MMM
Results 1 to 25 of 815

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by SquattingDog View Post
    Thought it was worth having a look at other machines too, not just i7 and dual-socket beasts
    I like that attitude. I haven't seen a P4 in a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by SquattingDog View Post
    The 5200+ cannot complete validation - may not be stable, need to test and tune that a little more lol.
    It's probably a bug in the validation itself - probably being too aggressive with anti-cheat protection. But unless I can reproduce that on a machine that I have access to, I can't fix it.

    Hardware errors don't give that message.

    When a hardware error occurs, one of 4 things can happen:
    1. Crash or BSOD - just to state the obvious...
    2. y-cruncher catches the error, corrects it, and moves on. Validation will still fail. (see picture below)
    3. y-cruncher catches the error, is unable to correct it, and prints an error message.
    4. y-cruncher does not catch the error, and it tells you that the digits don't match at the end.


    When y-cruncher catches and corrects an error, it will look like this:

    If you're curious, this screenshot was generated by intentionally introducing an error into the computation via the source code.
    I don't have access to any unstable machines, and most hardware errors usually end with a BSOD.
    So no, this feature hasn't actually been "truely" tested before.

    The sanity check error that it gave you can (but not always) show up under the following circumstances:
    1. Either the system clock or the BIOS clock has been tampered during the computation.
    2. The program has detected an abnormal frequency* - possibly caused by time-slowing cheats.
    3. The binary has been tampered with.
    4. The base clock or the FSB has been tampered with.**


    *Note that speed-step and any CPU throttling/power-saving feature does NOT trigger this. (I've made sure of that.)
    **This is an unwanted side-effect of the anti-cheat protection. As a result, SetFSB and similar tools may not work as they may trigger a sanity check error.

    It is VERY possible that there are other "legit" things that could set off a sanity check error.
    I've fixed all the things I know of that I could reproduce on my machines. But I don't have a lot of machines to play with, so it's very likely that it's still buggy.
    Last edited by poke349; 07-15-2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason: grammar fix, added info
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by poke349 View Post
    It's probably a bug in the validation itself - probably being too aggressive with anti-cheat protection. But unless I can reproduce that on a machine that I have access to, I can't fix it.

    Hardware errors don't give that message.

    When a hardware error occurs, one of 4 things can happen:
    1. Crash or BSOD - just to state the obvious...
    2. y-cruncher catches the error, corrects it, and moves on. Validation will still fail. (see picture below)
    3. y-cruncher catches the error, is unable to correct it, and prints an error message.
    4. y-cruncher does not catch the error, and it tells you that the digits don't match at the end.


    The sanity check error that it gave you can (but not always) show up under the following circumstances:
    1. Either the system clock or the BIOS clock has been tampered during the computation.
    2. The program has detected an abnormal frequency* - possibly caused by time-slowing cheats.
    3. The binary has been tampered with.
    4. The base clock or the FSB has been tampered with.**


    *Note that speed-step and any CPU throttling/power-saving feature does NOT trigger this. (I've made sure of that.)
    **This is an unwanted side-effect of the anti-cheat protection. As a result, SetFSB and similar tools may not work as they may trigger a sanity check error.
    That 5200+ machine has been priming all night, and is still going with no issues. I had also passed LinPack (OCCT) and other stress-tests run on it, so it certainly appears to be stable.

    I have just run this on my netbook again @ 2.08GHz, and it runs a LOT quicker, but I get the validation error as SetFSB is used to overclock. I will post the results later, at work on a dumb-terminal atm so cant.

    Thanks for putting the time an effort into making a great program, I will continue to use this as my benchmark for speed of CPUs/OCs

  3. #3
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoss331 View Post
    Wow... 4.46GHz. On air? water?

    EDIT: I just noticed that your old entry was clocked higher. What did you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by SquattingDog View Post
    Thanks for putting the time an effort into making a great program, I will continue to use this as my benchmark for speed of CPUs/OCs
    Thanks for the complement.

    The program was actually originally written for an entirely different purpose. After that was done, I realized that it could make a decent multi-threaded Pi benchmark. So I added the benchmarking features just for that purpose (though I'm incompetent in this area of programming so the benchmarking validation stuff is still very buggy).
    Last edited by poke349; 07-16-2009 at 01:58 PM.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by poke349 View Post
    Wow... 4.46GHz. On air? water?

    EDIT: I just noticed that your old entry was clocked higher. What did you change?
    The old run was done on air and slower ram. Im on water now with LV blades which are faster and also have better timings. This is my daily clock now mainly to keep the ram where I want it but it can go alot higher if needed, chip can do 5ghz.

    50
    Last edited by Hoss331; 07-16-2009 at 03:13 PM.
    Q9650

    2600k

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •