1) Message boards : News : Discontinued CUDA 4.2 (update) (Message 39148)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Hi! I'm a fairly ignorant user of BOINC and so, I don't understand if this information affects me.

It does not affect you.

I have an NVidia gtx 750 Ti SC graphics card, which, to my understanding, uses Maxwell architecture) and its drivers are always up to date.

The GTX750Ti haven't had drivers which could have been affected by the depreciation of CUDA 4.2.

Are these the drivers you're referring to that should be updated?

Yes, they are. But since you have the latest drivers, you have nothing to do right now.

If not, please provide me with a fairly "for dummies" explanation of how to update said Cuda drivers.

The CUDA drivers are included in the display drivers, so when you update your display driver next time, your CUDA driver also will be updated.
In some rare cases however, the Driver Sweeper could help to remove any remaining files from old drivers.

Thank you very much! :)

You're welcome.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : WU: NOELIA_20MG (Message 39131)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
I'm seeing high amount of "simulation became unstable" error on 970. Is this expected?

Your GTX 970 is an overclocked one. I think you should raise the GPU voltage by 25mV to make your GPU a bit more stable.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : SDOERR_ntl9evsss3 / lenght / credit / GPU use (Message 39130)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Dear Philippe,

You should use the "pre" tag instead of "quote" to make spreadsheets more readable, and use white spaces instead of tabulators.
Your team name (sorry about that), and the redundant "NVIDIA GeForce" text also had to go for the same reason.
Time stamp Rank User name WU id (h) GPU description 1 petebe 10338739 5.25 [3] GTX 980 (4095MB) driver: 344.11 2 captainjack 10391665 6.65 [2] GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 343.22 3 s0m3wh4t 10388100 6.66 [2] GTX 780 Ti (3072MB) driver: 344.65 4 Alex 10395793 6.87 GTX 980 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 5 Betting Slip 10405882 6.93 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 6 JugNut 10400682 7.08 [2] GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.48 7 Norman 10395785 7.15 GTX 780 Ti (3072MB) driver: 344.75 8 YannTC 10400672 7.23 GTX 980 (4095MB) driver: 344.11 9 Phil1966 10400677 7.25 [2] GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 10 Astiesan 10383229 7.29 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 11 Ian Laksmana 10405880 7.33 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 12 tcrbiker 10400664 7.42 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 13 Masta-Killa 10395792 8.02 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 14 Dave GPU 10383226 8.05 [2] GTX 770 (2048MB) driver: 344.75 15 ERBrouwer 10383231 8.11 GTX 970 (4095MB) driver: 344.75 16 BruceR 10395791 8.12 [2] GTX 780 (3072MB) driver: 344.60 17 RaymondFO* 10391662 8.31 [2] GTX 980 (133656575MB) 18 Sebastian M. Bobrecki 10405885 8.32 GTX 680 (2047MB) 19 Viktor Svantner 10405887 8.38 [2] GTX TITAN Black (4095MB) driver: 344.75 20 Dennisd 10391658 8.41 GTX 780 (3072MB) driver: 344.65

About your original problem:
As you can see on the chart above, Petebe's host is much faster than any other host on this list. The reason for that this host is running Windows XP x64, which doesn't have the "Windows Display Driver Model" architecture (it's introduced in Windows Vista). This new WDDM is much safer - as a display driver crash won't let the PC to have a BSOD - in exchange it has an overhead on every GPU operation making it slower. This method taxes different workunits to different extent, as the frequency of the interaction between the CPU and the GPU is different for every type of workunit batches. This workunit batch have a higher frequency of CPU-GPU interaction, so it will run slower on Windows Vista (7, 8, 8.1 and later). That's why your GPU is colder while crunching these workunits compared to other batches.
4) Message boards : News : Discontinued CUDA 4.2 (update) (Message 39116)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
There is only 1 Titan Z present in that host, as dual GPU boards are always treated by BOINC like 2 GPUs. So if there were 2 Titan Z's in that host, the host's page should show "[4] NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (4095MB) driver: 340.52".
5) Message boards : News : Discontinued CUDA 4.2 (update) (Message 39107)
Posted 8 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
You can try other 344 dirvers:
Did you checked all power connectors in your PC (including the 24 pin MB power connector) for burn marks, or loose connections?
Do you use any power connector converters, or extension wires inside your PC?

EDIT: you can try uninstalling the GPU driver, then use driver sweeper to remove any remaining driver files before installing different drivers.
6) Message boards : News : New CPU work units (Message 39085)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Robert, was LAIM on?

What's LAIM? How do I tell if it's on?

7) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Help with 3 GPU motherboard (Message 39067)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
To get almost twice the speed for the same watts is compelling. I upgraded from my Phenom X6 to an FX X8 and got two more cores for the same wattage. But the fan noise is starting to annoy me. When I get more money, I may replace it with an i7 at 3.6Ghz and 8 cores. Twice the amount of WUs for 50 less watts.

The AMD FX 8320 has 8 full CPU cores (with FPU), while the i7 you're planning to buy has 4 cores hyperthreaded, so it has only 4 FPUs. Depending on what will you crunch, the AMD FX 8320 could give you more credit per day than the socket 115X i7.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Short Run WU's ??? (Message 39062)
Posted 15 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Probably something went wrong, and your GPUs downclocked. You can check if it's your case with GPU-Z or MSI Afterburner. A system restart should fix it.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 39056)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
It's also obviously a moneymaking scheme as they rake a significant amount off the top.

I don't think they keep too much for themselves.

Business model: award huge BOINC credits to lure in credit greedy users and then rake off the profit. Not a bad business model if you want to make some easy bucks.

That's true, but they were lowering their percentage as more users were lured to the project. As I said before, this is a commercial project, so it's no wonder that those who run this project want to make a living from it, or at least cover their spendings on hardware.

This is nice, we do have a dialogue started. What do I think about BU? I think it's fine except that the credits awarded are crazy compared to the actual work being done. What do you think about BU?

I think that way too. But it's the simplification of the problem. The "award" for mining is BitCoin itself, it shouldn't be awarded again with BOINC credits. When a miner have some BTC, they can do anything with that BTC they want: donate it for a project, or exchange it to real world currency, and spend it, or donate the real world currency. There shouldn't be BOINC credits involved in donating money (BTC).
The exchange of BTC to real world currencies raise the question: Who pays real money for virtual money? Those who want to exchange their money anonymously. It's quite plausible that criminals are prevalent in this group of people. That would be very regrettable, if it would turn out that the most part of the money the BU project give away comes from drug dealers, illegal arms dealers, pimps, prostitution, human trafficking, illegal organ traders and terrorists - just to name a few.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : BitCoin Utopia went crazy credit-wise (Message 39053)
Posted 16 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan*
Beyond wrote:
It's too quiet in here.

This thread is one of the most viewed on this forum, so people are quite interested about its topic.
I know that many readers of this topic come from other forums, and for some of them my (our) irritation prove their success.
Well, I got tired of feeding their ego by expressing my feelings and thoughts.

Beyond wrote:
We need something to get people fired up.

For what end do you want to fire people up?
To ban the BU project?
That wouldn't happen. This "battle" has been lost before this thread was started.
If I were a project which receives funding from the BU project, I would accept switching the BU project off only if someone else would provide my funding.
I think the change BU have brought is irreversible in the sense that taking it back would do more harm than it's doing now. I was worried about crunchers leaving the scientific projects for BU, but it didn't happen, at least not to that extent I was worried about. If the warnings posted in this thread had the slightest part in that, I think it's reached its goal.
That goal is making this community to see and handle this project as it is: It's fund raising not science, therefore it shouldn't be rewarded the same way as doing science is rewarded. At the moment it's the best rewarded contribution, which carries the same bad message real life does: money talks. That's not the spirit of the community I've joined 10 years ago.

