mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Software (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   PRP versus LL first tests for Prime95 / impact on GPU factoring (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24415)

Thecmaster 2019-05-19 09:47

One thing you need to know about 1650. That card comes without rtx core. 1660 and up have rtx core. So if the rtx is part of the performance boost of the new nvidia cards.

Gaming benchmarks shows it's somewhere between 1050ti and 1060

I would go for a 1660 or 1660ti. With those you got batter bang for the money.

axn 2019-05-19 13:28

I believe the 1660s also lack RTX cores (aka Ray Tracing), hence they are called GTX. Don't quote me on it, though.

I would really like somebody to take one for the team, and test out a 1650 on TF. It could turn out to be the most value for money for this workload.

Thecmaster 2019-05-19 14:43

[QUOTE=axn;517137]I believe the 1660s also lack RTX cores (aka Ray Tracing), hence they are called GTX. Don't quote me on it, though.

I would really like somebody to take one for the team, and test out a 1650 on TF. It could turn out to be the most value for money for this workload.[/QUOTE]
RT
Ooooh. Yeah. After some more reading I got it wrong. 1660 supports ray tracing but without RT cores.

However 1650 is about 30% less performance than 1060 and 30% more than 1050. So to build a new system it can absolutely be a good choise with the 1650. But to upgrade from 1050 I would go for 1660.
1660 =200$ for 100% more performance
1650= 130-140 for 30% more performance

Sry for misinformation in the last post. 1660 don't have rt cores.

nomead 2019-05-19 14:55

[QUOTE=Thecmaster;517130]Gaming benchmarks shows it's somewhere between 1050ti and 1060[/QUOTE]

In this case, gaming benchmarks are completely irrelevant because of architectural improvements between Pascal (GTX10) and Turing (GTX16 / RTX20) cards. The 1650 has about 46% of the CUDA cores of the 2060, and in factoring use, the slower memory doesn't matter. So a rough guesstimate would give about 750-800 GHzd/day depending on the clock speed. If it's the 75W version without a PCIe power connector, it probably won't go that high, possibly closer to 700. Still, that would put it in GTX 1070 territory, but just for this one workload (mfaktc).

Thecmaster 2019-05-19 20:42

[QUOTE=nomead;517147]In this case, gaming benchmarks are completely irrelevant because of architectural improvements between Pascal (GTX10) and Turing (GTX16 / RTX20) cards. The 1650 has about 46% of the CUDA cores of the 2060, and in factoring use, the slower memory doesn't matter. So a rough guesstimate would give about 750-800 GHzd/day depending on the clock speed. If it's the 75W version without a PCIe power connector, it probably won't go that high, possibly closer to 700. Still, that would put it in GTX 1070 territory, but just for this one workload (mfaktc).[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I know gaming don't have anything to do with this. It's just to compare different cards.

For what I can read the 1660ti does perform for tf as the 1070. Not the 1650. The 1650 have 900 CUDA cores the 1660 have 1400 and the 1660ti have around 1500.

The gaming benchmarks shows the performance difference between cards and it is roughly the same difference as it performs in TF.

1650 is the worst card Nvidia have released ever. And as I wrote. If you want to upgrade from 1050 go with the 1660.

nomead 2019-05-20 01:55

Well, going by the numbers posted in the [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=515784&postcount=8"]GTX 1660 Ti thread[/URL] and the benchmarks listed on [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]mersenne.ca[/URL], the 1660Ti is above the 1080Ti in factoring performance, _not_ like the 1070. I don't have any actual GTX10-series hardware to test on, so I have to trust these posted benchmark tables. But if you have different information about them, please tell.

The CUDA cores are not the same in Turing anymore. Pascal only had a single clock INT16 multiply and INT32 was several operations. Now Turing has a single clock INT32 multiply and that's why trial factoring, as done with mfaktc, is so much faster.

wfgarnett3 2019-05-27 05:32

When you go to Test-->Status for my PRP test for my M85XXXXXX exponent, is it my imagination that the probability for "The chance that your exponent you are testing will yield a Mersenne prime is about 1 in ......." is significantly worse then when I did a first time LL in the previous version of the software?

If I am not imagining things, why is it?

moebius 2019-05-27 23:17

[QUOTE=nomead;517211]Well, going by the numbers posted in the [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=515784&postcount=8"]GTX 1660 Ti thread[/URL]
......[/QUOTE]




And what about LL-performance with CUDALucas? Is the GTX 1070 faster or the GTX 1660TI?

nomead 2019-05-28 01:47

[QUOTE=moebius;517916]And what about LL-performance with CUDALucas? Is the GTX 1070 faster or the GTX 1660TI?[/QUOTE]

Well, we were talking about GPU factoring...

But in the case of CUDALucas, there is no magic rabbit to pull out of the hat for the Turing architecture. FP64 performance is what it is, sorely lacking.

Just guessing, in CUDALucas, the GTX 1070 should be about 20% faster than the GTX 1660 Ti. There's 25% more cores on the 1070, but the 1660Ti can probably run at a somewhat higher clock speed. Both architectures have the same ratio of FP64 to FP32 execution units, though.

petrw1 2019-05-28 03:38

Are there any plans to update the Math page to cover PRP?

At the risk of taking the GIMPS walk of shame (I really don't know how PRP works), if PRP is being considered to replace LL why are we running PRP on exponents already LL/DC'd?

As a thorough test of PRP?
To see which have more factors?
Other?

wfgarnett3 2019-05-28 03:44

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- The PRP test on M85XXXXXX I am doing now is a first time test.

I was referring to my last LL first time test on a completely different M85XXXXXX.

If in both cases they are first time tests why is the probability stated in Prime95 of the exponent being a Mersenne prime significantly worse with PRP than LL?


All times are UTC. The time now is 18:22.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.