Where to start?
Ok. I came to realize that the architecture of the 3930K will not run 2600 ram at that speed so I can't post those results. If only I had a 4930K that should be able to run those speeds I would try.
Sorry I wasn't meaning explicitly more testing with memory speeds. Of course my ham-fisted post was... rambling approaching pathetic - though that's probably because I... hadn't even thought of the... ordeal? needed to start a regimented Rosetta testing study either. And thinking of that, it definitely would take awhile. 2 months at least per setting change while. Wowzers.
Which BTW
thanks for being awesome and kicking this as a discussion thread instead of branding me as an idiot (which re-reading my post, I'd fully deserve!). The end game is to try and figure out how Rosie ticks... which yea since it's multi-subproject nature makes that a rather fuzzy goal,
but so far there do
seem to be trends of things that Rosetta likes "in general," which maybe can be optimized for.
But the thing that got me to unlurk and post. Okay,
assuming you are disappointed about your quad-channel results, and you "only" can run "3930k @ 4.7Ghz 4 x 4GB Ram at 1866Mhz 9-10-9-31" that should... no
IS kicking the doors in on my old, weak-sauce, 2 gen older, underclocked tri-channel 1526Mhz 8-8-8-24-86-1T.
Like... that shouldn't, that can't, wha? Looser timings aside, you have way more bandwidth. I can't even dream of 4.7 CPU as a daily number, and your memory speeds are totally out of my league w/o frying my uncore. For all intents and purposes a socket 1366 rig should not even be close.
So I can only guess that maybe bandwidth isn't a bottleneck after a certain point for Rosetta? But that doesn't explain the over 300Mhz increase in core speed, let alone those cores being what? 20%? more IPC per clock? (IvyBridge-E is 2 gens newer than gulftown?) Something is fishy. Maybe Rosetta doesn't optimize for those improvements, but still even if not... 300 Mhz! Plus I got the impression software didn't have to "optimize toward" the majority of the improvements? So no Haswell AVX2 boon for example.
My gut reaction is uncore, but like, any uncore after 1366 is way more badass right? I mean SandyBridge could pull more raw performance from "just" dual channel than BloomField ever could with tri-channel.
Plus didn't SandyBridge end the whole "uncore ratio" stuff? Isn't uncore 1:1 with CPU afterward? That includes cache too right?
But, footnote here for later... I wonder in order to do that, if "IPC" for the uncore, or latency or
something changed that afflicted Rosetta speed somehow.
I'd love to see a 5Ghz 24/7 stable SandyBridge box, to get a reference. What would be
really interesting is say okay,
If 5Ghz Sandy, 4.7 Ivy, 4.5 Haswell if despite the IPC improvements, showed a decrease trend for Rosetta.
But that's all just conjecture. I wish I had more "newer" rigs to test this.
Dustin has had that 995 OC'd to the nuts for a long time.
His float is 3230.53
Int. 12060.41
And yours is.
Float 3985.26
Int. 12917.79
The only thing I can think of here is I kept the ambiguous Gigabyte named "Performance Enhance" memory setting at "Extreme," which maybe gooses mysterious uncore (former chipset NB) timings? The other thing maybe my uncore speed is higher than what I generally see people using for 24/7 (though that sample size is kinda... small)? Gulftown is evil in that uncore scales beautifully with voltage, but sings you the sweet siren song of volts=Mhz, laughing at you with a linear scale until it suddenly smokes. My gulftown uncore is 3820 with an uncomfortable to me "1.415v (cpu 1.45625v - also overspec). Everything I've seen online warns over 1.35v VTT is tempting fate on Gulftown, and over 1.45v is degradation to death for 24/7.
I guess the joke/truth is things always work until they fail.
I'd love to know what speeds/setting's he/she is using on the 995X though. If only cause the 995X is a mythical chip to begin with =) (unlocked, everything, Intel employee only? "last of the socket" awesome?) but the reverse is true, if they still run the rig, maybe they join the team with some uncore tweaks =)
Both are 32nm and running SSE4.2. That makes no sense. Do you use yours for anything? He might just let his crunch 24\7.
