Xavier Zepherious

new core15 update incoming soon (aka no beta flag)

Native for Kepler? 

as bruce said on FF...
they are going to push them out for advanced
  "The new version of the core should be available for advanced or released fah projects"
 
for v7 1.5 (you still need a updated gpulist)
for v7.2.9  gpulist is automatically downloaded
 
as for FULLY native?
well I don't think it will be optimized yet
and don't ask if it will handle QRB.. I don't know maybe it's a precurser to the new GPU QRB WU's   

Xavier Zepherious

as bruce said on FF...
they are going to push them out for advanced
  "The new version of the core should be available for advanced or released fah projects"

for v7 1.5 (you still need a updated gpulist)
for v7.2.9  gpulist is automatically downloaded

as for FULLY native?
well I don't think it will be optimized yet
and don't ask if it will handle QRB.. I don't know maybe it's a precurser to the new GPU QRB WU's   

From my short testing of the new core vs the old core on older video cards "GTX260 GTX480 8800GTS"
the new core make these older cards take well over a minute longer to do a frame.
So, so much for any extra points from QRB on older hardware.
Its like throwing us a bone with a string attached and pulling it back before you ever got it.
I'm hope I'm wrong on how this is all going to work out but doesn't look good for US older GPU owners.
Edit: sorry should have said GTX480 only, the others was something else I tested.

texinga

Afterburner
Go ahead and dismiss those that do not agree with everyone opinion point by point. Are they not human? Do they not have a voice? Dismissing them like they are of no value dilutes the value in the project. And frankly is an unwelcome comment from a leader.

Agree AB.  This kind of stuff (even within our own team) is what encourages me to stop Folding at times.  I feel that we "have a voice" as long as it avoids raising any issues with PG.  The moment you do raise issues with PG, then you may be a "conspiracy theorist", a "PG hater", "academia challenged" or any number of other unwelcome labels that can be suggested of a donor.  This thread is evidence that you really can't raise these issues without being attacked or otherwise dismissed and invited to quit Folding if you don't want to agree with "the flow".  Quitting Folding is all of our free-will decision to make as donors.  But, saying that to anyone should be a very last resort statement and certainly not suggested to team members that are peacefully taking issue with the way PG runs things.

 
I preface this by saying I'd be hard pressed to find two other DC contributors I respect more then the both you, so please keep that in mind.
 
I don't see a problem with what rj is saying at all. At this point, I don't think he or PG are dismissing anyone. For some time now the donor base has been asking for the optimization of Kepler as well a points adjustment to GPU contributions (I am one of them). Well from the looks of their latest comments it appears PG has listened and is working to right their wrongs. 
 
You both have been involved with PG longer than I have, but during my countless hours reading forums and seeing how people vent it has been pretty clear to me that PG is not the most vocal of DC program leaders.  Now I personally own two EVGA 680's (soon to be 660Ti as well) so I am all for getting the most out of the Kepler architecture as everyone else. But right now I have my 2 680's are at home pulling 22-24K PPD each on the 80xx wu's. Do I wish it was higher? Of course, everyone does. But the fact is it's folding wu's for the F@H program and I'm getting points to show for my effort. Even if the PPD is the same as my 570 (currently not folding, but will be this weekend) it uses less power to do so. 
 
I guess my point is that it is disheartening to see that PG didn't jump on the Kepler bandwagon right away and make it easier for folks to take advantage of it, but Kepler is usable for the F@H program. I'm not defending them or saying it was right, but in the end it was their choice to assign development resources as they saw fit. Just as it is my choice to assign my computing resources to whatever DC project I see fit. I also wish they would be more upfront and vocal with their donor base so that we aren't left out of the process for extended periods of time, but from my past experience and from what I've seen this is nothing new with PG. 
 
I also wholehearted agree that there is nothing wrong with voicing your disapproval with how things are being handled, just the same way it should be alright for people to show their support of PG. The way I interpreted what rj said was, "Progress is being made to meet the donors requests and the project is moving forward. You are always free to move your equipment to another project while we continue to work on this, but please remember to keep an eye on our developments so that when the time comes that your contributions are at the level you feel appropriate you'll remember why you chose to donate to the F@H program in the first place and come back" 
 
Just my .02. 

kody7839

texinga

Afterburner
Go ahead and dismiss those that do not agree with everyone opinion point by point. Are they not human? Do they not have a voice? Dismissing them like they are of no value dilutes the value in the project. And frankly is an unwelcome comment from a leader.

