I installed my AMD R9-290x alongside my 7970 card on my Linux host. An issue I had with previous BRP applications is that tasks would fail to validate when running more than one task at a time on the 290x. With the FGRP GPU application, I am running 2 tasks on the 290x and so far tasks are validating okay. Run time is about 370 seconds per task which is about 12-14% faster than my 7970.
I just issued app vesrion 1.17 (currently OSX only, Beta test) that, amog other things, should have the progress counting fixed.
I'm picking up 1.17 Units on both of my computers, now, but won't be getting to them for a couple of days while the MAC finishes the 1.14 Units, and XP Pro x64 finishes the 1.16 Units.
The Invalids still hold at the 5 I reported earlier; NO NEW Invalids to report on 1.14 for MAC.
I need some help here - I'm getting wildly different runtimes on two computers with identical R9 280x's. One is getting runtimes of about 975s where the other gets about 420s. Luxmark is showing similar behaviour (4300 vs 12700). Both machines are running exclusively FGRP tasks (one at a time for now until I have sorted this out). Both machines are running idle apart from E@H and have ample cpu and ram to support the gpus (the slower one has 2x L5630, 16 threads, the faster one 2x X5670, so 24 threads, both have 24Gb ram). Both are running OSX El Capitan. I have tried swapping the gpus out to exclude the possibilty of a dodgy gpu, and got identical results, the slow machine remaining the slower one. BIOS settings are identical.
The only difference I can see is that one has it's gpu in a PCIE x8 slot (a server board without any x16 slots) where the other has the gpu a proper x16 slot. My understanding so far however was that the reduced bandwidth of the x8 slot shouldnt affect opencl performance, at least not to this extent.
Does anyone have any ideas what I could try to at least reduce the difference between computation performance?
Many thanks in advance,
Kailee.
Defender_2 wrote:
Since E@H is verhy bandwith-hungry I guess it's caused by the different PCI-lanes. But I can't say more about it since I'm no expert.
Kai Leibrandt wrote:
Could someone please confirm this? I would have thought as much data as possible would be transferred to gpu memory initially where it would then be crunched... This would mean pie bandwidth wouldn't have such a large effect on performance.
Tia,Kailee.
I think PCI-E can not have significant impact on the sped of current FGRP GPU app. Because i have many identical GPUs (AMD HD 7870 2 Gb) running in wide mix of PCI-E buses: from x16 down to 8x, 4x and even 1x (this last connected via flex PCI-E riser 1x==>16x, because its 3rd GPU in computer and MB have only 2 full sized PCI-E slots)
And see only minor variation from PCI-E connection. In best(x16) vs worst(x1) cases it around 20-25% maximum.
So in x16 vs x8 situation should generally be no any significant difference.
I switched my browser Mozilla Firefox to Google Chrome and it works much better. I can play videos in HD it's running fine and scrolling is smooth. But don't know why!? I experience a little bit of lag in some apps but I can tolerate it, my first and biggest problem was the browser thing. It seems resolved.
In FireFox you can try alter "use hardware acceleration" setting in preferences menu (about:preferences#advanced )
Usual it solve problems with lags when GPU under heavy load.Seems Chrome just already set to not use hardware acceleration.
Or as alternative you can set BOINC to NOT run GPU tasks while computer in use - it will allow GPU work only after few minutes of user inactivity and pause GPU work after firs mouse move or button pressed: Options ==> Computing preferences ==> Computing tab ==> Suspend GPU computing when computer is in use
I think PCI-E can not have significant impact on the sped of current FGRP GPU app. Because i have many identical GPUs (AMD HD 7870 2 Gb) running in wide mix of PCI-E buses: from x16 down to 8x, 4x and even 1x (this last connected via flex PCI-E riser 1x==>16x, because its 3rd GPU in computer and MB have only 2 full sized PCI-E slots)
And see only minor variation from PCI-E connection. In best(x16) vs worst(x1) cases it around 20-25% maximum.
So in x16 vs x8 situation should generally be no any significant difference.
