1)
Message boards :
News :
SR5 Mega Prime Find!
(Message 156547)
Posted 308 days ago by MGmirkin
Neat.
Does this mean there's only 58 WU's left on the project, or what exactly does "58 k's left" denote, in terms of how much work is left to do on the project?
Just in case it helps, I've basically switched my CPU compute over exclusively to the Sierpinski / Riesel Base 5 project for now.
GPU is still on a couple other things.
Anyway, my CPU is a 3700X, and running on all 8 Cores / 16 Threads, it's crunching a WU about every 2 hours. :) Heh! Lots of "1st"(s) in my history...
Here's hoping I bingo some primes!
|
2)
Message boards :
News :
Change in Prime Reporting Procedure
(Message 147101)
Posted 884 days ago by MGmirkin
Okay, so... Where / how do folks change the setting?
Is it not set by default to give permission, or asked during setup or something?
EDIT: Looks like it's on the Your Account page, under "Primegrid Preferences."
Mine is set to "Yes," FWIW. Don't know if by default or due to some action when setting things up originally a few years back? *Shrug*
|
3)
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
DO YOU FEEL LUCKY?
(Message 145468)
Posted 921 days ago by MGmirkin
How soon will I know if my "Validated 1st" "Do You Feel Lucky?" result is actually a prime #, and potentially the new world record holder (assuming Wikipedia is correct in asserting that the largest "known" is still 24 million digits long, and mine works out to 25 million+ digits long, assuming Mathematica is correct in multiplying it out and then applying IntegerLength[] function to count digits; looks like the log agrees with Mathematica ["25,013,860"]: "(25013860 digits) (err = 0.0000) (time = 51:23:34) 17:24:13")?
Asking for a fr-- err, no, asking for me...
Are enough primes of lower order known to validly assert that it is in fact prime?
Does "Validated 1st" mean that it's already validated as "Prime" [for sure? fully primality-tested?] and just waiting on a sufficient quorum of repeat validations? Or does it just mean it's a "candidate" and we still need to find all primes below some threshold to make sure it doesn't have any factors in the "super-large" range?
Sorry if the question(s) are dumb. I'm not super conversant on specifically how the testing works and how thorough it is. And I'm kinda' excited since I happened to look at my results after getting an unrelated private message about some AP27 progressions, and then seeing a "validated 1st" in "do you feel lucky?" section... Like, "did I just...??" [Tries not to jinx it or overthink it...]
Is this testing actual primality, or just looking for "candidates" (to be checked at some later point)?
~MG
|
4)
Message boards :
Problems and Help :
GTX 1660 Ti GPU utilization only 1%? Can more be utilized?
(Message 140314)
Posted 1106 days ago by MGmirkin
As mike said, GPU-z is a good way to monitor gpu utilization.
Also, you can change the task manager gpu monitoring to cuda. It should show any primegrid gpu task there.
Ohh, okay, thanks...
Yeah switched it over to CUDA and that graph shows 99% utilization but the main graph on the side panel still only says 1%. Silliness.
Already had GPU-Z installed, so I pulled that up, and it says like 93% load or something like that.
So, I guess all is good.
Thx for the info. Won't worry about it, then. Sounds like Task Manager is just mildly dumb and everything is otherwise working fine. Guess you really can learn something new every day... ;)
Regards,
~MG
|
5)
Message boards :
Problems and Help :
GTX 1660 Ti GPU utilization only 1%? Can more be utilized?
(Message 140263)
Posted 1110 days ago by MGmirkin
So, I upgraded to a GTX 1660 Ti a year ago, and have been doing number crunching with it in PrimeGrid, etc.
But I was curious:
When I look in the Task Manager, it says GPU utilization is only at like 1%, despite the fact I've got GPU WU(s) running.
Is this normal? Is this wrong? I would think that it would be throwing the full might of the GPU at number crunching if GPU WU(s) were in the pipeline & being actively worked on?
Is it reading out wrong? Am I thinking about things wrong?
Does a GPU WU really only utilize 1% of this card's number crunching potential? Or are GPU WU's only able to use some specific portion of the overall GPU's ... architecture, processes, whatever?
If a given WU is only utilizing 1% of the GPU, can one run additional GPU WU's to max it out to like 75% or 95% utilization, etc.? If there's extra compute capacity that's simply going unutilized but which could theoretically be used?
Or is it somehow partially CPU-bound, too? Where like if the CPU had more cores (threadripper, etc.) or was at a higher clock speed, then the GPU could be more effectively / completely utilized? Like how much of the compute is GPU-bound vs. CPU bound for the GPU-based tasks? I feel like ideally I'd want to utilize all of the GPU's compute capability, if only a fraction is currently being used. (Or, would I have to completely revamp / rebuild the system for that to happen, if there's some CPU-bound component to the GPU computing, too?)
Sorry if it's a dumb n00b question... ;) Just trying to understand... Like is there some simple setting to make it use all/most of the GPU's processing power, or is there some other factor going on there?
Regards,
~Michael
|
|
