• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Can I do -bigadv with my processor?

M

M0rph3us

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
3,702
So I have been running GPU on my Asus 5850 and I was wondering if I could do -bigadv with my 1075t or if I should stick with GPU folding?
 
You can run -bigadv on that CPU with a bit of VM trickery, although if you were to go that route, I'd strongly recommend overclocking your CPU to at least 3.6GHz to ensure you meet the deadlines.
 
Can you? Yes. Can you while still running the 5850? Probably not due to the amount of CPU that card uses while folding and the fact that your processor is marginal to begin with for bigadv. Should you? Accord to Stanford, no you should not. Is doing it against the EULA? No.

If you do run bigadv on that proc, my advise is to not tell anyone about it around here. You will notice that we have no guides or anything posted on how to do it. There is a reason - it is a touchy subject around here.
 
Zero82z said:
You can run -bigadv on that CPU with a bit of VM trickery, although if you were to go that route, I'd strongly recommend overclocking your CPU to at least 3.6GHz to ensure you meet the deadlines.
Click to expand...

Unless stuff has changed, when the guides for BigAdv on Thubans said it is best to have a speed of 4.0, with a NB of atleast 2800, to make deadlines with some wiggle room...but i may be wrong on that
 
musky said:
Can you? Yes. Can you while still running the 5850? Probably not due to the amount of CPU that card uses while folding and the fact that your processor is marginal to begin with for bigadv. Should you? Accord to Stanford, no you should not. Is doing it against the EULA? No.

If you do run bigadv on that proc, my advise is to not tell anyone about it around here. You will notice that we have no guides or anything posted on how to do it. There is a reason - it is a touchy subject around here.
Click to expand...

Something I never understood since everyone is fine with quad I7s running big adv when stanford has said you should have 8 real cores. TBH the amd is closer to meeting that requirement than the Intel.
 
I heard someone that goes by the name Granpa was able to do Bigadv with an overclocked C2Quad some time ago.... so I think 2 extra cores will do just fine...
 
to add, you NEED linux to do bigadv on thubans...my suggestion is to just do smp
 
Alright so I guess I will just do SMP and wait for bulldozer.

Sorry I had to do it.
 
mach_1 said:
http://www.overclock.net/overclock-...48365-ubuntu-setting-up-big-bigadv-p6903.html

Works for x6's and 2500k's as well... if they won't discuss it here, i know a place that will ;)
Click to expand...

We talk about it, but it isn't promoted.

I would rather see these larger WU go to the fastest systems that are out there.

What we have now is a bunch of systems that are slower and a few fast systems all trying to grab the same few WU. And because of this, science gets done at a slower pace.
 
But you have no guides for it here. I know I used Musky's ubuntu guide when I was setting up linux on my 2600k, and it got me way ahead of any guide on OCN at the time.

But the tables have turned. The better guide is on OCN now (for single proc systems... Musky's is still the one for multi-procs). I'm just returning the favour to the good people of this site. ;)
 
There are no guides for running Big adv/Big beta on anything other than 8/12 threads respectively because as a community the [H]orde is not a fan of doing it, so it wont be promoted....


mach_1 said:
But you have no guides for it here. I know I used Musky's ubuntu guide when I was setting up linux on my 2600k, and it got me way ahead of any guide on OCN at the time.

But the tables have turned. The better guide is on OCN now (for single proc systems... Musky's is still the one for multi-procs). I'm just returning the favour to the good people of this site. ;)
Click to expand...
 
W.Feather said:
There are no guides for running Big adv/Big beta on anything other than 8/12 threads respectively because as a community the [H]orde is not a fan of doing it, so it wont be promoted....
Click to expand...
but that's the big issue, number of threads means little now with SandyB, a 2500K overclocked to 4.5 is > 8 threads i7 920 at stock clocks

edit.

a Overclocked i72600k can out perform a i7 970 also...
 
nicfolder said:
but that's the big issue, number of threads means little now with SandyB, a 2500K overclocked to 4.5 is > 8 threads i7 920 at stock clocks
Click to expand...

And I have little issue with a 2500k running 8 thread SMP.

It is when they run it spoofed to 12 and try and pull the former -bigbeta WU and clog the hole WU development up by taking most if not all of the deadline to do the WU.

New WU can be made till current ones are returned. So the whole project slows down as the average time to return a WU lengthens.

