What SIEVE_PRIMES are you using? - Page 3

CRGreathouse · 2012-07-25, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by TObject

Also try GIF; it beats JPEG when there aren't a lot of continuous tones in the picture.

Fixed that for you. Actually, PNG is better still in this case...

kracker · 2012-07-26, 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Fixed that for you. Actually, PNG is better still in this case...

PNG has excellent quality, but it tends to get big.

patrik · 2012-07-28, 10:26

I run two instances of mfaktc on a GTX 560 with four workers of mprime also running (on a Core i5 2500K). Then it runs with SievePrimes==5000. When I stop mprime, SievePrimes slowly increases to about 25000 until I start mprime again. (One instance of mfaktc shown below.)

Code:

    class | candidates |    time |    ETA | avg. rate | SievePrimes | CPU wait
  96/4620 |    721.16M |  6.546s |  1h42m | 110.17M/s |        5000 |    0.91%
 101/4620 |    721.16M |  6.542s |  1h42m | 110.24M/s |        5000 |    0.93%
 105/4620 |    721.16M |  6.578s |  1h42m | 109.63M/s |        5000 |    0.92%
 116/4620 |    721.16M |  6.466s |  1h40m | 111.53M/s |        5000 |    0.80%
 117/4620 |    721.16M |  6.557s |  1h42m | 109.98M/s |        5000 |    0.98%
 129/4620 |    721.16M |  6.460s |  1h40m | 111.63M/s |        5000 |    9.90%
 137/4620 |    712.90M |  6.326s |  1h38m | 112.69M/s |        5625 |   32.87%
 140/4620 |    704.64M |  6.217s |  1h36m | 113.34M/s |        6328 |   31.02%
 141/4620 |    696.39M |  6.290s |  1h37m | 110.71M/s |        7119 |   31.54%
 144/4620 |    688.13M |  6.155s |  1h35m | 111.80M/s |        8008 |   28.21%
 149/4620 |    680.79M |  6.117s |  1h34m | 111.29M/s |        9009 |   26.61%
 152/4620 |    672.53M |  5.984s |  1h32m | 112.39M/s |       10135 |   24.15%
 156/4620 |    665.19M |  5.870s |  1h30m | 113.32M/s |       11401 |   21.52%
 161/4620 |    657.85M |  5.831s |  1h30m | 112.82M/s |       12826 |   19.00%
 165/4620 |    650.51M |  5.730s |  1h28m | 113.53M/s |       14429 |   15.82%
 176/4620 |    644.09M |  5.683s |  1h27m | 113.34M/s |       16232 |   13.40%
 177/4620 |    636.75M |  5.632s |  1h26m | 113.06M/s |       18261 |   11.72%
 180/4620 |    630.33M |  5.557s |  1h25m | 113.43M/s |       20543 |    9.00%
 185/4620 |    623.90M |  5.544s |  1h25m | 112.54M/s |       23110 |    6.57%
 189/4620 |    617.48M |  5.413s |  1h23m | 114.07M/s |       25998 |    1.93%
    class | candidates |    time |    ETA | avg. rate | SievePrimes | CPU wait
 192/4620 |    624.82M |  5.570s |  1h25m | 112.18M/s |       22748 |    7.19%
 200/4620 |    618.40M |  5.477s |  1h23m | 112.91M/s |       25591 |    3.15%
 201/4620 |    618.40M |  5.430s |  1h22m | 113.89M/s |       25591 |    2.21%
 204/4620 |    618.40M |  5.495s |  1h23m | 112.54M/s |       25591 |    3.62%
 212/4620 |    618.40M |  5.449s |  1h23m | 113.49M/s |       25591 |    2.70%
 221/4620 |    618.40M |  5.436s |  1h22m | 113.76M/s |       25591 |    2.46%
 224/4620 |    618.40M |  5.452s |  1h22m | 113.43M/s |       25591 |    2.77%
 225/4620 |    618.40M |  5.437s |  1h22m | 113.74M/s |       25591 |    2.39%
 236/4620 |    618.40M |  5.420s |  1h22m | 114.10M/s |       25591 |    2.39%
 240/4620 |    618.40M |  5.447s |  1h22m | 113.53M/s |       25591 |    2.78%
 245/4620 |    618.40M |  5.468s |  1h22m | 113.09M/s |       25591 |    3.17%
 249/4620 |    618.40M |  5.476s |  1h22m | 112.93M/s |       25591 |    3.40%
 257/4620 |    618.40M |  5.430s |  1h22m | 113.89M/s |       25591 |    2.60%
 260/4620 |    618.40M |  5.481s |  1h22m | 112.83M/s |       25591 |    3.31%
 261/4620 |    618.40M |  5.466s |  1h22m | 113.14M/s |       25591 |    3.12%
 264/4620 |    618.40M |  5.416s |  1h21m | 114.18M/s |       25591 |    2.27%
 269/4620 |    618.40M |  5.431s |  1h21m | 113.86M/s |       25591 |    2.61%
 276/4620 |    618.40M |  5.423s |  1h21m | 114.03M/s |       25591 |    2.69%
 281/4620 |    618.40M |  5.460s |  1h21m | 113.26M/s |       25591 |    3.15%
 284/4620 |    618.40M |  5.442s |  1h21m | 113.63M/s |       25591 |    2.76%
    class | candidates |    time |    ETA | avg. rate | SievePrimes | CPU wait
 297/4620 |    618.40M |  5.424s |  1h21m | 114.01M/s |       25591 |    2.47%
 305/4620 |    618.40M |  5.502s |  1h22m | 112.40M/s |       25591 |    3.83%
 309/4620 |    618.40M |  5.458s |  1h21m | 113.30M/s |       25591 |    2.87%
 312/4620 |    618.40M |  5.515s |  1h22m | 112.13M/s |       25591 |    2.78%
 317/4620 |    618.40M |  5.782s |  1h26m | 106.95M/s |       25591 |    0.57%
 320/4620 |    625.74M |  8.418s |  2h05m |  74.33M/s |       22392 |    0.60%
 324/4620 |    633.08M |  7.911s |  1h57m |  80.02M/s |       19593 |    0.62%
 332/4620 |    640.42M |  7.762s |  1h55m |  82.51M/s |       17143 |    0.63%
 336/4620 |    648.68M |  7.675s |  1h53m |  84.52M/s |       15000 |    0.75%
 341/4620 |    656.93M |  7.385s |  1h49m |  88.96M/s |       13125 |    0.59%
 344/4620 |    665.19M |  7.307s |  1h48m |  91.03M/s |       11484 |    0.74%
 345/4620 |    673.45M |  7.173s |  1h46m |  93.89M/s |       10048 |    0.75%
 357/4620 |    681.71M |  7.105s |  1h45m |  95.95M/s |        8792 |    0.77%
 360/4620 |    690.88M |  6.871s |  1h41m | 100.55M/s |        7693 |    0.65%
 365/4620 |    700.06M |  6.856s |  1h41m | 102.11M/s |        6731 |    1.24%
 369/4620 |    709.23M |  6.672s |  1h38m | 106.30M/s |        5889 |    0.63%
 372/4620 |    719.32M |  6.563s |  1h36m | 109.60M/s |        5152 |    1.13%
 380/4620 |    721.16M |  6.514s |  1h35m | 110.71M/s |        5000 |    0.83%
 381/4620 |    721.16M |  6.499s |  1h35m | 110.96M/s |        5000 |    0.86%
 389/4620 |    721.16M |  6.524s |  1h35m | 110.54M/s |        5000 |    1.48%
    class | candidates |    time |    ETA | avg. rate | SievePrimes | CPU wait
 392/4620 |    721.16M |  6.544s |  1h35m | 110.20M/s |        5000 |    2.11%
 396/4620 |    721.16M |  6.516s |  1h35m | 110.67M/s |        5000 |    1.22%
 401/4620 |    721.16M |  6.520s |  1h35m | 110.61M/s |        5000 |    0.86%

