QMD completion times

h20-ski · 10-18-2005, 02:57 PM

I was wondering how long it takes for you all to complete a QMD. The real reason I am asking is because I would be folding two QMD's via HT and complete one a day. And for some reason now my system is not stable running 2 instances, so with one running I am completing one QMD every day. Total overall my production is ever so slightly lower but not by much.

billfuddled · 10-18-2005, 03:20 PM

I had the same experience you did. I run one instance and complete about 1 QMD/day. I used to run two instances but each would complete in almost 2X the time as with one instance. Reading some of Stanford's folding forum articles, the word there is don't run two instances, you're not buying yourself any extra production. I'm not HT expert, but the reasoning given was that Intel's HT is just a psuedo-dual processor, two processor instances carved out of one hardware processor. When one folding instance is showing 50% CPU utilization in Task Manager on an HT-enabled machine, it's really using 100% of the hardware's capability. I've had similar experiences while gaming. I get essentially the same performance with HT support enabled or disabled in BIOS, suggesting that the games are single-threaded.

h20-ski · 10-18-2005, 05:02 PM

Ya, I kinda figured out the production gain from running two instances versus two and the bonus was around 5% which is what HT is said to give. I do wonder if you got like a Tinker and a QMD running at the same time if there is an advantage. I guess that depends if it is ALU intensive or FPU intensive.

VSEKH · 10-18-2005, 05:18 PM

On my work PC, each frame for QMD takes 15.5 minutes, which would take 26 hours to complete. The PC has a 2.8Ghz Prescott P4 running. Would finish about 6 QMDs a week, producing 2700 points.

My brother's PC has a 2.6Ghz Northwood installed. Each frame for a QMD take 17.5 minutes to fold, which would take 29.2 hours to complete. Would finish about 5 QMDs a week, producing 2250 points.

Both PCs have HT enabled, but I decided to only have 1 console folding on both PCs as I experienced with my old dual Xeon the QMDs taking a long time when folding more than 2 at a time.

billfuddled · 10-18-2005, 11:04 PM

I do know that running 2 QMDs sucked up a ton of memory. The CPU may be running at idle or low priority, but the memory gets allocated and you can get it back once it is. System then goes into swapping h3ll when something else needs memory.

MANOWAR · 10-24-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

and the bonus was around 5% which is what HT is said to give.

5% is better than nothing. I would have thought it would be higher but after reading this thread I think I see why it's not.
I have 3 dedicated folding rigs all the same (P4 3.0c, 1GB Ram, etc). I've been folding dual QMD's since last May or so and the only real problem I have is from time to time a console doesn't want to send the results.
These computers range between 25-30 min/frame or 44-49 hours total each.
The weird thing is if I try to overclock it slows folding down noticeably. Any of you guys have this problem?

h20-ski · 10-24-2005, 11:20 AM

If you are having to raise the latencies of the ram because you are overclocking, that can be a possible cause.

Meanwhile, I got my dually up and folding. It is noticably slower per instance than my main computer, but quicker when running both. Now if I could get the dually to run at high FSB.

VSEKH · 10-24-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h20-ski

If you are having to raise the latencies of the ram because you are overclocking, that can be a possible cause.

Meanwhile, I got my dually up and folding. It is noticably slower per instance than my main computer, but quicker when running both. Now if I could get the dually to run at high FSB.

If you're folding QMDs on your dually, you might want to run just 2 consoles to speed up the frame times.

h20-ski · 10-24-2005, 02:07 PM

Yep, that is what I am doing. Only 2 instances, both running QMD's. The only problem I am having is figuring out which of the 4 processors is the phyiscal cpus. As I set the affinity of each of the instances to a single cpu.

VSEKH · 10-24-2005, 02:32 PM

When I had the dual Xeons installed, I tried to set 2 CPUs for each console. But, I noticed the frame times were quickest when I had all 4 CPUs checked for both consoles.

h20-ski · 10-24-2005, 02:37 PM

Hmm. My think for setting the affinity is to keep Windows from loading one processor more than another, but I think that I will let Windows do whatever from now on.

VSEKH · 10-24-2005, 02:47 PM

It seems like Windows is able to do a better job of sharing CPU load when you have all 4 CPUs available for both consoles.

I'm wondering if Windows would do a better job of sharing the load if the CPU affinity was changed on a dual core system without hyperthreading.

h20-ski · 10-24-2005, 05:14 PM

I would assume that it would behave similarly to a HT machine, although I don't think that it is smart enough to balance between processors versus cores.

MANOWAR · 10-26-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h20-ski

If you are having to raise the latencies of the ram because you are overclocking, that can be a possible cause.

Hmmm...It was a mild overclock so I don't think I touched the ram latencies. I'll have to check though.
Thanks for the tip.

h20-ski · 10-26-2005, 11:28 AM

Bandwidth is what is killing my dually right now, as I am running single channel and 3-4-4-8 on top of that. I just need to RMA the ram and start fresh.

