[QUOTE=ET_;367470]Is v0.21 still in beta?

Luigi[/QUOTE]

Yes... sorry!

[QUOTE=TheJudger;367461]CUDA 6.0-rc reveals compute capability 3.[B]2[/B] which supports [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=363167&postcount=2294"]funnel shift[/URL], too. :smile:
CUDA 5.5 doesn't know 3.2 (while it knows 3.0 and 3.5).
[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting that some places reference a cc3.2. The latest nvidia driver refers instead to cc3.7, but has no mention of cc3.2!

[CODE]strings /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcuda.so.334.16 |grep CUDA_ARCH
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=100
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=110
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=120
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=130
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=200
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=210
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=300
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=350
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=370
-D__CUDA_ARCH__=500[/CODE][QUOTE=TheJudger;367461]I'm curious about Maxwell chips (currently only available on GTX 750 (Ti))...

Oliver[/QUOTE]

I have a 750Ti. So far doesn't seem that interesting... It's slower than both GTX 460 and GTX 660. deviceQuery doesn't show any differences besides what's been mentioned in various places:

[FONT=Verdana]CUDA Capability Major/Minor version number: [B]5.0[/B]
( 5) Multiprocessors, [B](128) CUDA Cores/MP[/B]: 640 CUDA Cores
Memory Bus Width: [B]128-bit[/B]
L2 Cache Size: [B] 2097152[/B] bytes[/FONT]

[QUOTE=aaronhaviland;367626]I have a 750Ti. So far doesn't seem that interesting... It's slower than both GTX 460 and GTX 660. deviceQuery doesn't show any differences besides what's been mentioned in various places:[/QUOTE]
750 Ti is a 60w part. 460/560/660 etc are 140-150w parts. Just sayin'.

[QUOTE=aaronhaviland;367626]I have a 750Ti. So far doesn't seem that interesting... It's slower than both GTX 460 and GTX 660.[/QUOTE]What is your mfaktc performance like? My [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php]benchmark chart[/url] predicts around 123GHz-days/day @ 1020MHz, does that sound about right? If you have the chance, please send me a benchmark result:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark[/url]

[QUOTE=axn;367631]750 Ti is a 60w part. 460/560/660 etc are 140-150w parts. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]

Also 750 ti is 28nm Maxwell. 460/560/660 is not. Maxwell has a lot of power saving features.

[QUOTE=axn;367631]750 Ti is a 60w part. 460/560/660 etc are 140-150w parts. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]750 Ti should be about 2.053 GHz-days/day per watt
560 Ti = 1.389 GHd/w
660 Ti = 1.547 GHd/w

We've certainly come a ways, compare to my 8800 GT (still running) which gets 0.288 GHd/w :sad:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;367634]750 Ti should be about 2.053 GHz-days/day per watt
560 Ti = 1.389 GHd/w
660 Ti = 1.547 GHd/w

We've certainly come a ways, compare to my 8800 GT (still running) which gets 0.288 GHd/w :sad:[/QUOTE]

105W with only 36 GHz? Damn. :razz:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;367632]What is your mfaktc performance like? My [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]benchmark chart[/URL] predicts around 123GHz-days/day @ 1020MHz, does that sound about right? If you have the chance, please send me a benchmark result:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark[/URL][/QUOTE]

Well, this card is running at higher clocks: nvidia-settings reports 1346MHz (and 85W according to EVGA), and mfaktc is showing ~177GHz-days/day. Which is interesting, as the card is only supposed to boost up to 1268MHz...
[URL]http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-3757-KR[/URL]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;367634]750 Ti should be about 2.053 GHz-days/day per watt[/QUOTE]
Pretty good estimate. 2.089GHz-days/day/W

[QUOTE=aaronhaviland;367640]Well, this card is running at higher clocks: nvidia-settings reports 1346MHz (and 85W according to EVGA), and mfaktc is showing ~177GHz-days/day.[/QUOTE]That is more performance than expected, even when scaled for clock speed. A more detailed benchmark would be appreciated:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark[/url]

[QUOTE=kracker]is it possible to have line graphs for your GPU benchmarks? (being a heavy visual user myself...)[/QUOTE]I can do that. Have done that now, in fact:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php[/url]

The graph changes depending on the sort order of the page.

Unfortunately graphing a few hundred results makes the page a bit slower to load than it was. Please let me know if it causes any problems.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;367646]A more detailed benchmark would be appreciated:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark[/URL][/QUOTE]
Already submitted... but on linux, so I can't give you a GPU-Z screenshot. I used M213685897 for the benchmark.