Hi Scott,
thanks for update.
I just got the idea to try with the actual config:
(driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18 applied, cuda 5.0)
to simulate again the system where my TITANs originally
failed and what was the reason why I started this
"threaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad" :))
And what a surprise, the simulation seems to go well
(now I am above 750K steps) even on my "less reliable"
titan TITAN_0. So it seems that bugfix 18 helped here.
I will try this system (protein + TIP3P water, 114852 atoms, NPT, ntt=3 )
to use for 100K reproducibility tests before I go sleep.
If I confirm reproducibility here, then would be maybe good idea to try
systematically
test the hypothesis that at least regarding PME calculations the
probability of crash or irreproducible results significantly increases as
the size (number of atoms) of the simulated system
decreases (see my and ETs results JAC versus FACTOR_IX). If this will be
confirmed it could help
with eventual "debugging" and of course it would be also good news for the
whole "Amber/Titan club" as indeed Titan/K20s GPUs are suppose to help
especially with simulation of bigger systems (let say
100k atoms and more) while for those smaller GTX 580/680 are still
acceptable solutions.
So let see ...
M.
Dne Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:36:00 +0200 Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com>
napsal/-a:
> It's harder to get a failure out of GB in Titan, but it does happen for
> me
> as well...
>
> I am now running the GB tests on K20. No failures observed yet. Doesn't
> exactly prove this is hardware, but it's really making it hard to make a
> case that it isn't...
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:23 AM, ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 100k nucleosome test = identical results:
>>
>> A V E R A G E S O V E R 100000 S T E P S A
>> V E
>> R A G E S O V E R 100000 S T E P S
>>
>>
>> NSTEP = 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K) = 310.0 NSTEP =
>> 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K) = 310.0
>> Etot = -66600.0926 EKtot = 19654.9595 EPtot Etot
>> = -66600.0926 EKtot = 19654.9595 EPtot
>> BOND = 5795.1298 ANGLE = 13672.2739 DIHED BOND
>> = 5795.1298 ANGLE = 13672.2739 DIHED
>> 1-4 NB = 5612.4805 1-4 EEL = 1436.2790 VDWAALS 1-4 NB
>> = 5612.4805 1-4 EEL = 1436.2790 VDWAALS
>> EELEC = -11449.2413 EGB = -105134.8815 RESTRAINT EELEC
>> = -11449.2413 EGB = -105134.8815 RESTRAINT
>> EAMBER (non-restraint) = -86607.8501 EAMBER
>> (non-restraint) = -86607.8501
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 June 2013 12:39, Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > here are my results from the "NTPR" experiment:
>> >
>> >
>> > Total energy at step 100 000 reported for ROUND_1 and ROUND_2
>> > (driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18 applied, cuda 5.0) (In all cases)
>> >
>> > GTX580 (NTPR=1000)
>> > -66801.3274
>> > -66801.3274
>> >
>> > TITAN_0 (NTPR=1)
>> > -66854.0492
>> > -66802.4419
>> >
>> > TITAN_1 (NTPR=1)
>> > -66858.7444
>> > -66858.7444
>> >
>> >
>> > M.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dne Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:14:28 +0200 Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz>
>> > napsal/-a:
>> >
>> > > Hi Scott,
>> > >
>> > > I am sending again my very first tests/table (see attached) where
>> > > I did also GTX 580/GTX 680 tests as a control and as you can see
>> > > here I have obtained perfect reproducibility on those GTX but also
>> > > on my second TITAN card (TITAN_1) for NUCLEOSOME ! But that was with
>> > > driver 319.17
>> > > (and also before bugfix 18).
>> > >
>> > > Now I will try on my titans again with ntpr=1 as you wish
>> > > (driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18 applied, cuda 5.0).
>> > >
>> > > Simultaneously I will repeat this test on GTX 580 with ntpr=1000
>> > > (driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18 applied, cuda 5.0).