No, this is just my daily beater rig. Play games, surf, my main rig. It's not dedicated - it's actually what I'm typing this reply with right now.
Next.
I think BS-RAC does have their own calculation for RAC. But it includes RAC from all of the other BOINC projects You are running.
Yea I know they have their own calculation. But since I'm a one project guy I dunno about the multi-project blend influence for a given user's stats on a single project? I never realized that. I do know they (and many other) stats sites do have a big emphasis on multiproject stats, which... is good if your multiproject and about the points (no judgement).
Heh, ironically... I know nobody ever see/reads the team descriptions, but yea. "The stats are fun, but the science is what keeps you in for the long haul."
Next.
Yes Rosetta does have different projects with different points. That is the reason for the RAC system. So it evens everything out. Kind-of. It is really hard for them to keep everything even and equal. In order for them to do that they would have to have one of every computer out there to set a 'lets say" a benchmark.I know points matter to us but I am here for the cause more than that.
Heh. "official RAC" is... an interesting thing. There was a time (pre 2006-2007) with the whole "optimized BOINC clients" era, where basically recompiling the BOINC executable with various optimization flags would drastically effect the benchmark of the client. This in itself, okay - but various projects would calculate credit with a metric that included this number. To give a very real example, this resulted in the Conroe Core 2 Duo E6600 I had at the time suddenly giving me 5000 RAC for a good few months.
In a vacuum this was harmless, (well aside from the optimized client arms race) but cross-project it made a mess. And since Baker Labs didn't give a response to this for nearly a year after many other projects "fixed" their RAC calculations (very many users directly asked Baker Labs if this was legit/bad) it became the de-facto way to run Rosetta.
There's more to the story, but for this post the take away is... RAC is um... a relative thing. With the phase of the moon. On good days =)
Next.
I am trying to find out what system settings do to help in Rosetta. I started with Ram and was going by Rosetta's measuered #'s. But as You have shown may not prove to be accurate in the PPD a machine puts out.I am open to any other way to test hardware out. Any other suggestions? I'm all ears.
AMD definitely kicks butt on the server side. They can run 64 cores. It seems from my findings that the more cores and the faster those cores run the better PPD you get. But on the home PC side Intel is the way to go minus the price. Ram speed or trimmings don't seem to help. I have 2 4770K's. Both at 4.5Mhz with way different Ram but one is on Linux. I will switch both to Windows today and let them run for a month just to see if 1866 or 2600 helps. Just for You bud( na I want to see also). I didn't want to screw with that linux rig cause it just plain runs happy with no problems at all.
Haha we all are! But seriously you hit the nail on the head here. I'm a Rosetta freak, and finding info about tweaking rosetta is... difficult. It's not as popular as Folding, and if you're "into the science" many default to WCG which is cool. But in the end it makes it hard to find "rosetta tweaking" advice!
Yes, as I beat around the bush until it's caught fire from my cyclic action, lets do it! (says me, who yea, when I start testing combinations that suck means I lose RAC for 2 months but damnit, it's for the better good - I'll suck it up if it means more science gets done in the end).
Also AMD. I'll be honest. I just want any excuse to build an AMD rig lol. When I even saw a hint that Bulldozer/Piledriver/whatever had unexpectedly good Rosetta performance, I latched onto that and ignored everything else =) Fanboi yes. But it also points to a very interesting thing - AMD is "strong/competitive" in integer and apparently Rosetta rewards them for it.
Why?... we must find out.
Next.
I won't even try only running one core. As I said before the more cores and the faster they are,core on seems to be the best way to go. Is there a way to run only one core on Lga 2011?
I... didn't mean to imply this. I don't know what I said to imply this. My bad. Yea single core... on the Socket 754 rigs I had, maybe I could get 350 RAC but that's old school numbers. MOAR CORES =D
Next.
Yes I would also like to hear from Solar. He has not been around in a while.
Him and Pixie.
Last.
You mentioned Adak a couple of times. Yes I miss him also. I folded for him for almost 2 weeks, He is missed by me also.
Sorry yea, I said this like 4 times because... beverage. Re-reading, ugh.
I think that is all. Any questions Plz ask.
Sorry to all for huge posting, twice in a row even. D'oh.