AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Checkpoints and Core priority
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02/22/2004 06:29 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02/22/2004 06:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

Hmm. Interesting. Ok, I switched up to F@H. What interval should I use for checkpoints. I'm set at 3, would it make it go faster if it was higher? Have core priority Idle right now. Could "consider" low since I game a bit.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 06:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
LVSeminole
Nanotechnology Guru

Posts: 9124
Joined: 01/06/2004

I have mine set to checkpoint as much as possible, every 3 mins I think. I also have my core priority set to low. I game as well.

LVS

-------------------------
- AMD FX 8120
- ATI/AMD HD 7970
- Biostar TA990FXE
- 16 GB's of some flashy Crucial RAM
- Buncha HDDs sucking up way too much power
- Win7 Ultimate x64/Ubuntu x64
-A lot of other crap that I can't remember.
- Wurd?
 02/22/2004 06:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

The checkpoints are how often the client records progress on the WU in case the power goes out or something and it has to start over from where it left off. More frequent checkpoints will reduce the possibility of losing work that you've done when the client has to resume work. I've always just left it alone though since if your machine is crashing often enough to make use of the feature, you've got other problems to worry about.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 02/22/2004 06:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

Think I'd get any kind of performance boost if I crank that sucker up to the longest delay (30 min) for backup?

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 06:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

What's the difference between low and idle? Will low keep running even when CPU's at 100%? Or if I run low and it's idle, will it perform less than idle (which is requested at 100%)


Edit: Sorry I double posted, I thought I clicked edit.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 06:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
klrk1400
Senior Member

Posts: 962
Joined: 11/04/2003

I wouldn't think you would see any difference one way or another.

-------------------------

Folding for Team #34106' ">http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showforum=27
 02/22/2004 06:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
LVSeminole
Nanotechnology Guru

Posts: 9124
Joined: 01/06/2004

If you do get a performance boost, we are talking seconds....maybe. I am thinking, a whole WU might get 1-2 seconds out of it, in performance increase! GO FOR IT PILOT!!! j/k. If you are a gamer, and like to OC your stuff, mess with settings, its best to have the checkpointing as frequent as possible.

EDIT: If its at a high priority, it will pretty much take priority over almost everything...I find that if I leave it on high, and play halo, I lose about 5-6 FPS.

LVS

-------------------------
- AMD FX 8120
- ATI/AMD HD 7970
- Biostar TA990FXE
- 16 GB's of some flashy Crucial RAM
- Buncha HDDs sucking up way too much power
- Win7 Ultimate x64/Ubuntu x64
-A lot of other crap that I can't remember.
- Wurd?
 02/22/2004 06:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

But you said you're running on low. My wonder is if it will keep folding while I'm in a game (10% CPU allocation) or something like that.

You know, no better way than to test myself. Reconfiguring F@H console and setting to low, then playing Day of Defeat, which runs at 100%

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 06:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
LVSeminole
Nanotechnology Guru

Posts: 9124
Joined: 01/06/2004

Yeah, I had it on, thats 5 fps. In Halo...FPS are hard to come by. I like having 4xAA, and 8xAF, and I average probably 45-48 FPS, so I want as many FPS as I can get. I used to have it there, I never really noticed a difference, then I tried it, and I gained 5-6 fps back in Halo. Put, it back to high, and I lost the FPS I gained. So I keep it on low now.

LVS

-------------------------
- AMD FX 8120
- ATI/AMD HD 7970
- Biostar TA990FXE
- 16 GB's of some flashy Crucial RAM
- Buncha HDDs sucking up way too much power
- Win7 Ultimate x64/Ubuntu x64
-A lot of other crap that I can't remember.
- Wurd?
 02/22/2004 06:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

I think I grab at least 50+ in Halo, presumably more, haven't tried in a while, so I think I'm fine for now. I'll let you know how it goes.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 07:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

Topic Split.

Changing the priority in task manager doesn't really do much of anything. You have to use something else if you want to change the priority of the folding core.

QUOTE Currently when users try to change the priority of the core via the Windows NT/2000/XP task manager this does not affect how much CPU the core gets. The reason for this is that the work is done by the core thread, which is fixed to run at idle priority and is not affected by the task manager priority for the process (which displays as 'normal' by default). In order to change the priority manually users must use a program that allows thread-level priority adjustments.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/...up/f...un.corepriority' ">http://www.stanford.edu/group/....html#run.corepriority

You could change the priority of the core to stop it from conceding to whatever else is running at the time, but that will come at the expensive of reduced performance to whatever else is running. Changing priority doesn't make stuff happen faster, it just reshuffles the order that in which threads are processed. Also, setting the priority of a hungry app like folding too high can cause the entire system to grind to a halt.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 02/22/2004 07:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

Yes, but if you run the console with the -config argument, you have the ability to say whether you want F@H running on Low or Idle. Idle meaning it runs in any extra time the CPU isn't using (example: playing music/dvd takes "20%" priority, so Folding will take the remaining "80%"), while Low means it devotes time to the Folding Application. IE; If I play a game that uses 100% priority but now Folding has "Low", a certain percent (to be determined) will be used for the application, so the game would only run at 100-x percent.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 07:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

Yes you can change the priority while configuring the client. If you put folding on low priority it won't take as much of a back seat to other apps, which will mean less processor time for the other apps, resulting in a performance decrease for those apps. Is there something I'm missing?

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 02/22/2004 11:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

The only time you need to change the core priority is if you're running another distributed computing client. That will ensure that F@H takes priority over it. It won't affect anything else and it won't improve your performance by anything noticeable, if at all.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
 02/22/2004 11:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

Well, it does considerably well when I'm playing a game or watching a movie.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/22/2004 11:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

What do you mean by considerably well?

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
 02/22/2004 11:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

My games run at 100% in games. With the priority set to low, I don't notice a decrease in the game (maybe it's not new enough to seriously impact my performance), but steps are getting done (slowly) nonetheless. With idle nothing happened in game.

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 02/23/2004 03:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

Yeah, with the client set on low priority the games are getting less processor cycles to work with, but in your case it's just not a big enough difference to be noticable.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information