(I am not an advocate of using threads as a measure of system speed but it is what we have)
 
Kendrak said:
(I am not an advocate of using threads as a measure of system speed but it is what we have)
Click to expand...
we should have a portable bench mark utility, how hard can that be to impliment? it could be something like CineBench 11.5

what I am saying is if a Big Beta WU takes about 5 days to finish and they usualy Fail at >90% if something goes wrong(unstable OverClock) what a small portable benchmark program that will not take more than 5 minutes to finish, what harm can that do? I am sure it will not slow the progect any more than what 4 threads SB are doing at the moment...
 
nicfolder said:
we should have a portable bench mark utility, how hard can that be to impliment? it could be something like CineBench 11.5

what I am saying is if a Big Beta WU takes about 5 days to finish and they usualy Fail at >90% if something goes wrong(unstable OverClock) what a small portable benchmark program that will not take more than 5 minutes to finish, what harm can that do? I am sure it will not slow the progect any more than what 4 threads SB are doing at the moment...
Click to expand...

This has been a suggestion of mine since I become the DAB rep for the [H]. It would require coding for the mini bench, rewrites of the current sever code, along with the addition of another set of servers for keeping mini bench data/logs. All this with a project that is underway and shouldn't be stopped to put these changes in place.

Needless to say it is a bunch of work and resources that they don't have the time for currently. However as a long term fix to the current issues the DAB thinks this is a good idea.
 
Kendrak said:
This has been a suggestion of mine since I become the DAB rep for the [H]. It would require coding for the mini bench, rewrites of the current sever code, along with the addition of another set of servers for keeping mini bench data/logs. All this with a project that is underway and shouldn't be stopped to put these changes in place.

Needless to say it is a bunch of work and resources that they don't have the time for currently. However as a long term fix to the current issues the DAB thinks this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

How about if WE implement this? meaning if you want to be part of any team you will have to use "This" Bench mark, if you don't pass the Big Beta test you will not be allow to fold under Our name...! I bet nobody will be doing Big Betas with 4 threads while anonymous, the guys that do break the rules(our rules as Stanford does not have the guts to do so) will be kicked out...

I don't know I just giving some ideas...:(
 
Kendrak said:
This has been a suggestion of mine since I become the DAB rep for the [H]. It would require coding for the mini bench, rewrites of the current sever code, along with the addition of another set of servers for keeping mini bench data/logs. All this with a project that is underway and shouldn't be stopped to put these changes in place.

Needless to say it is a bunch of work and resources that they don't have the time for currently. However as a long term fix to the current issues the DAB thinks this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Don't we already have a mini bench - can't we use that as a starting point?
 
The concern was mostly on reprograming the sever side.

I got the impression that messing with the servers isn't on their fun list of things to do.
 
nicfolder said:
How about if WE implement this? meaning if you want to be part of any team you will have to use "This" Bench mark, if you don't pass the Big Beta test you will not be allow to fold under Our name...!
Click to expand...
I do not like that idea at all. I understand what you're trying to accomplish with it, but that would simply make it much too difficult for people to join the team.
 
Zero82z said:
I do not like that idea at all. I understand what you're trying to accomplish with it, but that would simply make it much too difficult for people to join the team.
Click to expand...
how about dividing the team based on hardware specs :confused:

but the easiest way to fix this issue is to make the dead line shorter discouraging the use of highly overclocked 4 threaded CPUs...
 
nicfolder said:
Just saying...:rolleyes: something needs to be done
Click to expand...
I disagree. As it is, we actively try to discourage people from doing things that are detrimental to the project. More than that, it is Stanford's responsibility to keep things in check. Any attempts we make to regulate things ourselves will simply discourage new members from joining and drive people to other teams instead, which in the long run will not change anything other than reducing the number of members we have.
 
nicfolder said:
how about dividing the team based on hardware specs :confused:.
Click to expand...

The Team is divided enough as it is. Please do not suggest this again.

We discuss how to fold on real hardware as Stanford defines it, we do not discuss how to circumvent Stanford. And I don't believe we will start now just so people can circumvent Stanford. Implementing our own benchmark system is just plain silly.





As for benchmarks.... doesn't Stanford already assign "Performance Fraction"? They just need to implement this number some way when making assignments.
 
nicfolder said:
but that's the big issue, number of threads means little now with SandyB, a 2500K overclocked to 4.5 is > 8 threads i7 920 at stock clocks

edit.

a Overclocked i72600k can out perform a i7 970 also...
Click to expand...

Wrong Where are you getting your Information from I have not seen a single 2600K out preform any of my 970's yet. Care to provide a little proof of that. Or are you comparing apples to oranges and using a stock clocked 970. If you are I hate to tell you this but 970's can be OCed too.
 
