q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:49 AM
(permalink)
WB, how'd u get all ur gpu's to get the same PPD output? both gpu's folding on my gtx295 with the same core's almost are always off by ~500ppd or so. 
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score) 
|
wb488641
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2255
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 7/13/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 18
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:05 AM
(permalink)
q2subzero
WB,
how'd u get all ur gpu's to get the same PPD output? both gpu's folding on my gtx295 with the same core's almost are always off by ~500ppd or so.
because you are a Noob!!! LOL  ok, joking aside .... that are all on the same shader clock and same settings on lasso, and older fahcore11 WB
SR-2 & 2 x5680  E761 & i7 920d0    EVGA Affiliate Code: A2LD8L9Q7P
HEATWARE
|
q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:14 AM
(permalink)
wb488641
q2subzero
WB,
how'd u get all ur gpu's to get the same PPD output? both gpu's folding on my gtx295 with the same core's almost are always off by ~500ppd or so.
because you are a Noob!!! LOL
ok, joking aside ....
that are all on the same shader clock and same settings on lasso, and older fahcore11
WB
OH YA? OOOH YEAH???? >_<' noU! ofc both of my gpu's are on the same shader clock settings... lasso? edit... sometimes both gpu's push the same ppd... but usually they are ~500 ppd difference.
post edited by q2subzero - Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:27 AM
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score)
|
Horvat
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 3067
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 6/16/2009
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 9
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:43 AM
(permalink)
That is the nature of the GTX 295's, I am finding them to be not very stable for folding.
|
wb488641
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2255
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 7/13/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 18
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:53 AM
(permalink)
q2subzero
wb488641
q2subzero
WB,
how'd u get all ur gpu's to get the same PPD output? both gpu's folding on my gtx295 with the same core's almost are always off by ~500ppd or so.
because you are a Noob!!! LOL
ok, joking aside ....
that are all on the same shader clock and same settings on lasso, and older fahcore11
WB
OH YA? OOOH YEAH???? >_<'
noU!
ofc both of my gpu's are on the same shader clock settings... lasso?
edit... sometimes both gpu's push the same ppd... but usually they are ~500 ppd difference.
http://www.bitsum.com/prolasso.php are they on the same fahcore11 WB
SR-2 & 2 x5680 E761 & i7 920d0 EVGA Affiliate Code: A2LD8L9Q7P
HEATWARE
|
q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:08 AM
(permalink)
hmmm... gpu0 fah_core11.exe is 1,864kb gpu1 fah_core11.exe is 1,800kb 
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score)
|
wb488641
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2255
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 7/13/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 18
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:17 AM
(permalink)
q2subzero
hmmm...
gpu0 fah_core11.exe is 1,864kb
gpu1 fah_core11.exe is 1,800kb
which one is getting less PPD? 0 or 1 ?
SR-2 & 2 x5680 E761 & i7 920d0 EVGA Affiliate Code: A2LD8L9Q7P
HEATWARE
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:15 PM
(permalink)
|
q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:17 PM
(permalink)
gpu0 is making more ppd.  heh, odd, slider's a little off  when should i copy over the fah_core11.exe? after 100%? would it matter if i changed it any other time?
post edited by q2subzero - Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:24 PM
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score)
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:50 PM
(permalink)
I'd wait till the current job finishes and goes in the next one and records a checkpoint. I don't think core change would keep the current WU going, but I'm no expert at all...
|
wb488641
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2255
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 7/13/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 18
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:06 PM
(permalink)
wait until it is finish before replacing the fahcore11. just replace the lower ppd fahcore11
SR-2 & 2 x5680 E761 & i7 920d0 EVGA Affiliate Code: A2LD8L9Q7P
HEATWARE
|
q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:56 PM
(permalink)
the lower ppd core is replaced, hopefully they both fold at the same ppd now. i'm at work, cant monitor fahmon from here. guess we'll see when i get back home if the other fah_core11.exe helped or not.
