Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
SombraGuerrero wrote:So, if we take that at face value, we would then have to conclude that the continued reduction in performance may be coming from elsewhere, which to foldy's point, sets us back to square one for anyone insistent on optimal PPD.
How were you able to so precisely measure this differenceLeonardo wrote:Back to 373.06.
The experiment with 378.92 is over. Having run quite a few work units on several GTX 1080s and a GTX 1070, here are my observations concerning GPU Folding, 387.92 vs 373.06:
- all work units, all video cards, experienced lower performance, measured by higher frame completion times
- the more difficult work units - those which take the longest per frame, experienced proportionally greater production slowdowns
- increased frame times ranged from 3 to 10 seconds
Thank you for doing that!!!Leonardo wrote:The baseline, which I used to compare times-per-frame is a log I've been maintaining for a few months. The log documents work units' times per frame. As for measurements, I use FAHControl's Selected Work Unit monitoring utility. So yes, apples to apples, over and over again. Using five GPUs, I compared enough work units, some with multiple runs, that the trend stood out clearly. Not one work unit that processed with 387.92 completed as quickly as the baseline time for the same work unit documented in the log.
Return to Problems with NVidia drivers
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest