![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
1101010002 Posts |
I upgraded my video card recently to a gtx580, and was appalled to discover that the thing has 3 gigs of ram on it. Do any of the gpu program types (ll, p-1, tf, etc) take better/more advantage of on card memory than others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
23×5×73 Posts |
Unfortunatly, only P-1 might, and there is no software written for it (involving GPU) yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
37×59 Posts |
LL does, if the range is high.
EDIT:CudaLucas of course Last fiddled with by kracker on 2013-02-07 at 16:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
42410 Posts |
What constitutes 'high'? on p95 the memory needed never goes above 200 megs even when ll'ing ion the 60M block. Does CUDALucas use more memory on the card (not shared memory) than p95 does on the mainboard, or by high ranges are you talking the 332M range?
Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2013-02-07 at 16:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3·29·83 Posts |
Both, I think. CUDALucas' memory footprint is larger than Prime95's footprint, but not by an order of magnitude. So you'd still only notice differences in the (e.g.) 332M range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
101100011011102 Posts |
Quote:
There are many problem spaces which require a lot of near RAM. Video games aside, having a GPU with a lot of RAM available is rarely a bad thing.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
41·251 Posts |
@OP: can you try running cudalucas -cufftbench with some very large FFT sizes and see where it stops? That is the limit for your exponents. For a "normal" GTX580 (the one with 1536MB) the "crash point" is somewhere at 12M FFT size, IIRC, and I was never able to run LMH on those (332M expo would need at least 18M FFT size).
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-02-08 at 03:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
23×53 Posts |
Sure thing, I'll run it when I get home from work, in about 9 hours. Any particular increment? 1k?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
101000001100112 Posts |
Quote:
Those large FFT need ages to go, I would suggest something more like a binary search, start with a 100k, or so, see where it crashes, do that range with 10k, etc. Or, depends on your time...
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-02-08 at 14:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
23×53 Posts |
Ha! Fair enough. I'll run 11534336 20971520 1048576 just to see if it's even feasible to work in that range and if so work on something more in the 18-19M range at smaller increments (maybe 32k if I don't collapse into a river of tears).
I'll post the first search raw, and post the second one after I filter it down to remove the lower increments w/higher runtimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Apr 2012
Berlin Germany
3316 Posts |
.
Last fiddled with by Redarm on 2013-02-08 at 16:08 |
|
|
|