Agree AB.  This kind of stuff (even within our own team) is what encourages me to stop Folding at times.  I feel that we "have a voice" as long as it avoids raising any issues with PG.  The moment you do raise issues with PG, then you may be a "conspiracy theorist", a "PG hater", "academia challenged" or any number of other unwelcome labels that can be suggested of a donor.  This thread is evidence that you really can't raise these issues without being attacked or otherwise dismissed and invited to quit Folding if you don't want to agree with "the flow".  Quitting Folding is all of our free-will decision to make as donors.  But, saying that to anyone should be a very last resort statement and certainly not suggested to team members that are peacefully taking issue with the way PG runs things.

I preface this by saying I'd be hard pressed to find two other DC contributors I respect more then the both you, so please keep that in mind.

I don't see a problem with what rj is saying at all. At this point, I don't think he or PG are dismissing anyone. For some time now the donor base has been asking for the optimization of Kepler as well a points adjustment to GPU contributions (I am one of them). Well from the looks of their latest comments it appears PG has listened and is working to right their wrongs. 

You both have been involved with PG longer than I have, but during my countless hours reading forums and seeing how people vent it has been pretty clear to me that PG is not the most vocal of DC program leaders.  Now I personally own two EVGA 680's (soon to be 660Ti as well) so I am all for getting the most out of the Kepler architecture as everyone else. But right now I have my 2 680's are at home pulling 22-24K PPD each on the 80xx wu's. Do I wish it was higher? Of course, everyone does. But the fact is it's folding wu's for the F@H program and I'm getting points to show for my effort. Even if the PPD is the same as my 570 (currently not folding, but will be this weekend) it uses less power to do so. 

I guess my point is that it is disheartening to see that PG didn't jump on the Kepler bandwagon right away and make it easier for folks to take advantage of it, but Kepler is usable for the F@H program. I'm not defending them or saying it was right, but in the end it was their choice to assign development resources as they saw fit. Just as it is my choice to assign my computing resources to whatever DC project I see fit. I also wish they would be more upfront and vocal with their donor base so that we aren't left out of the process for extended periods of time, but from my past experience and from what I've seen this is nothing new with PG. 

I also wholehearted agree that there is nothing wrong with voicing your disapproval with how things are being handled, just the same way it should be alright for people to show their support of PG. The way I interpreted what rj said was, "Progress is being made to meet the donors requests and the project is moving forward. You are always free to move your equipment to another project while we continue to work on this, but please remember to keep an eye on our developments so that when the time comes that your contributions are at the level you feel appropriate you'll remember why you chose to donate to the F@H program in the first place and come back" 

Just my .02. 

Thats' how I had intended the post, sorry if I was not clear enough.
 
My point to Chris was about his statement that he had not read this thread completely, but had only read the OP, before making his post. I thought that he may have missed out on a lot of other points and the fact that PG is making changes.

rjbelans

kody7839

I also wholehearted agree that there is nothing wrong with voicing your disapproval with how things are being handled, just the same way it should be alright for people to show their support of PG. The way I interpreted what rj said was, "Progress is being made to meet the donors requests and the project is moving forward. You are always free to move your equipment to another project while we continue to work on this, but please remember to keep an eye on our developments so that when the time comes that your contributions are at the level you feel appropriate you'll remember why you chose to donate to the F@H program in the first place and come back" 

Just my .02. 

Thats' how I had intended the post, sorry if I was not clear enough.

My point to Chris was about his statement that he had not read this thread completely, but had only read the OP, before making his post. I thought that he may have missed out on a lot of other points and the fact that PG is making changes.

 
Thank you for replying. That rings the message clear and in a productive manner. Cannot say enough the appreciation I have in those helping make things work and taking time for clarification if one asks.
 
Thank you.
 
IN other news not meant towards anyone in paticular...
 
As far as I am concerned... EVGA has given all of us a rather efficient and effective environment to be a part of as a community. Whether one is on one project or another is up to the user, as it all goes towards humanity and the team. 
 
If anything I am voicing my disappointment do to the fact I am so passionate about it and understand the value of it to all of us! I want my GPU's worked like a Bulldozer in on a HWY project. At it's full potential all day every day. And only taking breaks when regular maintenance is needed. 
 
