now takes 60 minutes to produce, will soon be done in 15 minutes.

Fermi will also have 1.5GB of memory, and have of 16 cores which contain 32 shaders each.

---

he is folding on over 200 processors. there is no way that is fermi. its just gpu3 beta. 31 gpu's and an i7. g80 and up are MIMD arrays of SIMDs. it sounds like it is a current gpu because he is getting 700 points per SM. that sounds like g92. i find it ironic that if there are 248 active cpus that means exactly 31 gpu's.

Quote:

---

ORIGINAL: FahMan

Hi Folks!
Thanks for your interesting in my humble contribution in team EVGA.
Some of you wanted to know about my hardware so please check:

www.fahmanfolding.webs.com

As you can see on photos this single PC is able to produce more then 200kppd (around 250 with extreme overclocking).

Some additional explanations:
I was forced to use usb monitor as GPUs haven't any video output (this engineering samples of Fermi are Tesla like, but they have 1.5GB of memory each like GT300 will).
Because of the new MIMD architecture (they have 32 clusters of 16 shaders) i was not able to load them at 100% in any other way but to launch 1 F@H client per cluster and per card. Every client is GPU3 core Beta (Open MM library). I supose it is much more efficient then previous GPU2. In addition they need very little memory to run. Having 16GB of DDR3 and using Windows 7 Enterprise I've managed to run 200 instances of F@H GPU and 4 CPU (i7 processor HT off). The 7th card is not fully loaded. This could also be an issue with EVGA X58 mobo.
I use together two Silverstone Strider PSU's 1500W each that is probably too much but
now I experiment with overclocking (cards are factory unlocked). Max power consumption
I've noticed was 2400W.
The whole system is cooled by my own construction of liquid CO2 which is heavy an inconvenient and I have to supply a new cylinder every 5 days.
That's It. I wish everybody to improve your folding speed using GT300 soon!
Just keep folding...

---

"(they have 32 clusters of 16 shaders) i was not able to load them at 100% in any other way but to launch 1 F@H client per cluster and per card."

1 folding instance per cluster, is 32 per card.

32 x 7 = 224 (GPU folding instances.)

224 - 248 = 24

The 24 is probably just from experimenting? Not sure.

You may be right on the power, I am starting to think it does take less than 320 watts when loaded up.

is it 32 clusters of 16 shaders or 16 clusters or 32 shaders?

Which is it?

And when did benchmarks become wildly theoretical?

Quote:

---

I found fahman's real setup!

---

a little levity.
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100973448

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixie_marj

is it 32 clusters of 16 shaders or 16 clusters or 32 shaders?

Which is it?

---

Not sure now... :)

According to this, Fermi is 16 SMs which contain 32 "CUDA cores":

"http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT093009110932&p=4

"The control hierarchy is similar to the GT200, with a global scheduler that issues work to each SM. Previously the global scheduler (and hence the GPU) could only have a single kernel in flight. Nvidia’s newer scheduler can maintain state for up to 16 different kernels, one per SM. Each SM runs a single kernel, but the ability to keep multiple kernels in flight increases utilization especially when one kernel begins to finish and has fewer blocks left. More importantly, assigning a kernel per core means that smaller kernels can be efficiently dispatched to the GPU.

The latency for context switch between kernels has also been reduced by 10X to around 25 microseconds, this delay is largely due to cleaning up the state that each kernel must track – such as TLBs, dirty data in caches, registers, shared memory and the other kernel context."


Now I think he is running 16 folding instances, 1 per each SM calculating on 32 CUDA Cores.

But 7 * 16 is only 112. :shrug:

I don't have a grip on this part yet...
"Fermi SM Overview

The cores (or SMs) in Fermi have been tremendously beefed up and resources have been shifted around substantially. At a high level, the execution resources have quadrupled, but are shared between two scalar execution pipelines; each pipeline has twice the execution resources (or vector lanes) of the GT200 cores. It’s essential to note that while the two pipelines can execute two warps from the same thread block, they are not superscalar in the sense of a CPU. The memory pipeline has also been brought into the core, whereas previously each memory pipeline was shared between three cores. More importantly, the shared memory has been folded into a (semi-coherent) L1 data cache, giving each core a real memory hierarchy.

In many respects, these changes are conceptually reminiscent of the improvements between Niagara I and II. Niagara II doubled the thread count to 8, but each set of 4 threads had a dedicated scheduler and integer (ALU) pipeline, compared to dedicated ALUs and floating point (FPU) pipelines for Fermi. All 8 threads in a Niagara II core shared memory pipelines, just like Fermi, and FPUs, which are analogous to the special function units (SFU).