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score)
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 1:32 AM
(permalink)
I had the 1.19 Core11 on one card and 1.31 on the other but they both downloaded the same Core 14, which is version 1.26... Then, my main card EUE'd right after it started the 1888 WU. I restarted and deleted both Core 14's but they again downloaded the same 1.26. Now they seem to both run fine though. I don't get it sometimes...
|
wb488641
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2255
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 7/13/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 18
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 2:13 AM
(permalink)
fahcore14 version 1.26 is the newer fahcore14. i think they are replacing the 1.26 on all the fahcore14. if you look back at page 1 there is a download for fahcore14 version 1.25
i also noticed the fahcore14 1.26 is very sensitive to over clock shader and it can get EUE very easily right at the beginning of folding , or half way through the wu , and start over again from the beginning.
so i don't know if the 1.26 is what were called the "BETA" fahcore14 for mixed card folding, back couple of week ago.
WB
SR-2 & 2 x5680 E761 & i7 920d0 EVGA Affiliate Code: A2LD8L9Q7P
HEATWARE
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 2:21 AM
(permalink)
It says it is beta, dated October 14th. The download link above is also 1.26. They are exactly identical, size and everything... 1,298,432 bytes It's going fine for now at around 15%, I hope it won't crash middle way... If anybody can post an actual core 14 version 1.25, it'd be nice to give a try if this fails. Thanks!
post edited by theGryphon - Friday, December 18, 2009 2:23 AM
|
tomslick
Superclocked Member
- Total Posts : 147
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 4/10/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 1
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 4:20 PM
(permalink)
I fixed my first post and added a link for FahCore_14.exe v1.25 dated March 24,2009
the current core (Oct26, 2009), the beta core (Oct14, 2009), and core v1.25 (March 24, 2009) all have the same file size of 1,298,432 bytes
When I extracted the core the first time I must have gotten them mixed up, but this time I know I kept them straight.
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 5:01 PM
(permalink)
Hey man,
Thanks a lot!!!
You're right, file sizes are the same and don't get mad but i was apparently mistaken, actually deceived by Stanford.
In short, your link was actually pointing to a 1.25 and now both your links point to a 1.25. BUT, even if you copy them in the FAH folder, Stanford send a 1.26 Beta to overwrite them and executes that Core. Can you believe it?
I was able to confirm this by checking the file hashes...
|
tomslick
Superclocked Member
- Total Posts : 147
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 4/10/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 1
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 6:50 PM
(permalink)
no problem, I'll fix the post again. Now we know something new, knowledge added what is the date for the beta core you get. I see two differently dated core 14's?
post edited by tomslick - Friday, December 18, 2009 6:59 PM
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Friday, December 18, 2009 7:07 PM
(permalink)
The ones downloaded automatically from Stanford are dated October 14th, 2009. They are both beta 1.26...
|
Horvat
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 3067
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 6/16/2009
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 9
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:01 AM
(permalink)
tomslick
no problem, I'll fix the post again. Now we know something new, knowledge added
what is the date for the beta core you get. I see two differently dated core 14's?
Your link is still for the core version 1.26 not the 1.25.
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:26 AM
(permalink)
My core 1.26's has been running perfectly since that initial incident. I don't know what happened...
The thing is both my cards have been running Core 14 (1888 WU) like there is no tomorrow. What are the chances??? It gives significantly less PPD...
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:32 AM
(permalink)
Horvat
tomslick
no problem, I'll fix the post again. Now we know something new, knowledge added
what is the date for the beta core you get. I see two differently dated core 14's?
Your link is still for the core version 1.26 not the 1.25.
No Horvat, his link is really the 1.25. See my log file below, Stanford does not like the 1.25 and overwrites it with 1.26 before you know it. The log file shows that even when it finds the 1.25 (dated March 2nd), it deems it outdated and downloads a new core, the 1.26 dated October 14th. It's working fine for me now, so I'm not complaining...
