Can Rosetta@home make use of my GPU?

No. It cannot.

---

Can Rosetta@home make use of my GPU?

if you don't know about it check this out for gpu for now
http://www.gpugrid.net/

Hey Chile-Man...

Congrats on breaking the 2 Million mark!

Now get your tail out in the front yard and do the "happy dance" where all the neighbors can see - you deserve it.

Well done!

CH

Hey Chile-Man...

Congrats on breaking the 2 Million mark!

Now get your tail out in the front yard and do the "happy dance" where all the neighbors can see - you deserve it.

Well done!

CH

Hahaha didn't notice this until now. I'm now focused on increasing my RAC overall. 4 million mark, here I go.

---

Hey Chile-Man...

Congrats on breaking the 2 Million mark!

Now get your tail out in the front yard and do the "happy dance" where all the neighbors can see - you deserve it.

Well done!

CH

Hahaha didn't notice this until now. I'm now focused on increasing my RAC overall. 4 million mark, here I go.

congratulations

In the future can high counsel of R@H decide to join GPU life? Because GPU is the future of dc project.

What we hear here is r@h algorithm is not GPU possible but according to common sense there is no variation limit to algorithms.

---

In the future can high counsel of R@H decide to join GPU life? Because GPU is the future of dc project.

What we hear here is r@h algorithm is not GPU possible but according to common sense there is no variation limit to algorithms.

The problem seem to be that the Rosetta calculations do not fit into a gpu's memory, meaning there would be a TON of swapping back and forth negating any advantage of using the gpu in the first place. To shrink the calculations down to fit onto a gpu would not fit Rosetta's current way of doing things, so no gpu crunching is in the works. IF things change then Rosetta has said they will certainly rethink the gpu crunching abilities.

Any project wants x result which translates into amount of work done per unit, if the work needs to fit into a certain memory frame then only y amount of work can be done per unit efficiently. For the original x amount of work to be done in this case, then each of us would need to crunch 3 partial units, as an example, on our gpu to come up with that same x amount of work done currently by a cpu. That is not crunching faster or smarter. Rosetta has the resources to make gpu units if they thought it would help, currently they do not.

So if you wanted to build a new ultimate R@H system, fast cpu's and tons of RAM are the key(s)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#Limitations

"The bus bandwidth and latency between the CPU and the GPU may be a bottleneck."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#Advantages

"...CUDA exposes a fast shared memory region (up to 48KB in size) that can be shared amongst threads."

Current tasks are using around 300MB, that's 6,400x more. Common sense tells me that even with 128 of the fastest tiny sports cars, they are not going to be the best tool to move 6,400 people from point A to point B (i.e. to do work). The crowd of people in the street trying to get a ride, preventing the cars from running at full theoretical speed, is similar to the bottleneck referred to above and in prior posts.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

So if you wanted to build a new ultimate R@H system, fast cpu's and tons of RAM are the key(s)?

I think 2 gig of ram per cpu core is adequate for now, also a fast hard drive, an ssd would be ideal but expensive, and a stand alone gpu but not necessarily a gpu that can crunch for now. The reason you want a stand alone gpu, and not one built into the motherboard, is so the cpu can offload some work to it giving the cpu more time to crunch. Also a 64 bit OS IS better than a 32 bit one for future expandability, Rosetta does have a 64 bit Windows version but it is in Beta right now, 64 bit versions are almost always faster than 32 bit ones.

So if you wanted to build a new ultimate R@H system, fast cpu's and tons of RAM are the key(s)?

I think 2 gig of ram per cpu core is adequate for now, also a fast hard drive, an ssd would be ideal but expensive, and a stand alone gpu but not necessarily a gpu that can crunch for now. The reason you want a stand alone gpu, and not one built into the motherboard, is so the cpu can offload some work to it giving the cpu more time to crunch. Also a 64 bit OS IS better than a 32 bit one for future expandability, Rosetta does have a 64 bit Windows version but it is in Beta right now, 64 bit versions are almost always faster than 32 bit ones.

Really?

---

My friend Biscuit Boy said:

64 bit versions are almost always faster than 32 bit ones

First, I'm glad to see you are up and around and ready to face the new year. But your comment on the performance of 64 bit apps vs 32 bit apps is wrong.

If anything a 32 bit app recompiled with the m64 option (gcc flag - other compilers may use a different switch) to produce a 64 bit executable usually results in an executable that is a tiny bit slower.

The biggest reason for this is that while running in native 64 bit mode, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and that will have implications for efficient processor cache utilization.

However, tis slight disadvantage is more than made up for by the ability to directly address more than 3 gigabytes of memory. And with Rosetta memory requirements being on an upward trend, this could be a big deal.