Hi Mad_Max,
that's exactly what I thought. Have given up on this issue for now, just swapped the 280x for a gtx580 as that is for some weird reason much happier in that machine... Well at least it's not being hampered nearly so bad by the same issue. The 280x is now back in a windows machine doing milkyway.
If anyone can think of something to try to get the ati to get better results - I would be very grateful and stick the 280x back into the einstein machine...
If anyone can think of something to try to get the ati to get better results - I would be very grateful and stick the 280x back into the einstein machine...
On one of the forums (I forget which), it was found that turning on the AERO intereface helped reduce lag. I think you have one Win7 machine, so you could try it there. That is somewhat counter-intuitive, but I think it adds a buffer.
If anyone can think of something to try to get the ati to get better results - I would be very grateful and stick the 280x back into the einstein machine...
On one of the forums (I forget which), it was found that turning on the AERO intereface helped reduce lag. I think you have one Win7 machine, so you could try it there. That is somewhat counter-intuitive, but I think it adds a buffer.
Hey Jim,
thanks for the effort but my Einstein machines are now OSX. But you gave me an idea - might try Windows on that hardware to see if that makes a difference.
Thank you!
)
Thank you!
I installed my AMD R9-290x
)
I installed my AMD R9-290x alongside my 7970 card on my Linux host. An issue I had with previous BRP applications is that tasks would fail to validate when running more than one task at a time on the 290x. With the FGRP GPU application, I am running 2 tasks on the 290x and so far tasks are validating okay. Run time is about 370 seconds per task which is about 12-14% faster than my 7970.
Bernd Machenschalk wrote:I
)
I'm picking up 1.17 Units on both of my computers, now, but won't be getting to them for a couple of days while the MAC finishes the 1.14 Units, and XP Pro x64 finishes the 1.16 Units.
The Invalids still hold at the 5 I reported earlier; NO NEW Invalids to report on 1.14 for MAC.
TL
TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join SETI Refugees
Kai Leibrandt wrote:Hi
)
I think PCI-E can not have significant impact on the sped of current FGRP GPU app. Because i have many identical GPUs (AMD HD 7870 2 Gb) running in wide mix of PCI-E buses: from x16 down to 8x, 4x and even 1x (this last connected via flex PCI-E riser 1x==>16x, because its 3rd GPU in computer and MB have only 2 full sized PCI-E slots)
And see only minor variation from PCI-E connection. In best(x16) vs worst(x1) cases it around 20-25% maximum.
So in x16 vs x8 situation should generally be no any significant difference.
C0d3r wrote:I switched my
)
In FireFox you can try alter "use hardware acceleration" setting in preferences menu (about:preferences#advanced )
Usual it solve problems with lags when GPU under heavy load.Seems Chrome just already set to not use hardware acceleration.
Or as alternative you can set BOINC to NOT run GPU tasks while computer in use - it will allow GPU work only after few minutes of user inactivity and pause GPU work after firs mouse move or button pressed: Options ==> Computing preferences ==> Computing tab ==> Suspend GPU computing when computer is in use
Bernd Machenschalk wrote:I
)
I see that you also released a 1.17 version for windows and that the progress counting now works much better, thank you!
Mad_Max wrote: I think PCI-E
)
Hi Mad_Max,
that's exactly what I thought. Have given up on this issue for now, just swapped the 280x for a gtx580 as that is for some weird reason much happier in that machine... Well at least it's not being hampered nearly so bad by the same issue. The 280x is now back in a windows machine doing milkyway.
If anyone can think of something to try to get the ati to get better results - I would be very grateful and stick the 280x back into the einstein machine...
Thanks,
Kailee.
Kai Leibrandt wrote:If anyone
)
On one of the forums (I forget which), it was found that turning on the AERO intereface helped reduce lag. I think you have one Win7 machine, so you could try it there. That is somewhat counter-intuitive, but I think it adds a buffer.
Holmis wrote:Bernd
)
This is definitely good to hear ^_^
Jim1348 wrote:Kai Leibrandt
)
Hey Jim,
thanks for the effort but my Einstein machines are now OSX. But you gave me an idea - might try Windows on that hardware to see if that makes a difference.
Ta,
Kailee.