Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
DocJonz
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:31 pm
Hardware configuration: Folding with: 4x RTX 4070Ti, 1x RTX 3070
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by DocJonz »

I'm curious if anyone else has noticed that the P92xx project series works a treat on Maxwell GPU's, but sucks for Pascal GPU's?

If I take a snap shot of two GTX 1080 cards working on similar projects; PPD for one card on P9207 is 500k, and PPD for the other on P9209 is 305k. This compares with the same snap shot of GTX 970 cards; PPD for P9205 is 350k and P9207 is 300k.
In contrast, on other, non-P92xx projects, the GTX 1080's can typically be in the 700-900k PPD range.
Is this project series, then, optimised for Maxwell?
Folding Stats (HFM.NET): DocJonz Folding Farm Stats
rwh202
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:51 pm
Hardware configuration: 8x GTX 1080
3x GTX 1080 Ti
3x GTX 1060
Various other bits and pieces
Location: South Coast, UK

Re: Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by rwh202 »

I'm also seeing PPD all over the place on Pascal. Unfortunately I've just migrated over to a new HFM install, so I don't have many results to share, but top and bottom 3 WUs from a pair of 1080 FE:

11430 - 927k PPD
9675 - 855k PPD
11429 - 844k PPD
...
9211 - 486k PPD
9209 - 485k PPD
9213 - 480k PPD

I'm currently working a 9206 and that's showing a middle of the road 744k PPD. It's also worth mentioning that there is easily a 10% usual variation in PPD between WUs of the same project - it suddenly seems to be more significant when it's worth 80k PPD!

Of course, PPD is going to vary on any machine that differs from the benchmark one, but as hardware evolves and diverges further from that standard, PPD becomes more inconsistent and gets further amplified by the QRB. I think it would be beneficial if WUs were routinely rebenchmarked every year or so on 'representative' hardware to keep things a bit more consistent.
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by bruce »

DocJonz wrote:Is this project series, then, optimised for Maxwell?
Using the same FAHCore, it would seem that any such differences are in the way NV optimizes OpenCL in their drivers (Pascal vs. Maxwell).
JimboPalmer
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:12 am
Location: Greenwood MS USA

Re: Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by JimboPalmer »

And Pascal is so new that Nvidia may not have done much OpenCL optimizations for it yet, in the future it may well be even stronger.
Tsar of all the Rushers
I tried to remain childlike, all I achieved was childish.
A friend to those who want no friends
rwh202
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:51 pm
Hardware configuration: 8x GTX 1080
3x GTX 1080 Ti
3x GTX 1060
Various other bits and pieces
Location: South Coast, UK

Re: Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by rwh202 »

Just to add to this, I'm seeing some higher run 9208s taking 50% longer on a mix of pascal, maxwell and Kepler. Looks more like a WU variation than an architecture/driver one.
SteveWillis
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:42 am
Hardware configuration: PC 1:
Linux Mint 17.3
three gtx 1080 GPUs One on a powered header
Motherboard = [MB-AM3-AS-SB-990FXR2] qty 1 Asus Sabertooth 990FX(+59.99)
CPU = [CPU-AM3-FX-8320BR] qty 1 AMD FX 8320 Eight Core 3.5GHz(+41.99)

PC2:
Linux Mint 18
Open air case
Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD
AMD FD6300WMHKBOX FX-6300 6-Core Processor Black Edition with Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120mm PWM Fan
three gtx 1080,
one gtx 1080 TI on a powered header

Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by SteveWillis »

I've noticed a very consistent pattern with these projects, all run by Jade SHi where the TPF is always 2 to 4 times what I normally see and the estimated PPD is 40 to 50 percent less. I get a lot of these and they are really hurting my PPD. It's especially annoying when I get a couple of these at the same time. I don't see these issues with any of the other project WUs I get. I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen this? I'm folding on 3 nvidia gtx 1080 cards on a linux Mint system. I don't over clock, my temperatures are good, and I'm not getting any errors.
Image

1080 and 1080TI GPUs on Linux Mint
rwh202
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:51 pm
Hardware configuration: 8x GTX 1080
3x GTX 1080 Ti
3x GTX 1060
Various other bits and pieces
Location: South Coast, UK

Re: Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by rwh202 »

Also reported here:
viewtopic.php?f=74&t=29035

I suspect it's just part of the normal variation in WUs, but getting amplified by super fast cards and the QRB, but hopefully the project owner can confirm.
SteveWillis
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:42 am
Hardware configuration: PC 1:
Linux Mint 17.3
three gtx 1080 GPUs One on a powered header
Motherboard = [MB-AM3-AS-SB-990FXR2] qty 1 Asus Sabertooth 990FX(+59.99)
CPU = [CPU-AM3-FX-8320BR] qty 1 AMD FX 8320 Eight Core 3.5GHz(+41.99)

PC2:
Linux Mint 18
Open air case
Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD
AMD FD6300WMHKBOX FX-6300 6-Core Processor Black Edition with Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120mm PWM Fan
three gtx 1080,
one gtx 1080 TI on a powered header

