OK, I will try NUCLEOSOME case as well with my latest
settings : (driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18 applied, cuda 5.5)
M.
Dne Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:51:46 +0200 ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> napsal/-a:
> 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
>
> __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 8405
> (20130603) __________
>
> Tuto zpravu proveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.cz
>
>
>
--
Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním klientem Opery:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Mon Jun 03 2013 - 04:00:02 PDT
