Here are a few things that help my AMD machines crunch just a tiny bit more. None of this will give you a breakthrough jump in performance but every little bit helps. I have no idea if any of this will effect Intel and don't really care since they don't need any help:) The CPU's I use to test these tweaks are an FX-8370, Phenom II X4 965, and Phenom II X6 1055T


The 4 core vs 8 core debate... On my FX 8370 @ 4.5ghz there is a small difference when using only 4 cores. Workunit's don't finish faster, but they use less CPU time. After I installed my 4th GPU the CPU was having trouble keeping up so freeing CPU time helped. On a 1 to 3 GPU box I doubt it will be useful.


Cool-n-quite... If your like me and run flat out, disable all power feature in the OS and in the BIOS.. Every featured enabled, even if the CPU stays at full speed, is another check against the hardware state. It will waste CPU cycles. This increases my CPU temps by about 1 to 2c. Also make sure your PCI-E is set to maximum performance in Windows power settings.


Freeing a CPU core... With 3 GPU's the CPU should have no trouble feeding the GPU's while doing 100% CPU work. I do reserve 1 core per AP, this is required, but don't reserve more than 1 it doesn't help on my boxes. It's not till I run a 4th GPU that I need to stop CPU work. With the 4th, overall GPU usage dropped to around 90-93% (This is with high-end GTX 980's). Crunching GPU only pushed the usage back up to 95-97%..


Don't fear the AMD! I hate when people post about AMD CPU's being inferior to Intel. In my experience, AMD has no trouble doing the work. ATM I'm running 3 MB and 2 AP per GPU.. It's currently crunching 12 MB at once and I have zero problems with machine lag or responsiveness. So don't pay any attention to the Intel fan boys. Most of what they say is just misinformation they ignorantly repeat or experience they had on poorly configured boxes. All that matters is you keep GPU usage at 95% or better. Don't be afraid to max out an AMD.. Mine spend years running 100% 24/7 and never complain.


Driver tweaks... First make sure Power Management mode is set to "Prefer Maximum Performance". Second and this trick helps a lot, set Multi Display/Mixed-GPU acceleration to "Single display performance mode". Single display mode pushed my GPU usage from 95-97% to 99% on all GPU's in all my boxes.

Another driver helper... I don't using manufacturer supplied GPU programs to control core and fan speeds. That's just another program eating up CPU time. Nvidia's own system tools is ideal for crunching. It's old now but still works with the latest drivers, I use it on all my boxes. The tool has two programs in it, don't install the monitor part. All it does is add the old overclocker menu back into the drivers and load a small service at startup. http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-system-tools-6.08-driver.html


App tweaks... I found the stock Cuda 4.2 and 5.0 apps perform better than the Lunatics. It's about 0 to 10% faster and uses 5 to 10% less CPU time. I know people say they are the same app, using the same code, written by the same person.. Yet for some reason stock is faster on all 3 of my boxes... Easy hack is just rename the stock app to match the Lunatics app and put it in the project folder.


Lastly unless you need to upgrade your video driver... DON'T! Long ago people posted about the latest driver and how it effected crunch times. Now for some reason people stopped testing and just install the latest driver assuming it's better. This is a mistake, even with current hardware the driver can make a difference. I highly recommend a before and after bench of MB and AP when changing drivers. I've found solid performance gains on new gear by using the right driver.

I have a huge collection of computers ranging from 386 and 486 to Current AM3+.. In all I have a shelf with about 10 fully functional computers from a range of generations using a very wide range of video cards. And I have a closet that looks like a computer swap meet:). Over and over again I've found the earliest drivers for a given card will be the fastest. Those early drivers are the ones manufactures want sites to benchmark with so they are fast at the expensive of bugs. So unless you need a driver for a specific reason, use the 1st to 3rd driver that supports your GPU. It's rare any driver after that will speed up crunching and in most cases it will slow you down. [/url]

Hi, I have a question. Is there any difference to crunch 1 wu per GPU or 2-3 wu per gpu ? i have one radeon 270x and nvidia GTX 750TI. IF some i want to configure GPUs with app_config.xml.

thanks for advice

---

Seti@home Classic account User ID 955 member since 8 Sep 1999 classic CPU time 539,770 hours

Running 2 instances is faster.
The 750TI should cope with 3.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Like Mike said 2 is faster.. 3 is a tiny tiny tiny bit quicker for me.. Can't remember the exact numbers but I think I calculated an 800 credit gain per day:) I also run 3 on 750ti's..