To utilize those execution resources, the number of threads in flight for each Fermi core has increased by 50% to 1536, spread across 8 concurrent thread blocks. This means that to fully utilize one of the new cores, 192 threads per block are required up from 128 in GT200. As with the current generation, execution within an SM occurs at the granularity of a warp, which is a set of 32 threads. With the increase in threads, each core can have up to 48 warps in-flight at once.

As with all Nvidia DX10 hardware, Fermi has several different clock domains in each core – principally the regular clock for front-end and scheduling, and then the fast clock for actual execution units that runs at twice the regular clock."

I still don't know the exact Max number of folding instances you could load up on 1 Fermi GPU.
Any help would be appreciated on the subject. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixie_marj

And when did benchmarks become wildly theoretical?

---

Since we are trying to get benchmarks on a GPU still under NDA, but is currently being used, and we get to see the production numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Thanks!

---

Did you even read the link?

Yes... :confused:

But I don't think they believe the guy.

I still don't know the exact Max number of folding instances you could load up on 1 Fermi GPU.
Any help would be appreciated on the subject. What is your opinion trinibwoy?

He is now up to 382,179 in 24 hours!
- 10K for the CPU

372,179 / (7) Fermi = 53,168 PPD per each Fermi.

I simply have a hard time believing a guy would show up with so much processing power, then give us all that info about his system, with it flat out being a lie.
It just goes against human nature. He would naturally want to tell his Folding Team about the rig he is running.

Or, are we to believe it is a bunch of guys, that all started folding together, and just picked the name FahMan? No way! :)

I believe he typed the truth as best he knew it. That simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

What is your opinion trinibwoy?

---

Don't have one. We have one guy claiming he's busting up FaH on some Fermis and another guy saying he's got confirmation that it's a lie.

My only question is why somebody with that kind of PPD throughput would be motivated to lie about running Fermis. My first thought was that it was the Nvidia hype machine at work but that would be really out there.

I agree. Too far out there for it to be the nVidia hype machine... :)

Reading here...

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=789

(1) Fermi has 16 SMs, with 32 CUDA Cores each.

The SMs (streaming multiprocessors) execute threads in groups of 32 called “warps” that help to improve efficiency of the GPU.

The GPU is made up of 3.0 billion transistors and features 512 CUDA processing cores organized into 16 streaming multiprocessors of 32 cores each.

If he had the BETA folding program, and could load up more than one instance on a Fermi, does this mean:

The groups of 32 Threads called “warps” x the 16 SMs = 512 total threads per (1) Fermi, all processing on 512 CUDA cores?
What does that say to how many folding instances he could load up on 1 GPU, if he wanted to go for Max load?

warps handle WAY more threads than that. fermi has about 24,000 and gt200 handles about 30,000. the gpu cant run a program on each thread like a cpu though. the threads are designed to hide latency. yes, a single folding instance has multiple threads. thats why they are so much faster than cpu's.there are many many calculations to do that can be done independently so they run very well on gpu's.

Sorry, I did edit my post a bit. :)

Thanks for the info.

Do you have an opinion Chumbucket843 on how many GPU folding instances (1) Fermi could load up in theory?

This seems to be a big point of yours:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

He is folding on over 200 processors. there is no way that is fermi. its just gpu3 beta. 31 gpu's and an i7. g80 and up are MIMD arrays of SIMDs. it sounds like it is a current gpu because he is getting 700 points per SM. that sounds like g92. i find it ironic that if there are 248 active cpus that means exactly 31 gpu's.

---

But I don't understand why the 248 is such a big deal.

That is only about 35 folding instances per GPU. I thought Fermi could do that, no problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Do you have an opinion Chumbucket843 on how many GPU folding instances (1) Fermi could load up in theory?

---

Fermi can run 16 compute kernels in parallel, one per core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Fermi can run 16 compute kernels in parallel, one per core.

---

Thanks,

That is still a bit confusing for me. :)
(I need a more direct answer.)

Fermi will also have 1.5GB of memory, and is made up of 3.0 billion transistors and features 512 CUDA processing cores organized into 16 SMs (Streaming Multiprocessors) of 32 cores each.

So in theory, 16 X 32 Cores each = 512 GPU Folding instances on (1) Fermi?