That and a water leak onto the 9800Pro. Oops

10-18-2005, 02:57 PM	#1
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	QMD completion times I was wondering how long it takes for you all to complete a QMD. The real reason I am asking is because I would be folding two QMD's via HT and complete one a day. And for some reason now my system is not stable running 2 instances, so with one running I am completing one QMD every day. Total overall my production is ever so slightly lower but not by much. __________________
(Offline)

10-18-2005, 03:20 PM	#2
billfuddled Please stand by... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 583	Same experience I had the same experience you did. I run one instance and complete about 1 QMD/day. I used to run two instances but each would complete in almost 2X the time as with one instance. Reading some of Stanford's folding forum articles, the word there is don't run two instances, you're not buying yourself any extra production. I'm not HT expert, but the reasoning given was that Intel's HT is just a psuedo-dual processor, two processor instances carved out of one hardware processor. When one folding instance is showing 50% CPU utilization in Task Manager on an HT-enabled machine, it's really using 100% of the hardware's capability. I've had similar experiences while gaming. I get essentially the same performance with HT support enabled or disabled in BIOS, suggesting that the games are single-threaded.
(Offline)

10-18-2005, 05:02 PM	#3
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Ya, I kinda figured out the production gain from running two instances versus two and the bonus was around 5% which is what HT is said to give. I do wonder if you got like a Tinker and a QMD running at the same time if there is an advantage. I guess that depends if it is ALU intensive or FPU intensive. __________________
(Offline)

10-18-2005, 05:18 PM	#4
VSEKH Fold for ABX Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 11,926	On my work PC, each frame for QMD takes 15.5 minutes, which would take 26 hours to complete. The PC has a 2.8Ghz Prescott P4 running. Would finish about 6 QMDs a week, producing 2700 points. My brother's PC has a 2.6Ghz Northwood installed. Each frame for a QMD take 17.5 minutes to fold, which would take 29.2 hours to complete. Would finish about 5 QMDs a week, producing 2250 points. Both PCs have HT enabled, but I decided to only have 1 console folding on both PCs as I experienced with my old dual Xeon the QMDs taking a long time when folding more than 2 at a time. __________________ Folding Rig:Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6, QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, Powercolor X300SE, Audigy2zs, 4G DDR2-800 Mushkin memory, Plextor PX-760, Pair of 74GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & Seagate 750GB SATA drives, PC Power & Cooling 610 watt PSU, Coolermaster Cosmos case Gaming Rig: Asus Maximus Formula SE, Intel QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, EVGA 8800GTX, 4GB of GSkill DDR2-1000, Audigy XFi fatality, Samsung 203B, Pair of 150GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & 1TB Hitachi Sata hard drives, PC Power & Cooling 750 watt PSU, Coolermaster Stacker STC-T01 case
(Offline)

10-18-2005, 11:04 PM	#5
billfuddled Please stand by... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 583	I do know that running 2 QMDs sucked up a ton of memory. The CPU may be running at idle or low priority, but the memory gets allocated and you can get it back once it is. System then goes into swapping h3ll when something else needs memory.
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 11:20 AM	#7
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	If you are having to raise the latencies of the ram because you are overclocking, that can be a possible cause. Meanwhile, I got my dually up and folding. It is noticably slower per instance than my main computer, but quicker when running both. Now if I could get the dually to run at high FSB. __________________
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 02:07 PM	#9
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Yep, that is what I am doing. Only 2 instances, both running QMD's. The only problem I am having is figuring out which of the 4 processors is the phyiscal cpus. As I set the affinity of each of the instances to a single cpu. __________________
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 02:32 PM	#10
VSEKH Fold for ABX Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 11,926	When I had the dual Xeons installed, I tried to set 2 CPUs for each console. But, I noticed the frame times were quickest when I had all 4 CPUs checked for both consoles. __________________ Folding Rig:Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6, QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, Powercolor X300SE, Audigy2zs, 4G DDR2-800 Mushkin memory, Plextor PX-760, Pair of 74GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & Seagate 750GB SATA drives, PC Power & Cooling 610 watt PSU, Coolermaster Cosmos case Gaming Rig: Asus Maximus Formula SE, Intel QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, EVGA 8800GTX, 4GB of GSkill DDR2-1000, Audigy XFi fatality, Samsung 203B, Pair of 150GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & 1TB Hitachi Sata hard drives, PC Power & Cooling 750 watt PSU, Coolermaster Stacker STC-T01 case
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 02:37 PM	#11
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Hmm. My think for setting the affinity is to keep Windows from loading one processor more than another, but I think that I will let Windows do whatever from now on. __________________
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 02:47 PM	#12
VSEKH Fold for ABX Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 11,926	It seems like Windows is able to do a better job of sharing CPU load when you have all 4 CPUs available for both consoles. I'm wondering if Windows would do a better job of sharing the load if the CPU affinity was changed on a dual core system without hyperthreading. __________________ Folding Rig:Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6, QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, Powercolor X300SE, Audigy2zs, 4G DDR2-800 Mushkin memory, Plextor PX-760, Pair of 74GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & Seagate 750GB SATA drives, PC Power & Cooling 610 watt PSU, Coolermaster Cosmos case Gaming Rig: Asus Maximus Formula SE, Intel QX9650 cooled with a Zalman 9700NT, EVGA 8800GTX, 4GB of GSkill DDR2-1000, Audigy XFi fatality, Samsung 203B, Pair of 150GB WD Raptors in Raid0 & 1TB Hitachi Sata hard drives, PC Power & Cooling 750 watt PSU, Coolermaster Stacker STC-T01 case
(Offline)

10-24-2005, 05:14 PM	#13
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	I would assume that it would behave similarly to a HT machine, although I don't think that it is smart enough to balance between processors versus cores. __________________
(Offline)

10-26-2005, 11:28 AM	#15
h20-ski Forget Wakeboarding Join Date: May 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,460	Bandwidth is what is killing my dually right now, as I am running single channel and 3-4-4-8 on top of that. I just need to RMA the ram and start fresh. That and a water leak onto the 9800Pro. Oops __________________
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode