[QUOTE=ewmayer;333214]Based on all the tests done to date, what is the error rate?[/QUOTE]
Unknown. Some people do "in house" double checks before reporting CL results, and "spidering" won't help. I have about 10% error rate for the tests I do. I never counted exactly, but I still remember Feb-March 2012, when CuLu changed to non-power-of-2 FFT and the intermediary versions used to give [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=1&exp_hi=1000000000&exp_date=&user_only=1&user_id=LaurV&exdchk=1&exfirst=1&txt=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data"]wrong residues[/URL], after that date I always run two copies of CuLu in two different cards, and maybe with two different FFT sizes, and report the result only if I have a match. This is still faster than using P95 in the loop, and anyhow it will need a third party to do the DC. So, the results reported to the server are not relevant. Also, if someone only do DCLL, they won't report mismatching results, and they will TC first.

For me, running in parallel allows me to catch the error in the earliest phase, and save the time which would be wasted if the test is allowed to finish. When I have two non matching residues, I re-do both from the last saving.

From my experience, with overclocking (water cooled) the errors are around 10%, maybe more. Without overclocking the value is much lower, maybe 2% or so, but I am still not confident enough to giveup "in-house double checking".

The 10% can look a lot, but you have to think about the fact that if you test 10 exponents of 50M, then you do 500M iterations, and if only one iteration in those 500M is wrong, you got one of your 10 expos wrong, so here is your 10%.

There is no mystery into it. For me the real mystery is how P95 (and the CPUs in general) can do 500 MILLIONS iterations, without getting any of them wrong....

I am running DC and LL on my cards. Since I started, I only had 3 non-matching results, two of them were subsequently found correct.

Luigi

[QUOTE=nucleon;333244]Another Titan double check match.

Processing result: M( 29325073 )C, 0x23c2d7bc0d08e8d4, n = 1835008, CUDALucas v2.03
LL test successfully completes double-check of M29325073
CPU credit is 29.1622 GHz-days.

To me looks like underclocking the RAM did the trick.

The hard part now is to work out the most efficient use of this card.

-- Craig[/QUOTE]

What options do you have for RAM clocking? Max is 6.008 Ghz? (According to the review articles):
[QUOTE]Memory Clock 6.008GHz GDDR5[/QUOTE]

2500 Mhz now seems stable, have you tested the stability of anything between those?

[QUOTE=ATH;333289]What options do you have for RAM clocking? Max is 6.008 Ghz? (According to the review articles):


2500 Mhz now seems stable, have you tested the stability of anything between those?[/QUOTE]

It seems I can adjust in roughly 1MHz increments. The 2500 figure is based on a starting figure of 3000MHz. I guess the app I used measures the clock waveform, and the 6000MHz figure is the sexed-up DDR figure.

The reduction in performance was about 10+% ish. Given it takes a long time to verify stability, as LL double checks seem to be the only reliable way to verify. I'm too lazy to fiddle to optimize ram speed. (It's going to take a while :) )

-- Craig

2900 mhz produces errors (3.1ms per I M48)
2750mhz seems stable for now (3,35ms per I M48)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;333214]Based on all the tests done to date, what is the error rate?[/QUOTE]
I'm using older cards that are not over clocked, but in what must now be well over 100 tests, I've had one known bad result. That's under a 1% error rate.

[QUOTE=Redarm;333320]2900 mhz produces errors (3.1ms per I M48)
2750mhz seems stable for now (3,35ms per I M48)[/QUOTE]

Ok, so 2500mhz is pretty close to the unstable crossover. Wierd that these benchmark programs showed no errors.

[QUOTE=nucleon;332311]Doing further testing...

Furmark - no issues
MemtestG80 - no issues
occt - no issues [/QUOTE]

found a way to find errors produced by vram
instructions coming soon ... (memtestg80 is essential)

100M
 

[QUOTE=Redarm;333193]2000h[/QUOTE]
2500MHz VRAM = 2070h:
[CODE]E:\Eigene Dateien\Computing\CUDALucas\2.03\D0>CUDALucas-2.03-5.0-sm_35-x64.exe -threads 512 -f 20971520 -t 332192831
Warning: No ini file detected. Using defaults for non-specified options.
Starting M332192831 fft length = 20971520
Iteration 10000 M( 332192831 )C, 0x7e591d0cbd938d73, n = 20971520, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0332 (3:44 real, 22.4112 ms/iter, ETA 2067:55:55)
Iteration 20000 M( 332192831 )C, 0xc2eda19e28f00bf4, n = 20971520, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0339 (3:44 real, 22.4587 ms/iter, ETA 2072:14:52)
Iteration 30000 M( 332192831 )C, 0x4e96b2da36fcce56, n = 20971520, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0352 (3:44 real, 22.4425 ms/iter, ETA 2070:41:49)[/CODE]No guarantee for the residues... ;-)

[QUOTE=Brain;333348]2500MHz VRAM = 2070h[/QUOTE]

Less than three months...

Nope. Still doesn't Make Sense[SUP](tm)[/SUP]....

[QUOTE=chalsall;333350]Less than three months...

Nope. Still doesn't Make Sense[SUP](tm)[/SUP]....[/QUOTE]

In one way it still makes sense to do them on CPU... I mean, 22 ms for a 30M exp.?? On a $1000 card?