-or-

16 X 512 total Cores = 8,192 GPU Folding instances on (1) Fermi? (Sounds a tad high to me.) ;)

-or-

16 GPU Folding instances total on (1) Fermi, with each instance being processed on 32 Cores.

ok i will explain a gpu from the bottom up. they are made up of alu's and fpu's which stand for arithmetic logic unit and floating point unit. a streaming processor now known as a cuda core has an alu and a fpu. there are 240 in gt200 and 512 in fermi.the units are not independent. they cant do anything by just themselves. these operate on multiple parts of a calculation at once. take for example ray tracing. each shader aka streaming processor could work on individual pixels at the same time. 8 stream processors are together to make a SIMD unit also called a streaming multiprocessor. there are 30 SM's and 8 stream processors in each of them for a total of 240. the SM's are then grouped in 3's to form a tpc or thread processing cluster. fermi does not have tpc's.

here is an overview of gt200. they have one on fermi now if you would like to read that too.
http://www.dspvlsi.uniroma2.it/corsi...IDIA_GT200.pdf

Good info...

Same question: So, how many GPU folding instances could (1) Fermi load up in theory?

fahman's original post says 1 GPU3 client per cluster, per card. So that would be 32 (since it has 32 clusters, each having 16 shaders). His post suggests that there are other configurations, but he said that is the only way he was able to get 100% load

He said he couldn't get the 7th card fully loaded, that's why he only has 200 (it should be 224)

But who knows if any of this is true?

Thank you!!! :)

It seems like awful specific info, for a guy that is just making the entire story up, doesn't it? :p:

32 instances x 7 Fermi = 224 GPU Folding instances, and probably about 1 or 2 CPU folding instances, for a total of about 226. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

He is folding on over 200 processors. there is no way that is fermi. its just gpu3 beta. 31 gpu's and an i7. g80 and up are MIMD arrays of SIMDs. it sounds like it is a current gpu because he is getting 700 points per SM. that sounds like g92. i find it ironic that if there are 248 active cpus that means exactly 31 gpu's.

---

226 and 248 are pretty darn close. :up:
22 might have just went to never-never land, while he was getting set up.

Looking here: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...sername=FahMan
Active clients (within 7 days) = 228

That would be 7 Fermi * 32 instances + 4 CPU clients running... (Looks correct to me.) ;)


More thoughts: Each Fermi needed to have 32 folding instances loaded up on each GPU, to ensure it was working at 100% of it's capacity.

Each of the 32 folding instances get 16 Fermi shaders to calculate on, and must produce about 1,800 PPD. (1800 X 32 = Fermi's 57,600 PPD)

On g92, (1) GTX 275 produces 9K a day...
9K PPD / 240 Shaders = 37.5 Points per Shader, per Day.
37.5 PPS X 16 g92 Shaders = is only 600 PPD.

If 1 Fermi shader is 3 X as fast as a g92 shader when folding...
16 Fermi shaders would produce 1,800 PPD.
32 Folding instances, running 1 per cluster on (1)Fermi = 57,600 PPD

This all comes down to if you think Fermi's new shaders, with their memory cashes and better calculation speed, can be 3 X as fast as a g92 shader at folding.

If you believe they can be, then 32 folding instances running on (1) Fermi, with each instance being processed on 16 (New improved) shaders = 57,600 PPD.

I see no reason why Fermi couldn't have a 3 X jump in shader speed over g92 when folding.

FahMan was telling the truth, and has the PPD to back it up! :)
http://piro.pirocast.net/badge/nvidi...255/477950.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Thank you!!! :)

It seems like awful specific info, for a guy that is just making the entire story up, doesn't it? :p:

32 instances x 7 Fermi = 224 GPU Folding instances, and probably about 1 or 2 CPU folding instances, for a total of about 226. :clap:



226 and 248 are pretty darn close. :up:
22 might have just went to never-never land, while he was getting set up.

Looking here: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...sername=FahMan
Active clients (within 7 days) = 228

That would be 7 Fermi * 32 instances + 4 CPU clients running... (Looks correct to me.) ;)


More thoughts: Each Fermi needed to have 32 folding instances loaded up on each GPU, to ensure it was working at 100% of it's capacity.

Each of the 32 folding instances get 16 Fermi shaders to calculate on, and must produce about 1,800 PPD. (1800 X 32 = Fermi's 57,600 PPD)

On g92, (1) GTX 275 produces 9K a day...
9K PPD / 240 Shaders = 37.5 Points per Shader, per Day.
37.5 PPS X 16 g92 Shaders = is only 600 PPD.

If 1 Fermi shader is 3 X as fast as a g92 shader when folding...
16 Fermi shaders would produce 1,800 PPD.
32 Folding instances, running 1 per cluster on (1)Fermi = 57,600 PPD

This all comes down to if you think Fermi's new shaders, with their memory cashes and better calculation speed, can be 3 X as fast as a g92 shader at folding.

If you believe they can be, then 32 folding instances running on (1) Fermi, with each instance being processed on 16 (New improved) shaders = 57,600 PPD.

I see no reason why Fermi couldn't have a 3 X jump in shader speed over g92 when folding.

FahMan was telling the truth, and has the PPD to back it up! :)

---

It's possible he's telling the truth, but again, you can't compare GPU2 to GPU3 results. Apples and oranges. e.g. What if a G92 produced 20K PPD on GPU3? Who knows? Even fahman says in his original post GPU3 is more efficient... It's like comparing 3dmark03 to 3dmark vantage and trying to measure "points" between them. You need consistency and the same methodology for a "benchmark."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

It seems like awful specific info, for a guy that is just making the entire story up, doesn't it? :p:

---

yes it adds up nicely, because you can easily fabricate something like it. going backwards from x clients (which is the only verifiable number), you use nice numbers to calculate the number of cards you need, the remainder you write off as cpu folding cores, problem solved.

example: it says i have 391 (totally random number i just picked) clients, i know fermi has 512 shaders, so why not say .. i used .. 12 cards in 3 systems, i ran 32 instances on each gpu, thats 32*12 = 384 clients, 7 are missing, i now claim i ran three cpu clients on two systems (i have quad cores in these), and one cpu client on the 3rd system (it has only a dual core) that's 7 .. woot 391 clients ... un-:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing-believable how all this fermi info adds up

Quote:

---

I see no reason why Fermi couldn't have a 3 X jump in shader speed over g92 when folding.

---

so you think it is probable that nvidia made a gpu that has 3x the performance _per_ shader, managed to put over twice the amount of these wonder shaders into a 40 nm gpu die and got 7 actual working gpus back from tsmc to give to some random dude for folding? also try to work with the 2.4kw he posted for the ppd delivered, work out performance per watt for these cards, also work out power draw for one of these cards

Logistics make me side with W1zzard.... if this guy has a Fermi farm then he is

A/ very very important to nVidia yet somehow we've never knowingly heard of him before

B/ nV are taking GPU crunching very very very seriously if F@H is the first Fermi info leaked

C/ soooooo many other rumours and logical conclusions are false. If nV are in a position to give 5 Fermi to 1 guy, the validation is done, the silicon is probably final, the drivers are in the zone and they have enough stock to be able to get all these things done.

Flies right in the face of "that mock-up card" of a few weeks ago. iF nV could put a real card in their leaders hands for that demo, they would have.




As long as his F@H PPD are real and useful to Stanford, then Im not so fussed :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

It's possible he's telling the truth, but again, you can't compare GPU2 to GPU3 results. Apples and oranges. e.g. What if a G92 produced 20K PPD on GPU3? Who knows? Even fahman says in his original post GPU3 is more efficient... It's like comparing 3dmark03 to 3dmark vantage and trying to measure "points" between them. You need consistency and the same methodology for a "benchmark."

---

I can't speak to that. My real interest was Fermi, not the BETA client. My gut tells me the BETA GPU folding client wont make things run that much faster per instance. The real goal is probably to be able to load up more instances to keep Fermi working near capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

yes it adds up nicely, because you can easily fabricate something like it. going backwards from x clients (which is the only verifiable number), you use nice numbers to calculate the number of cards you need, the remainder you write off as cpu folding cores, problem solved.

example: it says i have 391 (totally random number i just picked) clients, i know fermi has 512 shaders, so why not say .. i used .. 12 cards in 3 systems, i ran 32 instances on each gpu, thats 32*12 = 384 clients, 7 are missing, i now claim i ran three cpu clients on two systems (i have quad cores in these), and one cpu client on the 3rd system (it has only a dual core) that's 7 .. woot 391 clients ... un-:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing-believable how all this fermi info adds up


so you think it is probable that nvidia made a gpu that has 3x the performance _per_ shader, managed to put over twice the amount of these wonder shaders into a 40 nm gpu die and got 7 actual working gpus back from tsmc to give to some random dude for folding? also try to work with the 2.4kw he posted for the ppd delivered, work out performance per watt for these cards, also work out power draw for one of these cards

---

But remember, we are just looking to see if his story fits...