>> > >
>> > > BTW I also experimented a bit, first try to use some settings from
>> > > NUCLEOSOME (e.g. igb=5, ntt=1/3, saltcon=0.1, tautp=1.0 + restrains)
>> and
>> > > use it
>> > > for TRP cage and Myoglob. assuming these params which are different
>> > > between NUCLE and TRP + MYO will affect the TRP + MYO
>> reproducibility.
>> > >
>> > > This was not confirmed i.e. TRP + MYO still perfectly reproducible.
>> > >
>> > > So then (to be sure) I did opposite exper. and used TRP mdin file
>> for
>> > > NUCLEOSOME to see
>> > > if it influence NUCL reproducibility, but in agreement with
>> "TRP-MYO"
>> > > tests NUCL
>> > > was again irreproducible ...
>> > >
>> > > So let's see the ntpr tests.
>> > >
>> > > M.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dne Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:51:08 +0200 Scott Le Grand
>> > > <varelse2005.gmail.com>
>> > > napsal/-a:
>> > >
>> > >> Update: The nucleosome GB irreproducibility is weird. it goes
>> away on
>> > >> my
>> > >> Titan if I set ntpr to 1 (was trying to find the offending energy
>> > >> component
>> > >> that diverges first). Can you guys try this on your machines? I
>> think
>> > >> this might be SW...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Scott & Ross,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I take it you will post to this thread once a fix has been found?
>> :)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> br,
>> > >>> g
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 3 June 2013 20:31, Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > OK,
>> > >>> > I just took deep breath and started to pray :))
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > BTW, the difference between GB results TRPcage/myoglobin
>> (perfectly
>> > >>> > reproducible)
>> > >>> > versus Nucleosome (irreproducible res.) might be connected with
>> some
>> > >>> > differences
>> > >>> > in mdin parameters:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > TRPcage/myoglobin (igb=1, ntt=3) versus Nucleosome (igb=5,
>> ntt=1).
>> > >>> > Nucleosome simul. is also
>> > >>> > with restraint:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > RESTRAIN DNA
>> > >>> > 0.1
>> > >>> > RES 1 294
>> > >>> > END
>> > >>> > END
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > I will try to experiment here to learn which parameter is
>> responsible
>> > >>> for
>> > >>> > the
>> > >>> > Nucleosome irreproducible results.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > M.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Dne Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:17:23 +0200 Ross Walker
>> > >>> <ross.rosswalker.co.uk>
>> > >>> > napsal/-a:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Hi Marek,
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > To be honest I would just take a deep breath and give us some
>> time
>> > >>> to
>> > >>> > > figure out what is going on with the Titan and work around it.
>> > >>> Hopefully
>> > >>> > > this won't take too long and we can have a patch out shortly.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > All the best
>> > >>> > > Ross
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > On 6/3/13 11:47 AM, "Marek Maly" <marek.maly.ujep.cz> wrote:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >> Thanks Scott !
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> sounds me like "Of course you can win gold treasure if you
>> survive
>> > >>> > >> Russian
>> > >>> > >> roulette before ..."
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> It seems that the difference in reliability for sci. calc.
>> between
>> > >>> > >> Teslas
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> and "equivalent" stock GTXs
>> > >>> > >> is now (with chip GTK110) clearly bigger. I am curious how it
>> will
>> > >>> be
>> > >>> > >> with
>> > >>> > >> GTX 780 comparing to Titans.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> So let's hope that in the worst case downclocking of Titans
>> might
>> > >>> solve
>> > >>> > >> the problem.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> BTW what is the working temperature of your K20c ? My Titans
>> works
>> > >>> under
>> > >>> > >> 80°C (cca
>> > >>> > >> 60% Fan utilization). For the older cards (GTX 680/580 ...)
>> this
>> > >>> temp.
>> > >>> > >> should be OK but
>> > >>> > >> maybe for the GTK110 this temp is already too high to ensure
>> zero
>> > >>> "bit
>> > >>> > >> fluctuations".
