Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: RC5 key rates...?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    RC5 key rates...?

    Could we get some 'key rate' info from those that have run RC5 CUDA..?

    Include :

    GPU description
    OS
    which 'core' you are running
    key rate

    and/or a '-bench' output...

    My info:
    9800GX2
    Linux 64
    Core 9
    585 M/keys/s

    Thanks
    Logic is the art of being wrong with confidence.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mid-Michigan
    Posts
    756
    9800GTX+
    windows 64
    core 9
    340 Mkeys/s


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5,642
    8800GT
    Linux Ubuntu 8.10 (64 bit)
    Core 9
    278 Mkeys / sec


  4. #4
    Zotac 8800GT AMP Edition
    windows XP SP3
    core 9
    335 Mkeys/s

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5,642
    Quote Originally Posted by [NGS]Cpt00Kirk View Post
    Zotac 8800GT AMP Edition
    windows XP SP3
    core 9
    335 Mkeys/s
    Wow that's better than 20 percent higher. Nice going [NGS]Cpt00Kirk.

    I'd better take a look at why that is and as Captain Jean-Luc Picard says to Number One: 'Make it so'.


  6. #6
    AMDave's Avatar
    AMDave is offline Seeker of the exit clause Moderator
    Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Deep in a while loop
    Posts
    9,609
    9600GT
    Linux Ubuntu 8.10 (64 bit)
    Core #0 1-pipe (previous version)
    170 Mkeys / sec (previous version)

    (previous version - something has gone haywire - I cannot run the bench with the last client - getting fatal errors now - possibly a driver config issue - I mess with stuff a lot - I think the key rate was about 173 to 175 Mkeys/sec before it went phut! - working on a fix will post new bench if I can)
    . . . . . ___
    . . . . . . .\___/\______
    . . . . . . . \__AMD___\\__
    ---------------------------------------------

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    1,379
    @AmDave...I know. These rates are just ballpark numbers. Due to the changes from the first client to the one that just expired. I just wanted to get some of this down for basic information.

    The next client should provide different rates (faster we hope..).
    Logic is the art of being wrong with confidence.


  8. #8
    AMDave's Avatar
    AMDave is offline Seeker of the exit clause Moderator
    Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Deep in a while loop
    Posts
    9,609
    [Jan 23 12:03:53 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:04:12 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (CUDA 1-pipe 128-thd)
    0.00:00:16.19 [172,894,645 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:04:12 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:04:30 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (CUDA 2-pipe 64-thd)
    0.00:00:16.17 [174,743,283 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:04:30 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:04:50 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd)
    0.00:00:16.93 [173,218,809 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:04:50 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:05:09 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (CUDA 1-pipe 256-thd)
    0.00:00:16.85 [169,830,487 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:05:09 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:05:29 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (CUDA 2-pipe 128-thd)
    0.00:00:16.85 [143,337,669 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:05:29 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us).
    [Jan 23 12:05:48 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep 100us)
    0.00:00:16.98 [172,703,159 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:05:48 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic).
    [Jan 23 12:06:07 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd sleep dynamic)
    0.00:00:16.93 [173,240,612 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:06:07 UTC] RC5-72: using core #7 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait).
    [Jan 23 12:06:27 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #7 (CUDA 1-pipe 64-thd busy wait)
    0.00:00:16.93 [173,161,770 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:06:27 UTC] RC5-72: using core #9 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:06:46 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #9 (CUDA 4-pipe 64-thd)
    0.00:00:16.42 [174,584,661 keys/sec]
    [Jan 23 12:06:46 UTC] RC5-72: using core #10 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd).
    [Jan 23 12:07:04 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #10 (CUDA 4-pipe 128-thd)
    0.00:00:16.49 [147,781,319 keys/sec]
    . . . . . ___
    . . . . . . .\___/\______
    . . . . . . . \__AMD___\\__
    ---------------------------------------------

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    1,379
    The reason these are just 'ballpark' information is due to the different 'key rates' reported in the client.

    There are actually 3 different 'key rates'.

    The rate reported by the -bench test. (this should be close to your unit completion time). This is a good estimate of your GPU throughput and is used by the client to select which 'core' (the fastest we hope..) to use.

    The 'key rate' completion time you see listed when each unit is completed.
    and...

    The 'key rate average' that reports your running 'average' completion rate. This is usually lower than your actual completion rate.
    Logic is the art of being wrong with confidence.


  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by vaughan View Post
    Wow that's better than 20 percent higher. Nice going [NGS]Cpt00Kirk.

    I'd better take a look at why that is and as Captain Jean-Luc Picard says to Number One: 'Make it so'.
    its a factory standard overclock card : http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/126...ion/index.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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