Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beta 2.70 speeds

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Beta 2.70 speeds

    As people using the 2.66-beta know, this version was very slow.
    The 2.70-version on the other hand seems to be fast, maybe even faster than cmd-2.04
    My 3 first units:
    6h35m48s, 5h29m55,9s and 6h14m50,1s
    The middle had probably no gaussian, while the two others had gaussian.

    With 2.66 I had between 26,5h and 31,5h. Since both only graphic versions, and doesn't report cpu-time, this partially explaines the highest result.

    My average on cmd-2.04 have the last time been around 7,5h, but since dual-cpu-machine it's not directly comparable.

    I'm running one instance of cmd-2.04 alongside the beta. Alongside 2.66 the times is comparable to the 2.7-results, while now the times is back to normal for two instances. 2.66 didn't use more than 49% cpu in real-mode, while 2.7 uses 50% as it should. (forced to one cpu)

    ------------------
    Asus P2B-DS, dual P3-600, 256 MB, G200, SB 128. OS: NT 4/5.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Cool ,I'll have to see if the team member I'm cracking for as a beta tester has got it yet.I'll report back too

    ------------------
    I guess I won't recruit for my team here TA

    Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, Asteroids@H, LHC@H, Skynet POGS.

    Main rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 5850 (Cat 13.1), 4GB DDR2, Win 7 64bit, BOINC 7.2.42
    2nd rig - E5200 @3.73 GHz, GTX 260 c216, 4GB DDR2, Win XP, BOINC 7.2.42

    Comment

    • #3
      Hmmm,I don't think it fairs so well for Celerons ,my 366 @ 550 ,CAS2 RAM ,Win95c has done 39,7% in 4hrs 50 mins.
      BTW CLi v2.4 WU's usually take me about 7.8hrs
      I'll keep you posted

      ------------------
      I guess I won't recruit for my team here TA



      [This message has been edited by Assimilator1 (edited 20 July 2000).]
      Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, Asteroids@H, LHC@H, Skynet POGS.

      Main rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 5850 (Cat 13.1), 4GB DDR2, Win 7 64bit, BOINC 7.2.42
      2nd rig - E5200 @3.73 GHz, GTX 260 c216, 4GB DDR2, Win XP, BOINC 7.2.42

      Comment

      • #4
        My 1st WU took 11hrs 32 mins

        ------------------
        I guess I won't recruit for my team here TA

        Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, Asteroids@H, LHC@H, Skynet POGS.

        Main rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 5850 (Cat 13.1), 4GB DDR2, Win 7 64bit, BOINC 7.2.42
        2nd rig - E5200 @3.73 GHz, GTX 260 c216, 4GB DDR2, Win XP, BOINC 7.2.42

        Comment

        • #5
          Sorry for the long delay, but the power company has worked on something the two last evenings. Computers doesn't run fast without power.

          I've completed 11 units now, getting an average of 6h38m with ver. 2.7
          Most is lying around 5,5h and 6,5h, I suppose due to gausian/no-gausian.
          But I've got one unit, running to 11h2m
          If it's a bug, or some "interesting" units containing something what needs much more extensive computing, I don't know.

          Since I saw this slowness, I kept the unit and ran it under cmd-2.04 too. The cmd-line didn't detect anything, while 2.70 found 1 pulse, 2 triplets, 5 spikes. It didn't contain gausian.

          If you've only run one unit, maybe you got one of the slow ones.

          Comment

          • #6
            Looks like I had a slow 1 ,here's my latest WU times.

            6 hrs 51 mins
            6 hrs 2 mins



            [This message has been edited by Assimilator1 (edited 22 July 2000).]
            Team AnandTech - SETI@H, Muon1 DPAD, F@H, MW@H, Asteroids@H, LHC@H, Skynet POGS.

            Main rig - Q9550 @3.6 GHz, HD 5850 (Cat 13.1), 4GB DDR2, Win 7 64bit, BOINC 7.2.42
            2nd rig - E5200 @3.73 GHz, GTX 260 c216, 4GB DDR2, Win XP, BOINC 7.2.42

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...
            X