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> cuFFT is maybe responsible for crashes and maybe also some
>> > >>> > >> irreproducibility but the irreproducibility of the results
>> will
>> > >>> have
>> > >>> > >> also
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> some another source as suggests
>> > >>> > >> NUCLEOSOME GB test where perhaps no FFT is involved ? (just
>> the
>> > >>> real
>> > >>> > >> space calc.).
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> So thanks for the moment and please let us know when you do
>> some
>> > >>> > >> progress.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> M.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> Dne Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:12:04 +0200 Scott Le Grand
>> > >>> > >> <varelse2005.gmail.com>
>> > >>> > >> napsal/-a:
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >>> Addressing Divi's two points:
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> 1. We're trying to find a way to do this...
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> 2. I am extremely paranoid and while I would still use the
>> Titans
>> > >>> for
>> > >>> > >>> development and testing, I would also currently do my
>> publishable
>> > >>> runs
>> > >>> > >>> on
>> > >>> > >>> GK104 GPUs or K20s. Given that, if you're comfortable with
>> > >>> > >>> nondeterministic execution ala GROMACS, ACEMD, and NAMD,
>> what's
>> > >>> going
>> > >>> > >>> on
>> > >>> > >>> here is seemingly no worse. I'm *not* comfortable with that
>> > >>> myself
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> > >>> I
>> > >>> > >>> intend to find a fix or workaround like we did a couple
>> years
>> ago
>> > >>> with
>> > >>> > >>> GTX4xx and GTX5xx. So your best strategy might just be to
>> wait a
>> > >>> week
>> > >>> > >>> or
>> > >>> > >>> two and see what comes of the bug hunt.
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> Marek et al. if these GPU tests are failing on the Titans,
>> then
>> > >>> by
>> > >>> all
>> > >>> > >>> means return them without hesitation, but I don't think
>> consumer
>> > >>> level
>> > >>> > >>> GPUs
>> > >>> > >>> are tested with the same level of rigor as Teslas. The
>> upside
>> is
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > >>> get
>> > >>> > >>> 30% better performance for 1/3 the price. The downside is
>> that
>> > >>> IMO
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > >>> should be carefully validate them before using them. What
>> I'm
>> > >>> seeing
>> > >>> > >>> here
>> > >>> > >>> looks like single bit differences at the low-order bits that
>> > >>> cause a
>> > >>> > >>> tiny
>> > >>> > >>> fluctuation that ultimately mushrooms and diverges the whole
>> > >>> shebang
>> > >>> > >>> along
>> > >>> > >>> with occasional crashes. The crashes seem to occur in cuFFT
>> > >>> somewhere.
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> I
>> > >>> > >>> have yet to see divergence there yet.
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> Scott
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Marek Maly
>> <marek.maly.ujep.cz
>> >
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>>> Hi,
>> > >>> > >>>> so here are my NUCLEOSOME test results. All tests finished
>> > >>> (although
>> > >>> > >>>> the
>> > >>> > >>>> TITAN_0/ROUND_2) with "****" energy (*** records starts
>> from
>> the
>> > >>> 75K
>> > >>> > >>>> step
>> > >>> > >>>> so
>> > >>> > >>>> it is surprise for me that test was finished at the end).
>> All
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> > >>>> results
>> > >>> > >>>> are irreproducible (driver 319.23, Amber12 bugfix 18
>> applied,
>> > >>> cuda
>> > >>> > >>>> 5.5)
>> > >>> > >>>> I
>> > >>> > >>>> will
>> > >>> > >>>> repeat it with CUDA 5.0.
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> M.
