FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Moderator: Site Moderators
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules before posting.
Please read the forum rules before posting.
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
OK, I just wanted to show that it would work, but it is taking too long to finish.
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Asus GT430 @ 730 MHz core, 900 MHz memory (stock)
WinXP 32-bit, Nvidia 314.22 drivers
OpenCL Explicit SP: 3.91663 ns/day
OpenCL Implicit SP: 16.9768 ns/day
Intel Core2 Duo (E8400) @ 3.0 GHz (stock)
WinXP 32-bit
Explicit SP: 0.7763 ns/day
Implicit SP: 0.929 ns/day
WinXP 32-bit, Nvidia 314.22 drivers
OpenCL Explicit SP: 3.91663 ns/day
OpenCL Implicit SP: 16.9768 ns/day
Intel Core2 Duo (E8400) @ 3.0 GHz (stock)
WinXP 32-bit
Explicit SP: 0.7763 ns/day
Implicit SP: 0.929 ns/day
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 2850
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:44 am
- Hardware configuration: OS: Windows 10, Kubuntu 19.04
CPU: i7-6700k
GPU: GTX 970, GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 24 GB DDR4 - Location: Western Washington
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Nvidia GT 240m.
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 2.14831 ns/day
OpenCL implicit single-precision: 11.983 ns/day
Double precision is unsupported on my GPU according to FAHBench, and although CUDA is, I don't have VS2010 installed for that FAHBench option.
I enabled "verify accuracy".
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 2.14831 ns/day
OpenCL implicit single-precision: 11.983 ns/day
Double precision is unsupported on my GPU according to FAHBench, and although CUDA is, I don't have VS2010 installed for that FAHBench option.
I enabled "verify accuracy".
Thanks for the attention to detail you put into the first post there, it's nice.PantherX wrote:First post updated.
F@h is now the top computing platform on the planet and nothing unites people like a dedicated fight against a common enemy. This virus affects all of us. Lets end it together.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
- Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB
Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400 - Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
- Contact:
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Thanks for those kind words Jesse_V The first post has been updated with your data.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Anandtech article on GTX770 including FAHBench brought me back here
FAHBench 1.2.0
Win7 64Bit, latest 3071 GPU driver
Running on CPU, Intel i5-3570K
Before Intel OpenCL 2013 SDK install
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 2.78193 ns/day
After Intel OpenCL 2013 SDK install
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 3.04155 ns/day
OpenCL explicit double-precision: 2.00282 ns/day
And yes, testing on HD4000 crashes the display driver
FAHBench 1.2.0
Win7 64Bit, latest 3071 GPU driver
Running on CPU, Intel i5-3570K
Before Intel OpenCL 2013 SDK install
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 2.78193 ns/day
After Intel OpenCL 2013 SDK install
OpenCL explicit single-precision: 3.04155 ns/day
OpenCL explicit double-precision: 2.00282 ns/day
And yes, testing on HD4000 crashes the display driver
-
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 2:31 pm
- Hardware configuration: Atom330 (overclocked):
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Intel Atom330 dualcore (4 HyperThreads)
NVidia GT430, core_15 work
2x2GB Kingston KVR1333D3N9K2/4G 1333MHz memory kit
Asus AT3IONT-I Deluxe motherboard - Location: Finland
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
I updated the GPU QRB PPD predictor spreadsheet I've mentioned in a previous post of mine. Thanks to folding_hoomer, he kindly provided reference values for ns/day and an SMP project on a processor that matches the official SMP benchmark machine pretty closely. According to the chart, GPUs with the following OpenCL SP explicit ns/day results should score as follows (based on FAHBench v1.2.0 results):
- 5 ns/day 11 178 PPD
- 10 ns/day 31 617 PPD (2x, 31 617 / 11 178 == 2.83x)
- 20 ns/day 89 425 PPD (4x, 8.00x)
- 30 ns/day 164 285 PPD (6x, 14.70x)
- 40 ns/day 252 933 PPD ( 8x, 22.63x)
Win7 64bit, FAH v7, OC'd
2C/4T Atom330 3x667MHz - GT430 2x832.5MHz - ION iGPU 3x466.7MHz
NaCl - Core_15 - display
2C/4T Atom330 3x667MHz - GT430 2x832.5MHz - ION iGPU 3x466.7MHz
NaCl - Core_15 - display
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Napoleon,
I am not sure I can follow the model. For instance: A 7970 does approx 40ns, I havent yet seen any of my 7970 delivering these ppds.
Rgds,
Andy
I am not sure I can follow the model. For instance: A 7970 does approx 40ns, I havent yet seen any of my 7970 delivering these ppds.
Rgds,
Andy
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Yeah, that is his point.I am not sure I can follow the model. For instance: A 7970 does approx 40ns, I havent yet seen any of my 7970 delivering these ppds.
The current beta projects, while obviously a huge improvement, have not yet yielded points as anticipated if you simply extrapolate out from current projects.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Ah, thanks.
I read the term "should" in a different way ....
I read the term "should" in a different way ....
-
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 2:31 pm
- Hardware configuration: Atom330 (overclocked):
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Intel Atom330 dualcore (4 HyperThreads)
NVidia GT430, core_15 work
2x2GB Kingston KVR1333D3N9K2/4G 1333MHz memory kit
Asus AT3IONT-I Deluxe motherboard - Location: Finland
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Okay, I'll try to give an example: you have an OpenCL capable CPU that can do 2.0ns/day OpenCL explicit SP in FahBench and has 4.0min TPF for an explicit solvent SMP project A, resulting in B points with the SMP QRB. GROMACS is much more optimized than OpenCL (about 2.5x faster), so the GPU version of project A would have to be run on a 2.5x2.0ns/day == 5.0ns/day capable GPU to reach the same TPF, and hence B points with the QRB (equal pay for equal work).
