Radeon Vega

ikeke1
ikeke1
Joined: 6 Oct 17
Posts: 35
Credit: 24340991
RAC: 0

New WUs appeared (%0044L%),

New WUs appeared (%0044L%), which load the GPU much better (better constant load without idle/halfload during WU processing) - reduction in run time ~200sec, increase in average power consumption ~30W, same min/max power consumption. So average is up due to GPU being used fully.

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1840653529
RAC: 575857

I had a system crash, all

I had a system crash, all settings either lost or doing crazy things and since them I'm again unable to undervolt the GPU.. Tried to reset, reboot, reapply, etc., no joy. Oh, this is a pain...

-----

ikeke1
ikeke1
Joined: 6 Oct 17
Posts: 35
Credit: 24340991
RAC: 0

That sucks... Current

That sucks...

Current status.

ikeke1
ikeke1
Joined: 6 Oct 17
Posts: 35
Credit: 24340991
RAC: 0

Seems the "good" WUs were

Seems the "good" WUs were from LATeah0044L_00* to LATeah0044L_99* series. 

Back to normal crunch time/utilization/power consumption.

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5206
Credit: 43216547737
RAC: 44819564

They're not "good" tasks,

They're not "good" tasks, they're "short ends".  Some of these tasks at low frequencies have a lower work content and so crunch faster.  I mentioned them previously.  Not all tasks at low frequencies are "short".  It's quite variable - luck of the draw.

Quote:

There is also possible variation based on the frequency term.  For example, a task named LATeah0042L_44.0_.... might take a different time than one named LATeah0042L_1012.0_....  Finally, at very low frequencies - 4.0, 12.0, 20.0 ... - some of the tasks run considerably faster (like 50-100% faster) than others at the same frequency.  These are known as 'short ends' and there is less data to crunch.

 

Cheers,
Gary.

ikeke1
ikeke1
Joined: 6 Oct 17
Posts: 35
Credit: 24340991
RAC: 0

Cool. Sorry, forgot to "save"

Cool. Sorry, forgot to "save" this bit of info into my long term memory. Fixed now ;)

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1840653529
RAC: 575857

Finally got around the

Finally got around the problem of not being able to hold core voltages set. WattMan is a huge crap, at least in the current state. It absolutely doesn't hold settings, sometimes after reboot the GPU clock and PStates are totally off.

Used MSI Afterburner 4.4.0 which has Vega support and all is well. Currently running with Core Voltage -150 mV (telemetry reports 0.994 - 1.050 V). Average chip-reported power ~175 W.
Custom fan curve is also much better in AB than the AMD-defined fan levels.

-----

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1840653529
RAC: 575857

Further reduced VDDC to -168

Further reduced VDDC to -168 mV (measured results 0.975 - 1.031 V). Average chip-reported power ~166 W (min 105, max 202 W).

-----

Trotador
Trotador
Joined: 2 May 13
Posts: 58
Credit: 1240236449
RAC: 390080

Mumak escribió:Further

Mumak wrote:
Further reduced VDDC to -168 mV (measured results 0.975 - 1.031 V). Average chip-reported power ~166 W (min 105, max 202 W).

 

Do you have measurement of power from the wall?

 

Thanks!

Mumak
Joined: 26 Feb 13
Posts: 325
Credit: 1840653529
RAC: 575857

Trotador wrote:Mumak

Trotador wrote:
Mumak wrote:
Further reduced VDDC to -168 mV (measured results 0.975 - 1.031 V). Average chip-reported power ~166 W (min 105, max 202 W).

 Do you have measurement of power from the wall?

 Thanks!

No, sorry. I have multiple machines hooked on the wattmeter, so it wouldn't be accurate. Even with a single machine measuring at wall is not easy to estimate pure GPU power as you need to take several other factors into account too.
What I can do would be to measure the differential between GPU idle / load at wall.

-----

Comment viewing options

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