Results 347.25?

It seems that a lot of GPU problems revolve around specific versions of drivers. Though NVidia has their own support structure, you can often learn from information reported by others who fold.

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
CBT
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:07 am
Hardware configuration: Computer 1:
CPU: Intel Q6600@2,4GHz
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Video: EVGA GTX550Ti SC (NVIDIA GeForce GTX550Ti GPU - 1GB GDDR5)
(OC: GPU@981MHz / Shaders@1962 / Memory@4514)
PSU: OCZ StealthXtream 600 Watt
Client 7.4.4

Computer 2:
CPU: AMD AthlonII X4 635 @2.9GHz
RAM: 4GB
OS: Windows Server 2008 R2 SP2
Client 7.4.4, configured as a service

Computer 3:
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K @4.0GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX980 @1.518GHz
RAM: 32 GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Client 7.4.4

Computer 4:
CPU: Intel Core i5 M560 @2,67GHz
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
Client: Win-SMP2

Computer 5:
CPU: Intel Core i3 4370 @3.8GHz
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Client 7.4.4 configured as a service
Location: Netherlands

Results 347.25?

Post by CBT »

Did anyone already test the new 347.25 drivers? Especially with a GTX980?


TIA.
Image
JimF
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Results 347.25?

Post by JimF »

I have been running it on a pair of GTX 750 Ti's for over a day. On Core_18, there seems to be no change, at 25.5k PPD on P9108, and 28.3k PPD on P9105, all perfectly normal. And the CPU usage is normal at one core per card (i7-4771). But on the only Core_17 I have gotten thus far, things were a little strange. The PPD was only 55K instead of the more normal 66K, and the CPU usage varied from 9% to 12% as measured by Task Manager, or about 70% to 90% of a core. I don't know if that was just the work unit, which I didn't record, but I have never seen that before. So we will see.
CBT
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:07 am
Hardware configuration: Computer 1:
CPU: Intel Q6600@2,4GHz
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Video: EVGA GTX550Ti SC (NVIDIA GeForce GTX550Ti GPU - 1GB GDDR5)
(OC: GPU@981MHz / Shaders@1962 / Memory@4514)
PSU: OCZ StealthXtream 600 Watt
Client 7.4.4

Computer 2:
CPU: AMD AthlonII X4 635 @2.9GHz
RAM: 4GB
OS: Windows Server 2008 R2 SP2
Client 7.4.4, configured as a service

Computer 3:
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K @4.0GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX980 @1.518GHz
RAM: 32 GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Client 7.4.4

Computer 4:
CPU: Intel Core i5 M560 @2,67GHz
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
Client: Win-SMP2

Computer 5:
CPU: Intel Core i3 4370 @3.8GHz
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7 SP1
Client 7.4.4 configured as a service
Location: Netherlands

Re: Results 347.25?

Post by CBT »

Thanks, I'll stick with 347.09 for now. :-)
Image
JimF
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Results 347.25?

Post by JimF »

It looks like there is a small but consistent gain on Core_18 work units on my cards. I have upgraded two more GTX 750 Ti's from the 347.09 drivers to 347.25 (all Win7 64-bit), and on P10478 I am getting 25+K PPD, up from 24+ K PPD. There haven't been any more Core_17 for my cards since the one reported above, so they may be going exclusively with Core_18 now. I have no idea what they are sending the other Nvidia cards now (Maxwell or otherwise) though, so YMMV.

EDIT: I just picked up another Core_17 (P13000), and it is doing the same thing as the first one: It is getting only 53K PPD, and the CPU usage varies as noted above. So if you want to be safe, stick with the drivers in the previous series (344.xx) until PG figures out what to do with Core_18.
Post Reply