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> >>>>>> TITAN_0
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> ROUND_1
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> NSTEP = 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K) =
>> 310.60
>> > >>> PRESS
>> > >>> > >>>> = 0.0
>> > >>> > >>>> Etot = -66843.8345 EKtot = 19690.5156 EPtot
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -86534.3502
>> > >>> > >>>> BOND = 5887.3611 ANGLE = 13673.5215 DIHED
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 16941.7678
>> > >>> > >>>> 1-4 NB = 5576.6911 1-4 EEL = 1371.5924
>> VDWAALS
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -13647.8461
>> > >>> > >>>> EELEC = -14410.1252 EGB = -102286.9459
>> RESTRAINT
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 359.6331
>> > >>> > >>>> EAMBER (non-restraint) = -86893.9832
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> ROUND_2
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> NSTEP = 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K)
>> =*********
>> > >>> PRESS
>> > >>> > >>>> = 0.0
>> > >>> > >>>> Etot = ************** EKtot = ************** EPtot
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 4279668.7807
>> > >>> > >>>> BOND = -0.0000 ANGLE = 4681740.3488 DIHED
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 67661.6797
>> > >>> > >>>> 1-4 NB = -0.0000 1-4 EEL = -2.0373
>> VDWAALS
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 244.1012
>> > >>> > >>>> EELEC = 72548.4049 EGB = -542523.7166
>> RESTRAINT
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -0.0000
>> > >>> > >>>> EAMBER (non-restraint) = 4279668.7807
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>> STARS from the 75k step ...
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> >>>>>> TITAN_1
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> ROUND_1
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> NSTEP = 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K) =
>> 310.36
>> > >>> PRESS
>> > >>> > >>>> = 0.0
>> > >>> > >>>> Etot = -66846.8801 EKtot = 19675.0488 EPtot
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -86521.9289
>> > >>> > >>>> BOND = 5760.2422 ANGLE = 13619.8710 DIHED
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 16996.9045
>> > >>> > >>>> 1-4 NB = 5645.6416 1-4 EEL = 1774.6967
>> VDWAALS
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -13622.9343
>> > >>> > >>>> EELEC = -14168.1788 EGB = -102880.8089
>> RESTRAINT
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 352.6371
>> > >>> > >>>> EAMBER (non-restraint) = -86874.5660
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> ROUND_2
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> NSTEP = 100000 TIME(PS) = 300.000 TEMP(K) =
>> 311.00
>> > >>> PRESS
>> > >>> > >>>> = 0.0
>> > >>> > >>>> Etot = -66874.9016 EKtot = 19715.3633 EPtot
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -86590.2649
>> > >>> > >>>> BOND = 5819.0667 ANGLE = 13683.6633 DIHED
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 16918.8596
>> > >>> > >>>> 1-4 NB = 5627.0932 1-4 EEL = 1576.9564
>> VDWAALS
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> -13747.1032
>> > >>> > >>>> EELEC = -15232.3280 EGB = -101590.5078
>> RESTRAINT
>> > >>> =
>> > >>> > >>>> 354.0348
>> > >>> > >>>> EAMBER (non-restraint) = -86944.2997
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> > >>>> ------
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> Dne Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:34:15 +0200 Marek Maly
>> > >>> <marek.maly.ujep.cz>
>> > >>> > >>>> napsal/-a:
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>>> > 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
>> > >>> > >>>>
>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>> > >>> AMBER mailing list
>> > >>> > >>> AMBER.ambermd.org
>> > >>> > >>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>> > >>> > >>>
>> > >>> > >>> __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze
>> 8407
>> > >>> > >>> (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
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > >>> > > AMBER mailing list
>> > >>> > > AMBER.ambermd.org
>> > >>> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze
>> 8408
>> > >>> > > (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
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>> AMBER mailing list
>> > >>> AMBER.ambermd.org
>> > >>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>> > >>>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> AMBER mailing list
>> > >> AMBER.ambermd.org
>> > >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>> > >>
>> > >> __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 8408
>> > >> (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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMBER mailing list
>> AMBER.ambermd.org
>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
> __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 8411
> (20130604) __________
>
> 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 Tue Jun 04 2013 - 16:00:02 PDT
