Radeon Vega

Jim1348
Jim1348
Joined: 19 Jan 06
Posts: 367
Credit: 201,370,089
RAC: 7,082

Richie_9 wrote:I don't know

Richie_9 wrote:
I don't know what might cause that. There's a newer Boinc client available. Maybe that is worth trying:

We are having some very unpleasant experiences with BOINC 7.8.2 on Linux and OS X.  I don't know if it applies to Windows.  But Richard Haselgrove is on it, so it will get fixed.

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4625&nowrap=true#47880

 

Chooka
Chooka
Joined: 11 Feb 13
Posts: 96
Credit: 1,210,073,834
RAC: 2,579,608

Thanks guys. Looks like I

Thanks guys. Looks like I have received some WU's this morning. YAY!


Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1,826,197,549
RAC: 183

I have restarted crunching on

I have restarted crunching on the Vega 64 (weather here is finally colder).
For comparison, current units x2 take 560 s. Power (reported by the card) is 200-220 W (220W being the current limit).
The Fury X takes 440 s, but for 1 WU only. I'm still unable to run more in parallel.

Here some more results. Power is the number reported by GPU, which doesn't cover the entire GPU card.


                     x1                   x2
                time / power         time / power
-----------------------------------------------------
Vega 64                               560 / 200-220 W
Fury X           440 / 150 W
RX 480           660 / 80-100 W
R9 280                               1300 / ~100 W
1050 Ti         1450 / 65 W

-----

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
ExtraTerrestria...
Joined: 10 Nov 04
Posts: 758
Credit: 175,336,456
RAC: 3,826

Thanks for the reports,

Thanks for the reports, everybody. Mumaks results (280s/WU running 2x) are a significant improvement over the ~360s/WU reported so far for 1x. Unfortunately the power draw close to the chip limit should mean the card is drawing close to its total TDP, i.e. 260 - 290 W total, judging by the experiences with other software. did you touch clocks & power limits yet? Memory OC, maybe chip OC if you want, and reduced power target will improve the efficiency - maybe significantly. In games Vega 64 can draw 25% less power for hardly any performance loss.

MrS

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1,826,197,549
RAC: 183

ExtraTerrestrial Apes

ExtraTerrestrial Apes wrote:

Thanks for the reports, everybody. Mumaks results (280s/WU running 2x) are a significant improvement over the ~360s/WU reported so far for 1x. Unfortunately the power draw close to the chip limit should mean the card is drawing close to its total TDP, i.e. 260 - 290 W total, judging by the experiences with other software. did you touch clocks & power limits yet? Memory OC, maybe chip OC if you want, and reduced power target will improve the efficiency - maybe significantly. In games Vega 64 can draw 25% less power for hardly any performance loss.

MrS

I'm still running with stock settings. I don't I'm going to OC it, as this air-cooled model is running 75-80 C even with increased fan levels, which is more than I like. Will probably try some undervolting, but according to other reports this doesn't work well and certain levels don't seem to be properly applied (probably a bug in Wattman).

-----

Gavin
Gavin
Joined: 21 Sep 10
Posts: 187
Credit: 28,877,748,861
RAC: 18,828,001

Mumak wrote:I'm still

Mumak wrote:

I'm still running with stock settings. I don't I'm going to OC it, as this air-cooled model is running 75-80 C even with increased fan levels, which is more than I like. Will probably try some undervolting, but according to other reports this doesn't work well and certain levels don't seem to be properly applied (probably a bug in Wattman).

I have moved my little friend to another host here.

I'm also running stock settings and don't plan to overclock due to increased heat - the blower style fan is barely adequate! That said, with an increase to the fan speed settings and reduced temperature targets I have this card running at 65C with a supplementary case fan directly behind the card. I have also set the power limit to maximum.
Running tasks x2 I'm getting average core clock speeds of 1598MHz (and have hit 1670+MHz peaks), memory is at the default 945MHz. In this config. runtimes are in the order of 460 -470 seconds. Average GPU load is around 90%.

I have played around with undervolting, it helps increase core clock and reduce power consumption (a little). Sadly as Mumak has suggested, Wattman is not there yet with voltage control and amd settings will crash at a moments notice and return all settings to default... Not much use.

Power consumption at the wall will make NVidia owners faint! Averaged wall power comes in at 406Watts.

Gav.

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1,826,197,549
RAC: 183

Gavin_14 wrote:Mumak

Gavin_14 wrote:
Mumak wrote:

I'm still running with stock settings. I don't I'm going to OC it, as this air-cooled model is running 75-80 C even with increased fan levels, which is more than I like. Will probably try some undervolting, but according to other reports this doesn't work well and certain levels don't seem to be properly applied (probably a bug in Wattman).

I have moved my little friend to another host here.

I'm also running stock settings and don't plan to overclock due to increased heat - the blower style fan is barely adequate! That said, with an increase to the fan speed settings and reduced temperature targets I have this card running at 65C with a supplementary case fan directly behind the card. I have also set the power limit to maximum.
Running tasks x2 I'm getting average core clock speeds of 1598MHz (and have hit 1670+MHz peaks), memory is at the default 945MHz. In this config. runtimes are in the order of 460 -470 seconds. Average GPU load is around 90%.

I have played around with undervolting, it helps increase core clock and reduce power consumption (a little). Sadly as Mumak has suggested, Wattman is not there yet with voltage control and amd settings will crash at a moments notice and return all settings to default... Not much use.

Power consumption at the wall will make NVidia owners faint! Averaged wall power comes in at 406Watts.

Gav.

 

Thanks. 65 C would be really great. What is your maximum fan speed setting and what GPU power do you see reported with max power limit ? In HWiNFO sensors this is the "GPU Chip Power" value; make sure to use the latest Beta build of HWiNFO.

 

-----

Gavin
Gavin
Joined: 21 Sep 10
Posts: 187
Credit: 28,877,748,861
RAC: 18,828,001

Fan speed is set to min. 3000

Fan speed is set to min. 3000 max 4000rpm. Temperature settings are Max. 75 and target 65C. With max power limit set to +50, GPU power draw is in the order of 226Watts - measured using and reported by  GPU-z (sorry!).

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1,826,197,549
RAC: 183

You're forgiven ;-) Is that

You're forgiven ;-) Is that with undervolting? +50 power limit gives me ~270 W max.

-----

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1,826,197,549
RAC: 183

Well, this is interesting..

Well, this is interesting.. I've been playing with the settings and came up with this:
Fan Max: 3200 RPM (anything above this is just too loud)
Temp. Target: 70 C
Power Limit: -20 %

Default power limit (0%) is 220 W here, reduced by 20% readout gives 175W.
This allows to maintain a reasonable temperature (~70 C) at a reasonable fan speed (~2600 RPM), maximum clocks are reduced by ~50-100 MHz.
But now the interesting part - checking the performance (run time) didn't show any slowdown. In fact most run times were even shorter by 10-30 seconds.. Now how to explain this :-) Perhaps this has something do to with the HBM2 - somewhere I've read that they dislike running at high temperatures.

-----

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.