If 3 doesn't effect usability then go with 3.. For me a simple test is to run 3 and test some streaming video like Netflix.. Maybe compress a file or something:)

Zule,

Is this about AMD CPU tips or GPU tips, and what has CUDA got to do with either one?

---

I approached the question of how many concurrent CPU tasks to crunch while also crunching GPU tasks with the idea that since each core module appears as two cores but shares some registers and FPU's that it would be best to utilize only multiples of two CPU cores at a time. I ended up with crunching with 6 cores on my FX-8350's overclocked to 4.4 GHz. Those unused two cores are just enough to feed the twin 970's processing three tasks at a time in each machine and keep both the CPU and GPU utilization close to 100% utilization.

Keith

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Here are a few things that help my AMD machines crunch just a tiny bit more. None of this will give you a breakthrough jump in performance but every little bit helps. I have no idea if any of this will effect Intel and don't really care since they don't need any help:) The CPU's I use to test these tweaks are an FX-8370, Phenom II X4 965, and Phenom II X6 1055T

I am overclocking AMD FX-6300@4Ghz with Radeon R9 285! :)

---

Might, Courage, Vision, Sincerity. Simplicity is beauty!
May the Force and farces be with you!

Just one thing people need to remember about AMD it's not compatible with Apple's os.
While you can run Apples os in a VM with Intel you will have a lot of trouble trying to do this with a AMD

Also with AMD you will have problems with PSU's so you will need to make shore that the PSU has 1 rail and can pump out at least 700 watts on the 12 volt particulay if you have more than 1 GPU

Also I would advise that you buy water cooling as you will start to get errors if you run the chip over 60 c .AMD are not as good when it comes to temps

I have both Intel and AMD computers

The main rig is a AMD 8350 8 core unlocked chip and I'm running 2 Nvida 650 GTX cards and I have had problems with both temps and PSU's and also trying to run a VM of Apples OSX . Yes I have been able to run mountain lion but as soon as it updated from Apple it crashed and I have not been able to get it to work

I have not had trouble with Intel so if you wish to have a VM of Apple's OSX so your kids can do there homework as a lot of schools use Mac's then do yourself a favour and get INTEL not AMD unless you whant heaps of problems getting it to run .

---

... I have not had trouble with Intel so if you wish to have a VM of Apple's OSX so your kids can do there homework as a lot of schools use Mac's then do yourself a favour and get INTEL not AMD unless you whant heaps of problems getting it to run .

That sounds worryingly short sighted and even elitist...

So all the parents have to rush out to buy Apples to do their kid's homework for them?!...

What happens in a few years time when Oranges or even Raspberries are the next greatest sexiest IT things?


I'm still on AMD for some of their CPUs for general purpose work for excellent price/performance and the use of real fully available instruction cores rather than Intel's Marketing numbers claiming a threaded single core somehow equates to a mythical "x2" (as opposed to real world x1 to x1.3 throughput for two hyperthreads).

From what I've seen for server work, AMD is a good mix. For number crunching then go GPGPUs or pay the lower price/performance for Intel FPUs...


And the next generation may well be ARM systems...

(And whatever happened to AMULET?...)


Happy cool crunchin!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Never heard of virtualization issues with AMD before. Will have to research. As long as you size your PSU +12V rail to accommodate whatever your total amps of your GPU's, you shouldn't have a problem. I needed 86A for my two cards so I chose a Corsair AX-1200 with a 100A rail. No problems. The FX-8350's @4.4 Ghz get easy AIO H-105 cooling solutions. No problems. Never exceeds 57C. Not hard to build reliable, stable AMD crunching platforms that are cheaper than an Intel build. My $0.02.