Beyond wrote:
I noticed over at BOINC the top 100 users listing. In the calculations they must be using a GFLOPS rating for bitcoin miners that seems more realistic than the crazy credits being awarded over at BU:

GFLOPS and BOINC credits are basically the same thing.

Beyond wrote:
Of course since bitcoin asics apparently don't do any GFLOPS at all is even that rating too high?

There is no such exchange rate which can express the ratio between a floating point operation and a hashing operation, as these are not exchangeable at all. Besides generating crypto currencies hashing is a rare (and very simple) task for a user level application (it's used mostly for storing passwords). Its use wasn't that important to optimize CPUs or GPUs for this type of tasks. This high rewarding of hashing comes from that neither CPUs nor GPUs are made for hashing, therefore CPUs and GPUs can do hashing only in a very ineffective way, and the awarded credits reflect that even a very fast CPU (having a high FLOPS rating) can do very little hashing. Hashing can easily optimized for parallel processing; there is many dedicated hardware present in a state of the art computer which using some kind of hashing, as data storage and transmission in today's density and speed couldn't exist without different error detection and correction codes. (For example: any networking device, CD, DVD, BR discs, SSD and HDD controller chips (inside the device), cache memory inside the CPU and memory controllers for servers equipped with ECC, hardware accelerated RAID5 & RAID6 controllers.)

Beside the technological aspect of the BU phenomenon there is a more important aspect: the moral one. Truth to be told, this aspect wasn't that important to think about until BitCoin mining was done on the same devices as crunching (GPUs and CPUs), as these devices can do hashing in a very ineffective way, so the cost of crunching for scientific purposes (i.e. the cost of earning a credit) wasn't much higher than the reverse calculated price of a credit earned by donating BitCoins. When ASICs came to mining BTC, this situation has changed drastically for the worse, emerging moral questions like: "How much money does a BOINC credit worth?" or "What is more important: doing science at home, or donating 1000 USD for scientists?". Following the logic that money donations were handled separately before - that is a donor didn't receive BOINC credits for money as nobody had the authority to set the price of a BOINC credit - this reverse calculation shouldn't exist at all. However the BU and the donate@home projects did it without any authorization. Either BU miners shouldn't receive any credits for mining, as their donations should be kept in BTC, EUR, USD (just like for real money donors), or the real money donors should receive the same amount of BOINC credits for their donations. The present situation is unfair, one-sided, wrongful, biased, etc. It makes me feel like a part of a community which consists of a bunch of geeks loosing contact with reality.

If we had to set the price of a BOINC credit anyway, we should do it on moral basis, as if we leave it as it is now (on technological basis), bringing bigger or more advanced ASICs into mining will make this exchange rate worse and worse (making crunching on GPUs and CPUs even less attractive considering its costs). So we should take the average price of a credit earned through the GPU projects, and make the credits awarded by the BU project for BTC based on that average price. However that wouldn't fix the disparity between BTC donations and real money donations.

Mikey wrote:
...now that BU is crunching to help Seti the 'devs' may be a bit less upset with BU, bribery always works for politicians anyway. ;-))

This bribery works towards the miners, as they earn astronomical credits for donating a fraction of BitCoin, while real money donors don't.

Mikey wrote:
ACTUALLY the money is supposed to go towards the future development of Boinc, but I have heard there is no way to earmark the money in that way. Dr A is STILL investigating the credit situation, but has put out a preliminary statement that they may in fact be a bit low in the amount being awarded when compared to how the other devices, ie cpu and gpu, get awarded credits. I saw a comparison by someone who compared asic miners to a gpu as akin to a home pc compared to a super computer.

As I said before, the moral aspect of this is more important (in my point of view) than the technological aspect, that makes any argument based on comparing different devices based on different technologies irrelevant.

Mikey wrote:
I have no idea though if an asic miner can be utilized at any other project, some folks have said emphatically NO, but others have said 'maybe'.

ASICs are hardwired devices (this makes them that fast), in exchange they can't be reprogrammed to do different tasks. Any other project using these BTC-minig ASICs should be another BTC-minig project only.

Next 10