DoubleMark (Prime Benchmark) - Open Source - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

DoubleMark (Prime Benchmark) - Open Source

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-17-2008, 10:04 PM - Thread Starter
Retired Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 15,199
Rep: 417 (Unique: 290)
Welcome to the most posted in topic in coding and programming!

After much work and allot of delays and errors i have finally finished build 3.

8, 30th : Next version is version 1. Stress testing is near finished and has been released to testers, proven to be highly effective and efficient. All glitches from last version are already fixed. Next version is from scratch so it'll be a lot cleaner, way different. Drawback being it takes a while to recode everything.

https://www.overclock.net/downloads/3...ml#post3674602
Licht is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-17-2008, 10:11 PM
Retired Staff
 
Duckydude's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 2,969
Rep: 434 (Unique: 306)
Nice work , worked perfectly for me . This sounds like a really cool project, would be a nice new benchmarking utility that we could compare around here.

Here are my results for 25K:

Duckydude is offline  
post #3 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-17-2008, 10:16 PM - Thread Starter
Retired Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 15,199
Rep: 417 (Unique: 290)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckydude View Post
Nice work , worked perfectly for me . This sounds like a really cool project, would be a nice new benchmarking utility that we could compare around here.

Here are my results for 25K:
I'm working on build 3 for you Q6600 guys, will be done very soon. Should support the full 16 cores. (I will have to do a bit of math before anything so i can optimize it.)
Licht is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-17-2008, 11:00 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
dskina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wheaton, Il
Posts: 5,486
Rep: 864 (Unique: 500)
Running at stock everything, atm.


dskina is offline  
post #5 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-17-2008, 11:03 PM - Thread Starter
Retired Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 15,199
Rep: 417 (Unique: 290)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dskina View Post
Running at stock everything, atm.

I don't think B2 counts prime numbers incorrectly (cross thread integer changed must throw it off.)
Licht is offline  
post #6 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-20-2008, 03:09 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,687
Rep: 419 (Unique: 323)
A question and a suggestion-

What method are you using to check for primes?

Also perhaps you could include some info on how many prime numbers there are for our given length chosen, or spit out an error when the number of primes found don't match the number of primes there actually is. So we can see if our computer screwed up calculating.

Oh, and a B2 screeney: (stock Q6600)




Edit: err.. compare this to Duckydude, I found 2 more primes

LL
LL


The Bartender Paradox is offline  
post #7 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-20-2008, 03:39 PM - Thread Starter
Retired Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 15,199
Rep: 417 (Unique: 290)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bartender Paradox View Post
A question and a suggestion-

What method are you using to check for primes?

Also perhaps you could include some info on how many prime numbers there are for our given length chosen, or spit out an error when the number of primes found don't match the number of primes there actually is. So we can see if our computer screwed up calculating.

Oh, and a B2 screeney: (stock Q6600)




Edit: err.. compare this to Duckydude, I found 2 more primes
Yeah i already confirmed that it was counting prime numbers wrong. It has something to do with cross thread value accessing. It is an easy fix and will be resolved in build 3. My method for detecting prime numbers is a simple and efficient method, however i am keeping it a secret until V1.0 when i go open source. (Unless plans change, although i promise to give that code up on V1.0 regardless, it is done in a single line of code!) Also, yeah i am also working on a sum check for Build 3 or 4.

Thanks for the help man, based on your noticing the 2 number difference in detected primes i can now confirm the error is within the crossthread memory access. I will find a way around it in build 3, shouldn't be too hard.

Ok, long story short. Memory access is bugged, working on the issue be done soon. All scores are indeed valid the error is in the memory not in the system itself, i personally guarantee all scores are 100% accurate up to a 10th (It is impossible on Windows to measure a length of time more precise then this) of a second (the score variances between tests are caused by other threads interfering with my applications processing, the more programs you turn off the less it will vary. If i forbid this it could cause system instability, this issue is present in every benchmark.)
Licht is offline  
post #8 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-20-2008, 08:01 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
ThePope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 192.168.1.1
Posts: 2,666
Rep: 189 (Unique: 148)
Sweet Licht! I Cannot wait to see more of your work
ThePope is offline  
post #9 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-20-2008, 08:40 PM
Linux Lobbyist
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,815
Rep: 133 (Unique: 122)
Cool stuff will keep an eye on this. Here is one result of mine. This is on stock e6850 (having system stability issues trying to determine if its to do with overclocking ).


Also, after I ran a test, the radio buttons for the number of threads all became accessible (screenshot 2).



I don't know if you detect how many cores the system has (because mine only had 1 and 2 available on program launch) but once they were available I ran it with 4 threads (on a dual core) and the program crashed. I assume you want the other options disabled, just wanted to let you know they are available after running the benchmark once.

Big Polish Sausage
(21 items)
CPU
i7-6700k - 4.5Ghz @ 1.31V
Motherboard
Z170 ASUS MAXIMUS VIII HERO
GPU
Asus Strix 1080 ti @ 2050 / 6054
RAM
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB 3200 - F4-3200C14D-16GVK
Hard Drive
SAMSUNG 850 PRO 256GB SSD
Hard Drive
Crucial MX200 1TB SSD
Hard Drive
Crucial MX300 750GB
Hard Drive
Crucial MX100 512GB SSD
Optical Drive
LG GGC-H20L Internal Blu-ray Burner
Power Supply
Corsair HX Professional Series 850W 80 Plus
Cooling
Noctua nh-d14
Case
NZXT Phantom 630
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro (64 bit)
Monitor
Acer XB270HU 27"
Monitor
BENQ GW2765HT 27"
Keyboard
Logitech G710+
Mouse
Logitech G700
Mouse
PECHAM Waterproof Gaming Mouse Mat
Audio
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Audio
M-AUDIO AV40
Other
Sennheiser HD 595
▲ hide details ▲


Polska is offline  
post #10 of 218 (permalink) Old 01-20-2008, 10:04 PM - Thread Starter
Retired Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 15,199
Rep: 417 (Unique: 290)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polska View Post
Cool stuff will keep an eye on this. Here is one result of mine. This is on stock e6850 (having system stability issues trying to determine if its to do with overclocking ).


Also, after I ran a test, the radio buttons for the number of threads all became accessible (screenshot 2).



I don't know if you detect how many cores the system has (because mine only had 1 and 2 available on program launch) but once they were available I ran it with 4 threads (on a dual core) and the program crashed. I assume you want the other options, just wanted to let you know they are available after running the benchmark once.
I had forgotten about that hickup, it came after i ran into some autoscaling issues with my adaptive threading. I meant to lock them off but apparently overlooked that before releasing (i was rushing quite a bit.) Now i am working on finishing up my adaptive threading code, when i am done it will be capable of any amount of threads no matter the number without losing any performance. This was intended for build 2 like i said but the rush left me locking the controls then forgetting to remove said renabling code.

No, i am not detecting how many cores the system has right now since that could leave the program locking off controls for rigs in the future when CPU access may be changed. Since you can run any amount of threads on any CPU it doesn't matter, so i classified those controls as thread controls instead of core usage controls. Although you can run 16 threads on a dual core for example, you will get better performance with 2.

PS : Just realized something, don't touch more threads then you have cores. The way i have thread affinity set up for adaptive threading will crash it after all...
Licht is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off