Cheers, Keith

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

That sounds worryingly short sighted and even elitist...

So all the parents have to rush out to buy Apples to do their kid's homework for them?!...

Yes i agree it is . Very worrying when those same Mac's are running Windows .

But that is what has started to happen here .

AMD is ok , I own one but Intel are better , just to dam pricey . What i saved in buying the AMD chip i have had to spend on cooling and PSU's

Arm processors mm maybe . To exclusive (Android or Apple or Microsoft) and easy broken . As for speed/power , heat will still be a problem and power consumption .
You still have Physic's to worry about . we are at at the limits and have been for a while i believe

---

To make things clear, you dont need a powerful single rail PSU for the 8350.
I did run it with a cheap 700 Watt PSU for over a year until i bought the HD 7970 which consumes 150 Watts.
Evenso i use a air cooler for my chip running at full load @52°C.

Just a few things you have to consider.

A stable motherboard with 990FX chipset. (Asus Sabertooth)
Noctua D14 cooler.
850 Watt PSU with at least 80% efficiency.

Running seti at the CPU you better utilize 4 cores only.
Check my run times.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

To make things clear, you dont need a powerful single rail PSU for the 8350.
I did run it with a cheap 700 Watt PSU for over a year until i bought the HD 7970 which consumes 150 Watts.
Evenso i use a air cooler for my chip running at full load @52°C.

Just a few things you have to consider.

A stable motherboard with 990FX chipset. (Asus Sabertooth)
Noctua D14 cooler.
850 Watt PSU with at least 80% efficiency.

Running seti at the CPU you better utilize 4 cores only.
Check my run times.

I rest my case on the above statement .

Standard Air cool Heat sink that came with my Chip could not handle the Cooling . There bye i had to buy Water cooling .

Mike your flag says Germany so if you live there too then i would say you may not have as much of a problem with heat as we would here in Australia 40 + c in summer , 10 c in winter min and -1 in the mountains min .

The PSU for a 8350 with 2 Nvida 650 gtx cards using all the cores on a cheap PSU of 850 watt will BLOW it .

As for seti i am running 4 CPU and leaving 4 spear for the GPU's .
i was Blowing the PSU after kicking in the 3rd CPU core in

I also slowed the chip down so i could keep the temps under control to 3 ghz till i got the water cooling .

Sorry AMD , not happy

---

I've been holding back because I know some people can get unnecessarily passionate over this brand or that, but I feel compelled to add some points from my own experience.

I should point out that while AMD is currently nowhere near the competitor to Intel that it once was in the CPU space, the last batch of Vishera CPUs can still be a viable option if you understand its limitations and set expectations accordingly. My own FX-8320 is running with a humble Hyper 212 EVO heat-sink (highly regarded in the budget CPU cooling market) in a well-ventilated case and can survive the Australian summer in a non-air-conditioned house even while moderately overclocked. If anything, on those hot days it's the GPUs that are usually the first to start exhibiting troubles with regards to overheating, not the CPU.

If you're having trouble with CPUs because of a cheap PSU - I dare say it's more the fault of your PSU that's the problem, not necessarily AMD or whatever CPU you happen to be using. You don't have to buy a super-expensive top-end Corsair (or insert your favourite brand here) unit to ensure PSU stability, I've managed just fine with decent but moderately priced units with appropriate 80+ certification. A recent article I saw on Tom's about a 80+ Platinum PSU demonstrates that even lesser-known brands can still produce high-quality products so don't feel you have to stick with a certain well known brands. Also single-rail vs multi-rail arguments cannot be applied universally - you need to take your individual configuration into account. The flexibility of customising PC parts is a great boon for enthusiasts, but can also be a detriment without the appropriate knowledge.

