system in question:
CPU: Core 2 duo @3.0GHz.
VGA: 1900GT
OS: WinXP
I was wondering, should I let it run 2 CPU for SMP, or should I run regular 1 CPU and leave the other CPU to Feed the GPU client?
Which will be better from scientific perspective?
I know for sure that running 2 CPU and ignoring the GPU would produce more PPD.
and, can I set the CPU feeding the GPU to like say 20% only? How will it impact the GPU performance?
2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:53 pm
2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
Last edited by chungenhung on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
The answer depends on whether you're running DirectX10 in Vista or DirectX9 in WIndowsXP and a number of other factors.chungenhung wrote:system in question:
CPU: Core 2 duo @3.0GHz.
VGA: 1900GT
I was wondering, should I let it run 2 CPU for SMP, or should I run regular 1 CPU and leave the other CPU to Feed the GPU client?
Which will be better from scientific perspective?
I know for sure that running 2 CPU and ignoring the GPU would produce more PPD.
and, can I set the CPU feeding the GPU to like say 20% only? How will it impact the GPU performance?
In either case, I'm not sure there is a clear answer. If you try various options, you need to eliminate anything that doesn't meet the Preferred Deadlines because even though you can get points up until the Final Deadline, the science does suffer.
I did run a GPU client on a X1950XTX with a SMP client but it ended up delaying both clients, no matter what I did with %CPU. I decided to move the GPU to a slower CPU and leave the C2D to do SMP. (With WinXP, even the slowest CPU gives nearly as much GPU performance as a fast CPU -- and running either one at 20% slows it down a lot more than you might expect.)
One of these days I'm going to move the GPU to a Vista machine and see what happens there. (I've read several reports, but have no first-hand experience.)
--------------------------
I should also point out two conflicting perspectives on anything you test.
1) The points are SUPPOSED to represent scientific value but they don't always. The Pande Group has some plans to make them a more accurate measure of scientific value, but in the meantime, using PPD is a reasonable approximation.
2) Anything that you do that delays a WU is ultimately contrary to the scientific goals of FAH. That means you shouldn't consider one SMP client and one GPU client because they're both going to run slower than if you only ran one of them. A single GPU client and a single uniprocessor client on Dual CPU hardware or a single SMP client fits this plan. Similarly, your 20% CPU suggestion doesn't follow this concept.
The conflict is that running both SMP and GPU (for example) may produce more points while slowing down the return of the WUs (or it may not produce more points, depending). When there's a conflict, I tend to support 2 at the expense of 1.
Posting FAH's log:
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
-
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:56 am
- Hardware configuration: Ryzen 7 5700G, 22.40.46 VGA driver; 32GB G-Skill Trident DDR4-3200; Samsung 860EVO 1TB Boot SSD; VelociRaptor 1TB; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver; BeQuiet FM 550 PSU; Lian Li PC-9F; Win11Pro-64, F@H 8.3.5.
[Suspended] Ryzen 7 3700X, MSI X570MPG, 32GB G-Skill Trident Z DDR4-3600; Corsair MP600 M.2 PCIe Gen4 Boot, Samsung 840EVO-250 SSDs; VelociRaptor 1TB, Raptor 150; MSI GTX 1050ti, 526.98 driver; Kingwin Stryker 500 PSU; Lian Li PC-K7B. Win10Pro-64, F@H 8.3.5. - Location: @Home
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
I think point value will be comparable (1PU+GPU <-> SMP), with the edge to SMP. Once the SMP client is running well, I think it is easier to maintain and less intrusive than the GPU client.
I am currently running SMP on a similar rig (C2D 3.0 GHZ, X1950 Pro), and previously ran CPU+GPU on a dual Opteron 2 GHz/X1650Pro rig (both XP Pro). The GPU client interfered occasionally with Photoshop and Acrobat, and refused to play nice with my wife's embroidery program. By contrast, I have not had any problems with the SMP client.
I'm not sure how setting the GPU client to 20% will affect it. If it slows down the client to 20%, as happens with the CPU client, you will lose one of the main advantages of the GPU client -- speed. It would be better for science to run the SMP client at 95-100% and turn in results every day or 2.