Looking forward to seeing you some back from the dark side and start crunching for the "A Team" again in the new year.

CH

So if you wanted to build a new ultimate R@H system, fast cpu's and tons of RAM are the key(s)?

I think 2 gig of ram per cpu core is adequate for now, also a fast hard drive, an ssd would be ideal but expensive, and a stand alone gpu but not necessarily a gpu that can crunch for now. The reason you want a stand alone gpu, and not one built into the motherboard, is so the cpu can offload some work to it giving the cpu more time to crunch. Also a 64 bit OS IS better than a 32 bit one for future expandability, Rosetta does have a 64 bit Windows version but it is in Beta right now, 64 bit versions are almost always faster than 32 bit ones.

Really?

Yeah on the main home page is an Applications link, click it and you will see:
Rosetta Beta
Platform Current version
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98

I have edited out the other Beta apps as they are still 32bit ones.

My friend Biscuit Boy said:

64 bit versions are almost always faster than 32 bit ones

First, I'm glad to see you are up and around and ready to face the new year. But your comment on the performance of 64 bit apps vs 32 bit apps is wrong.

If anything a 32 bit app recompiled with the m64 option (gcc flag - other compilers may use a different switch) to produce a 64 bit executable usually results in an executable that is a tiny bit slower.

The biggest reason for this is that while running in native 64 bit mode, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and that will have implications for efficient processor cache utilization.

However, tis slight disadvantage is more than made up for by the ability to directly address more than 3 gigabytes of memory. And with Rosetta memory requirements being on an upward trend, this could be a big deal.

Looking forward to seeing you some back from the dark side and start crunching for the "A Team" again in the new year.

CH

That is why I said "almost always", not JUST "always"! In Boinc you can check but almost, there's that word again, all 64 bit applications are faster than their 32 bit counterparts.

And I did try hooking up a Windows pc a couple of months ago and it again refused to work. My Linux ones work just fine but Windows still just refuses for some unknown reason! The problem is my Linux machines are not the fastest so tend to not be online alot, I have 16 pc's online now and the electric bill is high enough!

Rosetta does have a 64 bit Windows version but it is in Beta right now

Really?

Yeah on the main home page is an Applications link, click it and you will see:
Rosetta Beta
Platform Current version
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98

I have edited out the other Beta apps as they are still 32bit ones.

From previous discussions I believe that "64-bit" version is just the standard 32-bit version with a "wrapper" to make it work on 64-bit systems. As far as I am aware it is not specifically optimised for 64-bit systems.

You also appear to have been confused by the term "Beta". Rosetta Beta 5.98 is an old version of the Rosetta software and is rarely used these days. The newer minirosetta code also has a 64-bit version, but again I believe that is just a 32-bit version in a wrapper.

Rosetta does have a 64 bit Windows version but it is in Beta right now

Really?

Yeah on the main home page is an Applications link, click it and you will see:
Rosetta Beta
Platform Current version
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 5.98

I have edited out the other Beta apps as they are still 32bit ones.

From previous discussions I believe that "64-bit" version is just the standard 32-bit version with a "wrapper" to make it work on 64-bit systems. As far as I am aware it is not specifically optimised for 64-bit systems.

You also appear to have been confused by the term "Beta". Rosetta Beta 5.98 is an old version of the Rosetta software and is rarely used these days. The newer minirosetta code also has a 64-bit version, but again I believe that is just a 32-bit version in a wrapper.

So is the webpage outdated then?

So is the webpage outdated then?

A lot of the pages on this site are years out of date, but that one is probably okay. What it tells you is the names of the applications you may receive with your work units.

You may receive a task coded for Rosetta version 5.92 (released Nov 07), Rosetta Beta version 5.98 (released Jun 08) or Rosetta Mini version 2.17 (released Oct 10). In practice 99% of the current work appears to be generated through Rosetta Mini, but there is nothing to stop the project team from releasing a batch using an earlier code version.

Murasaki previously said:

From previous discussions I believe that "64-bit" version is just the standard 32-bit version with a "wrapper" to make it work on 64-bit systems.

You are exactly right - I "discovered" this a few days ago when I attempted to run 2.17 using an "optimized" glibc.

The name of the executable is "minirosetta_2.17_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" but the file contains the following header:

"minirosetta_2.17_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (GNU/Linux), statically linked, stripped"

So not only is it really a 32 bit executable, being statically linked I am not going to be able to pick up any optimizations out of glibc.

The problem seem to be that the Rosetta calculations do not fit into a gpu's memory, meaning there would be a TON of swapping back and forth negating any advantage of using the gpu in the first place.

The problem is about the difference beetween memories (for example DDR3 and GDDR5) or the amount of memory on graphic board (the last ATI and NVIDIA cards have a LOT of memory)??

---