I have not gone from one of our teams lowest productive members in Crunching to the third most productive user because my desire to give back went away or I gave up on us. It has happened because I believe in a lot of the projects, the team, the requests we get, and that F@H is drastically inefficient at this time. 
 
My hope is that my disappointment is not being brushed off or pushed aside, but rather a voice that rings true and desires to be of help. But at the end of the day... If the Boat is taking on 2500 gallons of water a minute, and you hand me a wheel barrel of efficiency to help get the water out... We be sinking!

nathan_P

Some good points have been raised so far but i would like people to consider this.  PG's main programmer - a guy called Jeff Coffland, and the rest of his team are currently working on:-

1. Tweaking the v7 client for windows and squashing the remaining bugs
2. Trying to get the OS X and linux clients to work properly at a basic level i.e install and run without crashing
3. Coding the new cores based on the new version of gromacs (4.6) that allows gpu to do the same work as cpu
4. Optomising the Kepler core for GPU folding.
5. Working on the protomol core

 
Now i'm no programmer but i am guessing that all of that takes time and we, as donors, want it all NOW.  Have patience, PG have been at this for 12 years and are focussing on a much wider range of projects than most.

 
Its my understanding that Joe and his "team" (not even sure if the team is more than just Joe) doesn't do any work on the cores, or anything WU specific for that matter.  I think he's primarily regulated to the folding clients (we have him to "thank" for v7) and I also believe some work on the servers as well.

+1,000,000 Tex.  Right there with you.  I'm not looking for deadlines - just verification of what's in the pipeline!

texinga
I don't even know what you guys know in your posts (above).  But what you are sharing is all that I'm asking for.  I don't need a specific date when things will get done or any of that stuff.  How can the average Folder know these things that you have shared?  If we just had a place that basically summarized things like what Nathan shared, I'd be a happy camper with PG.  I just don;t have time to glean all that from pouring over all the threads/sub-forums in the FAH forum each day. 

 
Everything I know I've gleened from various random sources combined with a very good memory.  I don't have any more free time than the rest of you - I guess I've just gotten lucky in my few and far between trips over to FF?  I remember Dr. Pande posting somewhere how it was a big step for them that they had the funding to have a developer working on the client(s) so that they could focus more on the heavier programming/science. 
 
I believe I just googled Joseph Coffland (not Jeff as Nathan posted) after seeing him as the developer posting about v7 on folding forum and you can check out his site here: http://www.cauldrondevelopment.com/ .  You can tell by nature of his site he is most likely a 1 man operation.
 
You can see the work he's done for FAH here getting details on Stanford: http://www.cauldrondevelopment.com/clients.html

texinga

Thanks Troy and Nathan.  It seems that getting this type of information has to be more of a "pull" process by donors and a luck of landing upon news than a "push" of information to donors from those that have the knowledge.  I wish it were easier than that for donors, but am not going to continue concerning myself with it.

Then get folding again!
I'm not used to seeing you not on my radar!!

kody7839
I preface this by saying I'd be hard pressed to find two other DC contributors I respect more then the both you, so please keep that in mind.

I don't see a problem with what rj is saying at all. At this point, I don't think he or PG are dismissing anyone. For some time now the donor base has been asking for the optimization of Kepler as well a points adjustment to GPU contributions (I am one of them). Well from the looks of their latest comments it appears PG has listened and is working to right their wrongs. 

You both have been involved with PG longer than I have, but during my countless hours reading forums and seeing how people vent it has been pretty clear to me that PG is not the most vocal of DC program leaders.  Now I personally own two EVGA 680's (soon to be 660Ti as well) so I am all for getting the most out of the Kepler architecture as everyone else. But right now I have my 2 680's are at home pulling 22-24K PPD each on the 80xx wu's. Do I wish it was higher? Of course, everyone does. But the fact is it's folding wu's for the F@H program and I'm getting points to show for my effort. Even if the PPD is the same as my 570 (currently not folding, but will be this weekend) it uses less power to do so. 

I guess my point is that it is disheartening to see that PG didn't jump on the Kepler bandwagon right away and make it easier for folks to take advantage of it, but Kepler is usable for the F@H program. I'm not defending them or saying it was right, but in the end it was their choice to assign development resources as they saw fit. Just as it is my choice to assign my computing resources to whatever DC project I see fit. I also wish they would be more upfront and vocal with their donor base so that we aren't left out of the process for extended periods of time, but from my past experience and from what I've seen this is nothing new with PG. 