NormanRKN · 2012-07-28, 11:00

it seems to by a memorybus bottleneck. i know that problem. here too with i7. try to reduce the cores of mprime step by step an show what mfaktc does. maybe monitor the gpu with gpu-z or another tool for perfomance.

Norman

bcp19 · 2012-07-28, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by NormanRKN

it seems to by a memorybus bottleneck. i know that problem. here too with i7. try to reduce the cores of mprime step by step an show what mfaktc does. maybe monitor the gpu with gpu-z or another tool for perfomance.

Norman

It's not a function of memory. It's a sharing of cores. Since there is less CPU processing available, less SP is sent to it.

henryzz · 2012-07-28, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp19

It's not a function of memory. It's a sharing of cores. Since there is less CPU processing available, less SP is sent to it.

Yes but I am assuming that prime95 is running at a lower priority so there shouldn't be much difference cpu-wise.

bcp19 · 2012-07-29, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by henryzz

Yes but I am assuming that prime95 is running at a lower priority so there shouldn't be much difference cpu-wise.

The simple fact that M/s climbs when mprime stops shows that the GPU is not running at it's full potential when both are running. Admittedly it's very minor (~1%), but is still there.

When I first had my 2500K running, I noticed 1 core nearly exactly matched a 560, so I had a second core use mfakto on a 5770 sharing with P95 (mainly cause without P95 SP was 200,000 and cpu wait was over 15%) The timings showed P95 was using over 20% of the core and the SP balanced aroung 60,000.

James Heinrich · 2012-07-31, 23:51

I actually have SievePrimes set to auto-adjust in the range 2000-10000, with a default of 5000; it rarely strays much from 5000 unless I'm doing a bunch of other work that spills onto mfaktc's cores, and even then only maybe down to 4500 or up to 6000.

Two instances of mfaktc, one GTX 570, locked to the first two physical cores of i7-3930K @4125MHz (the last 4 cores are doing P-1). GPU usage averages 95%.

kladner · 2012-08-01, 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

I actually have SievePrimes set to auto-adjust in the range 2000-10000, with a default of 5000.......

Pardon, James. is this possible in mfaktc v 0.18? If so, how?

Apologies if this has been covered before.

James Heinrich · 2012-08-01, 01:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

Pardon, James. is this possible in mfaktc v 0.18?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfaktc changelog

version 0.19-pre9 (2012-07-08)
... other stuff ...
- SievePrimesMin is lowered to 2000 (usually not very usefull but requested quiet often)

kladner · 2012-08-01, 03:25

Thanks!

2012-07-31, 23:51	#30
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 7×13×47 Posts	I actually have SievePrimes set to auto-adjust in the range 2000-10000, with a default of 5000; it rarely strays much from 5000 unless I'm doing a bunch of other work that spills onto mfaktc's cores, and even then only maybe down to 4500 or up to 6000. Two instances of mfaktc, one GTX 570, locked to the first two physical cores of i7-3930K @4125MHz (the last 4 cores are doing P-1). GPU usage averages 95%. Attached Thumbnails

2012-07-28, 11:00	#26
NormanRKN Jul 2012 Saarland / Germany 2²×17 Posts	it seems to by a memorybus bottleneck. i know that problem. here too with i7. try to reduce the cores of mprime step by step an show what mfaktc does. maybe monitor the gpu with gpu-z or another tool for perfomance. Norman

2012-08-01, 03:25	#33
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2×3×1,693 Posts	Thanks!