[07:17:11] + Processing work unit
[07:17:11] Core required: FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:11] Core found.
[07:17:11] Working on queue slot 08 [December 19 07:17:11 UTC]
[07:17:11] + Working ...
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] *------------------------------*
[07:17:11] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[07:17:11] Version 1.25 (Mon Mar 2 19:49:32 PST 2009)
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] Compiler : Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.50727.762 for 80x86
[07:17:11] Build host: vspm46
[07:17:11] Board Type: Nvidia
[07:17:11] Core :
[07:17:11] Preparing to commence simulation
[07:17:11] - Looking at optimizations...
[07:17:11] - Created dyn
[07:17:11] - Files status OK
[07:17:11] Need version 126
[07:17:11] Error: Work unit read from disk is invalid
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] Folding@home Core Shutdown: CORE_OUTDATED
[07:17:15] CoreStatus = 6E (110)
[07:17:15] + Core out of date. Auto updating...
[07:17:15] New core downloaded for this work unit, but still out of date.
[07:17:15] - Attempting to download new core...
[07:17:15] + Downloading new core: FahCore_14.exe
.
.
.
07:17:17] + 565848 bytes downloaded
[07:17:17] Verifying core Core_14.fah...
[07:17:17] Signature is VALID
[07:17:17]
[07:17:17] Trying to unzip core FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:17] Decompressed FahCore_14.exe (1298432 bytes) successfully
[07:17:22] + Core successfully engaged
[07:17:22] Deleting current work unit & continuing...
[07:17:26] - Preparing to get new work unit...
[07:17:26] + Attempting to get work packet
[07:17:26] - Connecting to assignment server
[07:17:27] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.65.20).
[07:17:27] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[07:17:27] Loaded queue successfully.
[07:17:28] + Closed connections
[07:17:33]
[07:17:33] + Processing work unit
[07:17:33] Core required: FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:33] Core found.
[07:17:33] Working on queue slot 09 [December 19 07:17:33 UTC]
[07:17:33] + Working ...
[07:17:33]
[07:17:33] *------------------------------*
[07:17:33] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[07:17:33] Version 1.26 (Wed Oct 14 13:09:26 PDT 2009)
|
q2subzero
iCX Member
- Total Posts : 353
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 8/22/2009
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 0
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Saturday, December 19, 2009 8:44 AM
(permalink)
oooh snap, stanford's on to us!  btw, WB, i made sure both GPU folders have the same fah_core11.exe, yet they still rarely fold at the same PPD... any idea's?
post edited by q2subzero - Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:34 PM
-Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W -Asus P6T Intel x58 Chipset -Intel i7 920 D0@ 4.01ghz w/HT (20x201) -Corssair H50 CPU Water Cooler -6GB OCZ HyperX DDR3 @1611mhz -Win7 Ultimate N 64bit -EVGA GTX 480 (800/1600/2050) -BFG 8800GTX (675/1579/1000) -physX -P27226 3DMark Vantage (old gtx 295 score)
|
Horvat
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 3067
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 6/16/2009
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 9
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:18 PM
(permalink)
theGryphon
Horvat
tomslick
no problem, I'll fix the post again. Now we know something new, knowledge added
what is the date for the beta core you get. I see two differently dated core 14's?
Your link is still for the core version 1.26 not the 1.25.
No Horvat, his link is really the 1.25. See my log file below, Stanford does not like the 1.25 and overwrites it with 1.26 before you know it. The log file shows that even when it finds the 1.25 (dated March 2nd), it deems it outdated and downloads a new core, the 1.26 dated October 14th.
It's working fine for me now, so I'm not complaining...
[07:17:11] + Processing work unit
[07:17:11] Core required: FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:11] Core found.
[07:17:11] Working on queue slot 08 [December 19 07:17:11 UTC]
[07:17:11] + Working ...