Re: Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by SteveWillis »

I guess what has me most upset about these is just how many of them I'm getting. Most of the time I'm working on at least one, sometimes two of these. I was looking at the project list and since there are so many projects, if assigned randomly, I shouldn't get but a couple a month. However they had among the highest number of atoms being studied. So I'm guessing that since I have pretty fast cards that the algorithm is intentionally matching them with me.
Image

1080 and 1080TI GPUs on Linux Mint
rwh202
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:51 pm
Hardware configuration: 8x GTX 1080
3x GTX 1080 Ti
3x GTX 1060
Various other bits and pieces
Location: South Coast, UK

Re: Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by rwh202 »

SteveWillis wrote:I guess what has me most upset about these is just how many of them I'm getting. Most of the time I'm working on at least one, sometimes two of these. I was looking at the project list and since there are so many projects, if assigned randomly, I shouldn't get but a couple a month. However they had among the highest number of atoms being studied. So I'm guessing that since I have pretty fast cards that the algorithm is intentionally matching them with me.
The project list might be long, but there's probably significantly fewer projects with sufficient remaining WUs and high enough assignment priority available for your mix of hardware and OS.

Right now, my ppd across 7 GTX 1080:
530k PPD (p9209)
730k PPD (p9206)
850k PPD (p13500)
850k PPD (p11400)
680k PPD (p10496)
500k PPD (p9212)
900k PPD (p11707)

Quite a spread! On 'average' I trust the PPD to even out, but I agree, it's frustrating to have multiple 'slow' WUs and seeing a million less PPD. It's compounded by not only are the 'slow' workunits worth fewer points, but they run for longer (a 50% mix of fast WUs earning 1M PPD and 50% slow earning 500k PPD doesn't average at 750k, but rather 670k). Short of Stanford rerunning a more rigorous benchmarking process or modifying the QRB, I don't see much changing unfortunately.
Duce H_K_
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:52 pm
Hardware configuration: MoBo•Gigabye X99 UD4-CF F24
CPU•<UPD 20.05.2023>Xeon V3 2680 V4 14c28t 35Mb L3
RAM•DDR4 Hynix 2133 CL14 4*16 DualRank Quad channel
HDD•ST1000DM003 Sata3 NCQ
GFX•GT220
PSU•Chieftec GPS750C 80+ Gold after repair
Cooling•Air 2xDeepCool UF120

Internet•200Mbit/s FTTB↓ white dynamic, ERTH, router RB951G-2HnD

Other•Redmi 7A <runs WUProp :-/>
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Low PPD on P92xx for Pascal

Post by Duce H_K_ »

p9210 R42-C24-G2 best TPF 00:05:57 resulting PPD 358,110. This is the first time I see such little PPD on 92xx projects
I use GTX 1070 GPU 2012 / MEM 2003 WHQL 373.06 driver
Image
Gonna Leave it crunching as is. No harm to science my consciousness will allow :) Hope next projects assigned to my client will be quite fine
*EDIT*

Code: Select all

02:31:02:WU02:FS01:Sending unit results: id:02 state:SEND error:NO_ERROR project:9210 run:42 clone:24 gen:2 core:0x21 unit:0x00000005ab436c685796c0f05ea1a067
02:31:02:WU02:FS01:Uploading 37.96MiB to 171.67.108.104
02:31:02:WU02:FS01:Connecting to 171.67.108.104:8080
02:31:08:WU02:FS01:Upload 15.81%
02:31:14:WU02:FS01:Upload 37.54%
02:31:20:WU02:FS01:Upload 64.87%
02:31:25:WU02:FS01:Upload complete
02:31:25:WU02:FS01:Server responded WORK_ACK (400)
02:31:25:WU02:FS01:Final credit estimate, 147530.00 points
02:31:25:WU02:FS01:Cleaning up
Finished with 353076.8PPD :arrow: At least it' like a GTX970, not lower
p.s. jumped from this topic
Last edited by Duce H_K_ on Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
   510 290 819 pts earned in Folding@home project
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by bruce »

I've attempted to contact the owner of these project and have him re-benchmark his projects. I'm also merging another discussion of the same issue.
SteveWillis
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:42 am
Hardware configuration: PC 1:
Linux Mint 17.3
three gtx 1080 GPUs One on a powered header
Motherboard = [MB-AM3-AS-SB-990FXR2] qty 1 Asus Sabertooth 990FX(+59.99)
CPU = [CPU-AM3-FX-8320BR] qty 1 AMD FX 8320 Eight Core 3.5GHz(+41.99)

PC2:
Linux Mint 18
Open air case
Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD
AMD FD6300WMHKBOX FX-6300 6-Core Processor Black Edition with Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120mm PWM Fan
three gtx 1080,
one gtx 1080 TI on a powered header

Re: Projects 9210, 9212, 9208, 9205

Post by SteveWillis »

That is very cool. Thanks!
Image

1080 and 1080TI GPUs on Linux Mint
Post Reply