It does, quite well in fact.

Maybe he actually has 200+ CPU's that produce 382K a day, and is just trying to lie about it? :shrug: Naaaaaa

I think it is much more likely that the dude has 7 Fermi engineering samples, just like he posted.

If you are an average guy making a story up, you wouldn't even think about the specifics on how Fermi needed to be loaded up. Probably wouldn't even know. Also probably wouldn't know about the BETA GPU folding client. :)
A true Fermi owner would know though...

"so you think it is probable that nvidia made a gpu that has 3x the performance _per_ shader, managed to put over twice the amount of these wonder shaders into a 40 nm gpu die and got 7 actual working gpus back from tsmc to give to some random dude for folding?" YES.

(They have way more than 7 too... Count on it)
If I remember correctly, nVidia already verified they had more than 7 Fermi. But then again, you could say they lie too?

The attitude that the entire world is lying is hard to defend. ;)

All I can say is his number of active folding clients, fits his story... :yepp:
His specificks on how you would have to load up Fermi, rings true... :yepp:
and his incredible PPD generated, also reflects a Fermi possibility... :yepp:

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He is a folding legend. On that, we have no dispute. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

But remember, we are just looking to see if his story fits...

It does, quite well in fact.

---

It doesn't fit.:p:


It is not running GPU3 as it is a violation of Stanford EULA.
Someone with access to F@H database confirmed the number of clients, the type of clients and even the OS the machines are running on. Why would they make it up?

If by chance they were mistaken, you or someone else can ask for confirmation in their forum. Who knows, maybe Dr. Vijay Pande himself can either confirm or deny this.

Let's debunk this first since it is tangible.

Yes, let an official Stanford rep come forth.

I want to speak with him. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Yes, let an official Stanford rep come forth.

I want to speak with him. :)

---

No...

Start a thread here. http://foldingforum.org/viewforum.ph...07cd881a841db3

You wouldn't get any better audience than that to discuss Fermi folding power.

Message posted:

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.ph...115900#p115900

Re: GPU3 Client ATI Question.

Postby Talonman » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:04 pm
Yes!! :D

I am looking for conformation on what type of clients FahMan is running...

His active clients (within 7 days) = 228

That would be 7 Fermi * 32 instances + 4 CPU clients running... (Looks correct to me.)

I am officially requesting the breakdown of those 228 clients, both for Xtreme Systems, and for the mighty EVGA Folding team.

How many were CPU, and how many were GPU folding? Also, if he was running multiple instances of the BETA GPU folding client, could you tell at your end.
This thread keeps being referred to on the net, and I just hate to see the guy get a bad rep. Especially considering the massive amount of folding he is doing.

Talonman

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:50 pm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

Logistics make me side with W1zzard.... if this guy has a Fermi farm then he is

A/ very very important to nVidia yet somehow we've never knowingly heard of him before

---

you can never assume this...

do u think only the most well known people get stuff first?
because if u do, your very sadly mistaken, i get stuff b4 99 percent of the people on this forum and i bet most of u not in red dont know me.

im not gonna say if this is bs or not, as i am not sure myself.
i wanted to see what was out when i rebuild nadeshiko.

but dont ever use this stereotype to discredit someone. you'll get bit in the butt hard later. i gaurentee you, someone like me will pop out and go pwn!

One other question: Is folding mostly single precision or double precision calculations?

I noticed in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79mvSWRocq4

When calculating double precision...

The Tesla C1060 was getting 3.52 FPS, and 1.48 billion interactions per second.

But Fermi was getting 17.08 FPS, and 7.58 billion interactions per second.

That is about 5.1 X as fast on double precision calculations over Tesla.

FYI - I am getting a response from Stanford, and its not looking good so far.

folding is single precision.

Thanks...

I really don't know what to make out of these posts by Stanford.

by 7im » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:31 pm

I trust my source to be 100% accurate. In addition to the handful of SMP and GPU2 clients, he has close to 200 clients running the CPU client (and the average PPD output posted on the previous page matches this hardware list). The info was for all clients with the user name of fahman, so team info is irrelavant in this case. From what I could gather, the clients were all in the same location. But the information does not show on what kind of hardware these clients are running, just the client type. And in this case, it showed GPU2, unless he hacked together something with some OpenMM code to run under the GPU2 client, it doesn't appear to be GPU3. Note, since nobody knows what GPU3 looks like yet, I couldn't rule that out. However, GPU1 looked different from GPU2, and so GPU3 should look different also.