The idea is to scale the TPF of a known CPU and SMP project with a factor of "2.5 * CPU ns/day" / "GPU ns/day" and calculate the expected "equal pay for equal work" PPD based on the scaled TPF. The spreadsheet plots an XY graph for "GPU ns/day" in the [3.0, 3.1, 3.2, ... , 40.0] range. Since the reference CPU currently used in the chart is pretty close to 2.0 ns/day, the TPF scaling factor could be simplified to be approximately "5 ns/day" / "GPU ns/day".
Then it's just a matter of inserting the scaled TPF to the QRB PPD formula, using the QRB parameters of the SMP project. The QRB PPD formula used in my spreadsheet is the same as in http://www.linuxforge.net/bonuscalc2.php.
FYI, it has been mentioned elsewhere that we should not extrapolate our GPU QRB expectations from FAHBench results. Human nature (at least mine) being what it is, I simply had to do just that.
The idea is to scale the TPF of a known CPU and SMP project with a factor of "2.5 * CPU ns/day" / "GPU ns/day" and calculate the expected "equal pay for equal work" PPD based on the scaled TPF. The spreadsheet plots an XY graph for "GPU ns/day" in the [3.0, 3.1, 3.2, ... , 40.0] range. Since the reference CPU currently used in the chart is pretty close to 2.0 ns/day, the TPF scaling factor could be simplified to be approximately "5 ns/day" / "GPU ns/day".
Then it's just a matter of inserting the scaled TPF to the QRB PPD formula, using the QRB parameters of the SMP project. The QRB PPD formula used in my spreadsheet is the same as in http://www.linuxforge.net/bonuscalc2.php.
FYI, it has been mentioned elsewhere that we should not extrapolate our GPU QRB expectations from FAHBench results. Human nature (at least mine) being what it is, I simply had to do just that.
Never push this button, or else...
Win7 64bit, FAH v7, OC'd
2C/4T Atom330 3x667MHz - GT430 2x832.5MHz - ION iGPU 3x466.7MHz
NaCl - Core_15 - display
2C/4T Atom330 3x667MHz - GT430 2x832.5MHz - ION iGPU 3x466.7MHz
NaCl - Core_15 - display
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
It's not uncommon for a benchmark to fail to scale uniformly.
Suppose we're talking about a CPU benchmark. While a program that uses a small amount of RAM may be accurate for small programs, increasing the size of the program eventually exceeds the size of the cache and may eventually exceed the size of main ram, requiring paging. Which of those benchmarks is "correct"?
The same thing is true for GPUs. Does FAHBench just measure the compute capability or does it include "proportional" delays due to the speed of VRAM or the speed of the PCIe transfers? Would the concept of "proportional" apply equally to FAHBench and FahCore_17 with assorted proteins? In fact, that's not possible, no matter how you define proportional because it changes based on the project.
Suppose we're talking about a CPU benchmark. While a program that uses a small amount of RAM may be accurate for small programs, increasing the size of the program eventually exceeds the size of the cache and may eventually exceed the size of main ram, requiring paging. Which of those benchmarks is "correct"?
The same thing is true for GPUs. Does FAHBench just measure the compute capability or does it include "proportional" delays due to the speed of VRAM or the speed of the PCIe transfers? Would the concept of "proportional" apply equally to FAHBench and FahCore_17 with assorted proteins? In fact, that's not possible, no matter how you define proportional because it changes based on the project.
Posting FAH's log:
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Thanks Napoleon for your explanation.
One question though: Where is the 2.5x factor coming from?
Are there identical projects available with a gromacs and opencl implementation?
One question though: Where is the 2.5x factor coming from?
Are there identical projects available with a gromacs and opencl implementation?
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
From online discussions with Proteneer regarding the established efficiency of gromacs compared to OpenCL.One question though: Where is the 2.5x factor coming from?
Not for us, but there is no reason that PG cannot do testing.Are there identical projects available with a gromacs and opencl implementation?
This is of course the missing link for FAHBench . You can compare any hardware under opencl or CUDA...but you don't have an accurate conversion factor for comparing the same hardware under GROMACS.
It is a great tool for picking your next graphics card(against all other graphics cards)...but not necessarily for comparing how that graphics card will produce compared to a 4P rig. (at say similar cost and power consumption.)
This is also what Napoleon is getting at with his exercise.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
Thanks mdk777.
Proteneer should know.
I would have questioned the accuracy of this factor, if it would have been inferred from unrelated work units.
Andy
Proteneer should know.
I would have questioned the accuracy of this factor, if it would have been inferred from unrelated work units.
Andy
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:16 pm
Re: FAHBench (OpenMM 5.1)
But just because there are some numbers attached, doesn't make this exercise any more informative than speculation. FAHBench provides relative performance of GPUs, and CPUs, on the simulation inside of FAHBench. The relative rankings, in particular between GPUs and CPUs, are dependent on the WU being simulated, as is the openCL-Gromacs fudge factor.mdk777 wrote: This is also what Napoleon is getting at with his exercise.
I understand the motivation behind this endeavor, but I think people are assuming because there are actual numbers, that the numbers are meaningful.