Hi all,
I reran the benchmark with Amber recompiled and at the latest drivers with
GPU in solo configuration yields the following results:
When I run the tests on GPU-00_TeaNCake:
1) All the tests (across 2x repeats) finish successfully:
2) The sdiff logs indicate that reproducibility across the two repeats is
as follows:
GB_myoglobin: Reproducible across 1,000,000 steps
GB_nucleosome: No reproducibility shown from step 3,400 onwards. Also
outfile is not written properly - blank gaps appear where something should
have been written.
GB_TRPCage: Reproducible across 1,000,000 steps
PME_JAC_production_NVE: No reproducibility shown from step 35,000 onwards.
Also outfile is not written properly - blank gaps appear where something
should have been written.
PME_JAC_production_NPT: No reproducibility shown from step 69,000 onwards.
Also outfile is not written properly - blank gaps appear where something
should have been written.
PME_FactorIX_production_NVE: Reproducible across 100k steps
PME_FactorIX_production_NPT: Reproducible across 100k steps
PME_Cellulose_production_NVE: Reproducible across 100k steps
PME_Cellulose_production_NPT: No reproducibility shown from step 17,000
onwards. Also outfile is not written properly - blank gaps appear where
something should have been written.
#################################################
So it looks like the problem does occur in GB runs too. Though I notice
that running in single GPU mode seems to make the problem appear much later
than it occurs with dual GPUs, though obviously this is quite qualitative
and based only of 1 repeat.
br,
g
On 3 June 2013 10:28, ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> I think what you say about Valley and Heaven are true to a certain extent,
> but I think the links I posted to the EVGA overclock utility & MSI
> Kombuster are very good ways of testing the card. I don't know the details
> of memtestG80 and cuda_memtest, but it seems to me that they are testing
> one very specific component. i.e. The Memory. As the graphics card consists
> of more than this, it is better to have a test that checks the card in a
> more holistic manner IMO. :)
>
> I think this argument is supported by the fact that tech support at the
> store used a program called FurMark to stress test the GPU. As the GPU I
> returned kept failing the benchmark, they realized in less than half a day
> it was faulty, whilst I wasted a couple of days mucking about with GPU
> memory tests using Gpuburn on linux.
>
> http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/fur/
>
> I think if you are going to test on windows, you are better of getting MSI
> Kombuster which I posted earlier. It contains the test contained in Furmark
> and many additional tests that test the compute capability of the card.
>
> best regards,
> g
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Mon Jun 03 2013 - 03:00:03 PDT