I also wholehearted agree that there is nothing wrong with voicing your disapproval with how things are being handled, just the same way it should be alright for people to show their support of PG. The way I interpreted what rj said was, "Progress is being made to meet the donors requests and the project is moving forward. You are always free to move your equipment to another project while we continue to work on this, but please remember to keep an eye on our developments so that when the time comes that your contributions are at the level you feel appropriate you'll remember why you chose to donate to the F@H program in the first place and come back" 

Just my .02. 

 
I agree, voice your disapproval.  But all that anyone asks is that you do it from an informed position.
 
I am not dismissing anyone.  But I can see there is a serious problem with people making assumptions and drawing conclusions without knowing a lot about what is going on at Pande Group or the Folding Forum.

Kody here is disheartened because PG didn't jump on Kepler sooner.  Yet you could fold on a Kepler since almost day one when Kepler went retail.  How much sooner do you need it?  Optimization is a different issue.  CUDA 5, with Kepler optimizations, wasn't released until last week, so PG certainly can't even start to get optimizations in to a fahcore any sooner than last week.  NV only just this week released a driver based on CUDA 5.  PG's only choice to assign development resources was to sit and wait for NV to release updates.  Not really a choice you can blame on PG for taking so long.  PG was waiting on other developments.  Knowing this, does it change your mind about your position on this?
 
 
And I noticed later in this thread that texinga didn't know about the list of things that Nathan posted.  And yet tex is one of the most vocal people here.  Again, if you must disagree with PG so voraciously, please try to be informed about what you're talking about.  Uninformed assumptions and misplaced blame do not help anyone.  You know what they say about "assume."

I would suggest people read this on why tpf's are increased
http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=22793#p227131
 
and optimizations will happen after the latest Nvidia driver release (which has cuda 5)
so we are gonna have to give them some time for this
 
 
http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=22793#p227135

Not to bash or anything (not blaming the bashers either!), I'm not touching ANYTHING on my client at this point.  Steady diet of solid 8018's at 20-21k ppd is fine until I see any real incentive to switch.  And if those WU's go by the wayside, my GPU stops folding until they straighten this out.  To risky with temps going up, unstable WU's, etc. 
EDIT:  And chin up ZS - it's Friday!  Crack a cold one, and I'll do the same, bud. 

Well all I will say is this... in my Original post I said...
 
Your thoughts are welcomed and encouraged.  Just keep it mature and clean... 
 
And clearly not everyone is capable of doing that. So let us just move on from the deliberate one sided comments that are only there to further erode our resolve and or add to those opinions that PG really has to many bad apples speaking for it, when it should be PG speaking for themselves...
 
Reality is quite simple. Communication is "Weak", attention on "Deep pocket builds" while important to any project it is not the main body of contributions and that the capacity of the "Kepler" line is not yet a reality when nearly every single other CUDA GPU using DC project is.
 
All the rest of the bantering is noise failing to drown out reality.

-ZS-Carpenter
Don't listen to that windbag. You don't need inside info or pour over the f@h forums to see what has been going on the last few years. Anyone who is not wearing PG blinders has seen what way they lean. Unless something is done with the new core the QBR for GPU is lip service. Offer a bonus then kill tpf Do they really think anyone believes they did proper testing on this? at all? If kepler is that much different it should have gotten its own core and not be sharing one with fermi. Just like the flake feast of the 762x WUs, 30% reduction in points, 8-12c increase in heat and unstable on some cards. good job testing those WUs out.

Using what is basically a hack to get kepler card to fold is not day 1 support. Pointing the finger at nvidia is just finding a scape goat. Either do something or phase out GPUs like the PS3. No point in supporting something half tail if its not what you want to run your simulations on.

and yea, i did have a bad day /rant

+1 good rant, took the words right out of my mouth.
As pointed out by someone else, if the beta team saw the reduction in points in there testing
changes should have been made to correct this problem or released notes letting Fermi owners
know not to use this new beta core. So it all falls back to PG not being upfront enough with
its donors base. They should know by now any leak of something new is going to be tested by
the donors that are trying to keep up with anything new. So why not be more informative upfront.
That would stop a lot of the out pour of bad feelings towards PG.
 
Edit: I will say if this is to be the new standard for GPU folding on Fermi cards, my cards will not be folding
until such time that correction are made to put back the correct optimization for Fermi base cards.