Grandpa_01 said:
Wrong Where are you getting your Information from I have not seen a single 2600K out preform any of my 970's yet. Care to provide a little proof of that. Or are you comparing apples to oranges and using a stock clocked 970. If you are I hate to tell you this but 970's can be OCed too.
Click to expand...
I should have said, that a stock 2600k will out perform an stock 970 here and there, not always and heavily threaded apps is one of them...;)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=287

oh and sandyB can overclock alot nicer than westmere are capable of
 
970 = Gulftown, not westmere.

My 2600K @ 4.6 goes blow for blow about the same PPD as my 970 @ 4.15.......

except my 970 is also pushing 43000 PPD of GPU folding and doing the same PPD as my SB. All in all 83000 PPD out of one SMP+GPU rig is rather nice, 1130W from the wall OTOH is worrysome.
 
Westmere is Gulftown and Clarkdale

Clarkdale seems not to have QPI, but uses DMI (whatever that is)

Gulftown i7 has only 1 QPI link, even the 980x and 990x.
having 2x QPI and 6 cores would make it a Xeon 56XX series CPU.

of note though, Gulftown is also called Westmere-EP,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmere_%28microarchitecture%29#Westmere

A little over halfway down the page are the Gulftowns, of which the 970 is functionally a Xeon W3670


Edited to make sense (I had Nehalem on my mind at one point.)
 
Last edited:
nicfolder said:
I should have said, that a stock 2600k will out perform an stock 970 here and there, not always and heavily threaded apps is one of them...;)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=287

oh and sandyB can overclock alot nicer than westmere are capable of
Click to expand...

Sandy at 4.7Ghz

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 0:48:41 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: i7-2600k @ 4.7 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 1
# of Physical cores: 4cores/8threads

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 8
RAM Type: DDR3
RAM Speed: 2133

OS name/kernel version: Ubuntu 11.04/2.6.32
Client: 6.34
Running in VM: No

Gulftown 970 @ 4.2 and 4.0

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 00:42:57 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: 970 @ 4.2 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 6
# of Physical cores: 12

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 6
RAM Type: DDR3 1800
RAM Speed: 1954Mhz 8-8-8-27-1T

OS name/kernel version Ubuntu 10.10 2.6.35.30 generick-ck
Client: v7
Running in VM: {No}

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 00:43:13 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: 970 @ 4.05 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 6
# of Physical cores: 12

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 6
RAM Type: DDR3 1600
RAM Speed: 1920Mhz 9-9-9-27-1T

OS name/kernel version Ubuntu 10.10 2.6.35.30 generick-ck
Client: v7
Running in VM: {No}

Not even close The a Sandy at 4.7Ghz is 5 min per frame slower than a Gulftown 970 at 4Ghz and all 3 of my 970's will run folding stable at 4.3Ghz 2 of them will fold at 4.4Ghz but I choose not to during the summer.
 
Grandpa_01 said:
Sandy at 4.7Ghz

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 0:48:41 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: i7-2600k @ 4.7 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 1
# of Physical cores: 4cores/8threads

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 8
RAM Type: DDR3
RAM Speed: 2133

OS name/kernel version: Ubuntu 11.04/2.6.32
Client: 6.34
Running in VM: No

Gulftown 970 @ 4.2 and 4.0

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 00:42:57 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: 970 @ 4.2 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 6
# of Physical cores: 12

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 6
RAM Type: DDR3 1800
RAM Speed: 1954Mhz 8-8-8-27-1T

OS name/kernel version Ubuntu 10.10 2.6.35.30 generick-ck
Client: v7
Running in VM: {No}

Project: 6903
Average time/frame: 00:43:13 {in hh:mm:ss}
CPU: 970 @ 4.05 GHz
# of CPU sockets: 6
# of Physical cores: 12

# of FAH CPU processes: 1
# of FAH GPU Clients: 0

RAM GB installed: 6
RAM Type: DDR3 1600
RAM Speed: 1920Mhz 9-9-9-27-1T

OS name/kernel version Ubuntu 10.10 2.6.35.30 generick-ck
Client: v7
Running in VM: {No}

Not even close The a Sandy at 4.7Ghz is 5 min per frame slower than a Gulftown 970 at 4Ghz and all 3 of my 970's will run folding stable at 4.3Ghz 2 of them will fold at 4.4Ghz but I choose not to during the summer.
Click to expand...
Thank you Grandpa for schooling this noob, :p can I as you another question? were you the one that was doing(as testing ofcourse) Bigadv with a overclocked Core2Quad some time ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top