In the end competition on all sides is a good thing. Blindly holding to one brand over another is not really helpful, whether in the CPU or GPU market, unless you don't mind innovation stagnating and prices rising due to lack of competition. Personally I buy from multiple vendors and I set my expectations according to what I know of their products' respective advantages and disadvantages (performance, price, power consumption, heat dissipation, efficiency, hardware support, etc).

---

Soli Deo Gloria

To make my statements clear, I bought the pricy Corsair PSU, NOT, for the AMD CPU but for the two GTX670s in each machine. They are what needed a stiff PSU. I'm ahead of the game now with the GTX970s since they are more efficient than the old 670s. I also did in fact run the FX-8350 at stock speed for years with the eminently economical Hyper212 air coolers with absolutely no problems. I wanted to see if I could overclock the 8350 so I chose the water cooling solution which also helps in removing more of the heat load from the CPU from the case than the old air solution. This also helps out the environment that the GPUs have to live in. I also make a conscious decision to buy the reference blower video card design which exhaust outside the case instead of dumping their heat load into the case and making it more difficult to cool the CPU and motherboard components. I still am ahead in costs for the AMD solution vs. the Intel solution because there is $150 price difference alone for the equivalent CPU performance and there is a $70 difference in equivalent motherboards for each platform. That more than covers the $100 cost for the water cooling. As another poster mentioned, a Noctua NH-D14 is more than sufficient for air cooling a 8350 for $70. My $0.02.

Cheers, Keith

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Zule,

Is this about AMD CPU tips or GPU tips, and what has CUDA got to do with either one?

It's about what works for me while running an AMD CPU... I hope my experience helps other newbies running AMD.

Just one thing people need to remember about AMD it's not compatible with Apple's os.
While you can run Apples os in a VM with Intel you will have a lot of trouble trying to do this with a AMD

Umm...The only reason AMD doesn't officially work with OSX is Apple hasn't produced a CPU driver for AMD...... However third parties have, so yes you can run any version of OSX on a Hackintosh AMD, there are plenty of web sites with detailed instructions on doing it.

Also with AMD you will have problems with PSU's so you will need to make shore that the PSU has 1 rail and can pump out at least 700 watts on the 12 volt particulay if you have more than 1 GPU

Wow... AMD has no PS problems... Rails have nothing todo with the CPU your running or the number of GPU'S..... ALL rails end up at the same place and draw power from the same capacitors.. Rails only divide power pointlessly.. 600 watts is 600 watts, amps is amps, watts is watts.... The rails have nothing to do with it and plenty of websites have tested this. Fine a dead PS and take it appart, most of the time you'll find all power leads connect to the same place on the circuit board.

Also I would advise that you buy water cooling as you will start to get errors if you run the chip over 60 c .AMD are not as good when it comes to temps

Agreed, 60c is the threshold for Phenom and FX cpu's, but I'd like you to search Ebay for "cpu scape gold" and look at the box after box of dead Intel CPU's... If you think Intel's are safe at 80c your crazy.. The only AMD's that require water are the 95's since they are factory overclocked which is no different than Intel Extreme Editions.. yes they put out more heat but they are for experts only so a blanket statement of "requires water" is ignorant..

I have both Intel and AMD computers

The main rig is a AMD 8350 8 core unlocked chip and I'm running 2 Nvida 650 GTX cards and I have had problems with both temps and PSU's and also trying to run a VM of Apples OSX . Yes I have been able to run mountain lion but as soon as it updated from Apple it crashed and I have not been able to get it to work

I have not had trouble with Intel so if you wish to have a VM of Apple's OSX so your kids can do there homework as a lot of schools use Mac's then do yourself a favour and get INTEL not AMD unless you whant heaps of problems getting it to run .

I've also had problems installing OSX lion and Mountain Lion on Intel hackintosh's. It's not a CPU issue, it's a driver issue. It's not a hardware issue, it's a software issue.... If nobody writes an AMD driver, you don't blame AMD.. But there are AMD drivers...

VM problems aren't CPU problems.. VMware and Virtualbox both fully support AMD..

I've been holding back because I know some people can get unnecessarily passionate over this brand or that, but I feel compelled to add some points from my own experience.