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] *------------------------------*
[07:17:11] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[07:17:11] Version 1.25 (Mon Mar 2 19:49:32 PST 2009)
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] Compiler : Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.50727.762 for 80x86
[07:17:11] Build host: vspm46
[07:17:11] Board Type: Nvidia
[07:17:11] Core :
[07:17:11] Preparing to commence simulation
[07:17:11] - Looking at optimizations...
[07:17:11] - Created dyn
[07:17:11] - Files status OK
[07:17:11] Need version 126
[07:17:11] Error: Work unit read from disk is invalid
[07:17:11]
[07:17:11] Folding@home Core Shutdown: CORE_OUTDATED
[07:17:15] CoreStatus = 6E (110)
[07:17:15] + Core out of date. Auto updating...
[07:17:15] New core downloaded for this work unit, but still out of date.
[07:17:15] - Attempting to download new core...
[07:17:15] + Downloading new core: FahCore_14.exe
.
.
.
07:17:17] + 565848 bytes downloaded
[07:17:17] Verifying core Core_14.fah...
[07:17:17] Signature is VALID
[07:17:17]
[07:17:17] Trying to unzip core FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:17] Decompressed FahCore_14.exe (1298432 bytes) successfully
[07:17:22] + Core successfully engaged
[07:17:22] Deleting current work unit & continuing...
[07:17:26] - Preparing to get new work unit...
[07:17:26] + Attempting to get work packet
[07:17:26] - Connecting to assignment server
[07:17:27] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.65.20).
[07:17:27] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[07:17:27] Loaded queue successfully.
[07:17:28] + Closed connections
[07:17:33]
[07:17:33] + Processing work unit
[07:17:33] Core required: FahCore_14.exe
[07:17:33] Core found.
[07:17:33] Working on queue slot 09 [December 19 07:17:33 UTC]
[07:17:33] + Working ...
[07:17:33]
[07:17:33] *------------------------------*
[07:17:33] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[07:17:33] Version 1.26 (Wed Oct 14 13:09:26 PDT 2009)
Thanks for that clarification, I had not checked my log files.
|
Tasmac
SSC Member
- Total Posts : 684
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/20/2009
- Location: Anderson, South Carolina
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 4
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:48 PM
(permalink)
 ok, that does it!!! im shutting down my GPU's I can do the fix, but later on ill have to do it again....im not going to baby sit my gpu's and i dont want to kill my cards either these new cores are crap!!! Folding@home might think its ok to mess with my rig, but I don't when they decied to not to mess with something thats not broke fine ill fire them back up
|
theGryphon
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 2954
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/5/2009
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 14
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:50 PM
(permalink)
Hey Tasmac, are you pissed because Stanford is replacing the Core_14, or is something else is up?
|
Horvat
CLASSIFIED Member
- Total Posts : 3067
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 6/16/2009
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 9
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:59 PM
(permalink)
It seems like the new cores ARE crap, they are unstable and unreliable and as usual Stanford has no consideration about the effects of what they release on VOLUTEERS hardware. If you have the disposable cash to spend on replacing thousands of dollar computers then I guess it is no big deal, but when you have the time and money invested in something that you can not afford to mistreat that is a different matter.
|
Tasmac
SSC Member
- Total Posts : 684
- Reward points : 0
- Joined: 3/20/2009
- Location: Anderson, South Carolina
- Status: offline
- Ribbons : 4
Re:fahcore 11 version 1.19 vs fahcore 11 version 1.31
Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:06 PM
(permalink)
Horvat
It seems like the new cores ARE crap, they are unstable and unreliable and as usual Stanford has no consideration about the effects of what they release on VOLUTEERS hardware. If you have the disposable cash to spend on replacing thousands of dollar computers then I guess it is no big deal, but when you have the time and money invested in something that you can not afford to mistreat that is a different matter.
+1 BINGO....just venting....owell I can game a little more, sorry to sound angry, but im angry
|