Either way, I pat the guy on the back for contributing with 200+ CPU clients, and would gladly shake his hand as they lead him out in front of the firing squad to be shot. If the post is true, he broke the trust of and agreements with so many development people it's not even funny. And if the post is false, it's just as bad if not worse. As I said before, nothing good comes from this kind of post.

It almost sound like there is a slim chance it could still be Fermi?


by toTOW » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:36 pm You really want to make me loose some time ... right I'll count his active CPUs (last 90 days) and list them by type :

Uniprocessor : 168
SMP : 25
GPU : 73
Total : 266

Well ... I think I didn't miss a lot :

Translation:
Uniprocessor (sloooow CPU client) : 168
SMP (high performance CPU client) : 25
GPU Clients: 73

Total : 266

I am still a FahMan fan, but don't know what to think any more. I will just let this drop, and hope we get to speak to the man some day again.

73 gpu's? damn the best we have is jackofall and dak. jackofall has around 12 295's and dak has ~25ish assorted gpu's. thats equal to their f@h ppd together.

:D
What kind of a system is that, if:

"From what I could gather, the clients were all in the same location."

That does mean one machine, or one building?

I'd say same IP address.

So the question is, what has 193 CPU's or more, with 1 IP address?

Just for some more info on FahMan:

Last Post 10/11/2009 11:21:52 AM
Last Login 10/15/2009 3:34:00 AM

The man has not been back to EVGA's site after the 15th, but is still folding like a champ...

I keep thinking he was told to stop posting due to NDA?

I also think that it's odd that if was just playing a joke about Fermi, that he wouldn't be back to stir things up again with at least 1 more comment.

1 post and then nothing, when all the excitement was starting to be generated is telling in itself.

I still don't know what to make of his post for sure, but if he hijacked some school's PC's, they have now let him have all their PC's for about 16 days in a row so far!! ;)
(And, they all have the same IP address.)

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...hp?s=&u=477950

http://piro.pirocast.net/badge/nvidi...255/477950.png

Come back FahMan. :up:

Quote:

---

ORIGINAL: FahMan

Hi Folks!
Thanks for your interesting in my humble contribution in team EVGA.
Some of you wanted to know about my hardware so please check:

www.fahmanfolding.webs.com

As you can see on photos this single PC is able to produce more then 200kppd (around 250 with extreme overclocking).

---

BTW - Anybody have any pull with this site provider?
http://www.fahmanfolding.webs.com/

I would love to know if indeed pictures of his setup were posted, then deleted, or if no content was ever uploaded to his page at all...
(They might even actually be still uploaded at that site, with the page just disabled?)
It sure would be fun to see a picture. :)

out of curiosity... how many people even posting here is able to afford a GTX300 series when they come out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

out of curiosity... how many people even posting here is able to afford a GTX300 series when they come out?

---

Depends on how much nvidia is charging for them and do you mean "can afford" or "will afford"? :p

out of curiosity who thinks Talonman deserved to be banned from the news section?

i do
i do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

So the question is, what has 193 CPU's or more, with 1 IP address?

---

any corporate network using an internet gateway

Thanks for the info. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangracin3

out of curiosity who thinks Talonman deserved to be banned from the news section?

i do
i do

---

You managed to not add anything to the thread, and break the forum's rules, all in one post... :shakes:


1. Absolutely NO personal attacks.
Flaming or inciting flaming (also known as flame baiting) will not be tolerated, no exceptions. This includes references to bodily harm/violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangracin3

out of curiosity who thinks Talonman deserved to be banned from the news section?

i do
i do

---

( puts on mod hat)
I was pointed at your post by 4 different people.
This wasn't called for in any way from what I read in the thread.
I think I can nicely say that you owe him an apology.

hugh what happened?? why would they ban anybody from the News section?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

( puts on mod hat)
I was pointed at your post by 4 different people.
This wasn't called for in any way from what I read in the thread.
I think I can nicely say that you owe him an apology.

---

Good to know I have a few friends around... :up:

That wasn't friendship, that was law. From what I've heard all of Dave's friends are deaf :ROTF:

In other words , any real benchies or real info on high end fermi yet ???