I should point out that while AMD is currently nowhere near the competitor to Intel that it once was in the CPU space

Ehh... sometimes the numbers you see on benchmarks don't equate to real world performance. I've built a collection of computers and found performance is subjective.. I bet I could place two machines sides by side, using any CPU from either AMD or Intel and you couldn't tell the difference if you didn't know what CPU you were using. The only way you can tell Intel is faster is if your running a benchmark that favors Intel and you see numbers. I grew up with Toms Hardware in the days of the K5 and Pentium.. Tom always gave Intel the nod, but years later I built my own test box and started my CPU collecting. I started buying CPU's off Ebay and tested each one, I've done the same with each plateform I've built. I've run hundreds of socket 7 CPU's, from AMD, Intel, and Cyrix (also Cyrix off brands like IBM and TI) and I quickly found that Cyrix which Tom always showed as the slowest was actually the fastest in normal use.. Yes Intel was faster on Quake, but for web browsing and normal use Cyrix wasn't just faster, it was much much faster. AMD was in the middle and Intel was by far the slowest.. Again the Intel may be faster in a benchmark, but on the desktop AMD may be faster........ I'm not saying the FX is overall faster than the I5 or I7 since I don't have an Intel to compare with, I'm just saying the benchmarks are totally useless and I'd bet money I could build two equal machines and nobody could tell the difference..


Tech sites weigh performance using applications that the normal person will never use. I don't know about you, but I rarely use the apps used to benchmark with. What I do use is a random collection of software, often compiled freeware using the GCC compiler which is very AMD friendly and produces very different results from programs that pay for advertising on tech sites.

Don't misunderstand me - I enjoy working with AMD CPUs as well. That was the point of my post, because I felt some were speaking unfairly against them. I've been using PCs since 286 days (and was surprised to find out many years later that the 386 in the family computer was an AMD clone), but the first computer I bought for myself had a Barton-core Athlon XP CPU, back in the days when Intel was struggling with hot-running NetBurst-based Pentium 4s. Intel has learned from that mistake and has never let AMD really get on top again since then, especially after Bulldozer didn't achieve the performance benefits AMD was hoping for. I'm hoping that the announced 'Zen' architecture will do what Bulldozer couldn't in terms of revitalising competition in the high-end CPU area.

That said, you're right - these days CPU performance isn't as important as it used to be. Especially with many people moving towards low-power tablets and smart-phones, CPUs seem to focus more on being 'good enough' these days rather than performance-at-any-cost. And CPU usage for anyone besides things playing games, rendering and video coding is unlikely to be such that you'll notice a difference between different CPU models available today.

Nonetheless, there are quantifiable benefits to using the current crop of Intel CPUs above AMD CPUs in terms of energy efficiency and thermal dissipation. The single-threaded efficiency of Sandy Bridge and later Intel CPUs also seem to be measurably better than AMD's current offerings. (And AMD has been focusing on its APUs because that's its area of competitive advantage at the moment, while their high-end CPUs have stagnated.) Perhaps not noticeable in terms of human interaction, but it is still measurable in terms relevant to us here as contributors to S@h, namely things like task run-times and Average Processing Rate. I keep track over time of how well my hosts perform (and the figures will vary over time) and in descending order of single-threaded performance my CPUs are as follows: Ivy Bridge-based Core i7, Vishera-based FX, Deneb-based Phenom II, Yorkfield/Penryn-based Core 2. Of course, Intel CPUs are so much more expensive in terms of initial investment.

Anyway, all this is to say my earlier point still stands. It doesn't matter what brand or product you choose - if you adjust your plans and expectations according to the advantages and disadvantages, you should do well in whatever purpose you use your computers for.

---

Soli Deo Gloria

['ve used a Pentium II Deschutes at 400 MHz,an Opteron 1210 at 1.8 GHz,still running from 2008, an AP E450 at 1.6 GHz and, more recently, an AP A10 6700 at 3.7 GHz. All good chips.
Tullio

---