I am currently running SMP on a similar rig (C2D 3.0 GHZ, X1950 Pro), and previously ran CPU+GPU on a dual Opteron 2 GHz/X1650Pro rig (both XP Pro). The GPU client interfered occasionally with Photoshop and Acrobat, and refused to play nice with my wife's embroidery program. By contrast, I have not had any problems with the SMP client.
I'm not sure how setting the GPU client to 20% will affect it. If it slows down the client to 20%, as happens with the CPU client, you will lose one of the main advantages of the GPU client -- speed. It would be better for science to run the SMP client at 95-100% and turn in results every day or 2.
Ryzen 7 5700G, 22.40.46 VGA driver; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver
Ryzen 7 3700X; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver [Suspended]
Ryzen 7 3700X; MSI GTX 1050ti, 551.23 studio driver [Suspended]
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:23 am
Re: 2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
Has anyone tried setting the CPU limit in the GPU client or limit it to idle or something? On the regular client you can tell the CPU client how much cpu time to utilize, what about the GPU client? My feeling this is similar to the "starcraft" situation, where starcraft regardless of the system it is run on, will take up 100% cpu time, however reducing the total cpu time starcraft gets does not impact performance. So if you have two clients running, you could put the GPU client in lower priority and the CPU client in higher priority, setting the CPU client to take (depending on the performance of the processor) say 85% CPU time and the rest goes to the GPU client.bruce wrote:The answer depends on whether you're running DirectX10 in Vista or DirectX9 in WIndowsXP and a number of other factors.chungenhung wrote:system in question:
CPU: Core 2 duo @3.0GHz.
VGA: 1900GT
I was wondering, should I let it run 2 CPU for SMP, or should I run regular 1 CPU and leave the other CPU to Feed the GPU client?
Which will be better from scientific perspective?
I know for sure that running 2 CPU and ignoring the GPU would produce more PPD.
and, can I set the CPU feeding the GPU to like say 20% only? How will it impact the GPU performance?
In either case, I'm not sure there is a clear answer. If you try various options, you need to eliminate anything that doesn't meet the Preferred Deadlines because even though you can get points up until the Final Deadline, the science does suffer.
I did run a GPU client on a X1950XTX with a SMP client but it ended up delaying both clients, no matter what I did with %CPU. I decided to move the GPU to a slower CPU and leave the C2D to do SMP. (With WinXP, even the slowest CPU gives nearly as much GPU performance as a fast CPU -- and running either one at 20% slows it down a lot more than you might expect.)
One of these days I'm going to move the GPU to a Vista machine and see what happens there. (I've read several reports, but have no first-hand experience.)
--------------------------
I should also point out two conflicting perspectives on anything you test.
1) The points are SUPPOSED to represent scientific value but they don't always. The Pande Group has some plans to make them a more accurate measure of scientific value, but in the meantime, using PPD is a reasonable approximation.
2) Anything that you do that delays a WU is ultimately contrary to the scientific goals of FAH. That means you shouldn't consider one SMP client and one GPU client because they're both going to run slower than if you only ran one of them. A single GPU client and a single uniprocessor client on Dual CPU hardware or a single SMP client fits this plan. Similarly, your 20% CPU suggestion doesn't follow this concept.
The conflict is that running both SMP and GPU (for example) may produce more points while slowing down the return of the WUs (or it may not produce more points, depending). When there's a conflict, I tend to support 2 at the expense of 1.
What I do when I play starcraft and I want to fold is have the CPU client on normal priority and utilize 91% cpu time and starcraft gets the rest of the CPU time. With this setup, I get no performance impact on starcraft performance and minimal impact on folding performance, just as it should.
Re: 2 Cores for SMPbetter? Or, 1 core GPU, 1 core CPU client
Yes, that has been tried, and it's not as successful as you would expect.imzjustplayin wrote:Has anyone tried setting the CPU limit in the GPU client or limit it to idle or something?
Microsoft DirectX9 will use as much CPU as you give it. When you use the mechanism that limits the CPU with FAH, it's not like you describe with starcraft. At 90% CPU, FAH will actually run at about 90% of the base speed. Running it at 50% CPU will run it at about 50% of the standard speed.
In spite of logic that says they might be the same, a 2.0 GHz machine running at 50% CPU is much, much slower than a 1.0 GHz machine running at 100%.
Posting FAH's log:
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.