Message boards :
Number crunching :
R9 290
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 26 Jan 09 Posts: 589 Credit: 497,834,261 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 8 May 09 Posts: 3339 Credit: 524,010,781 RAC: 4 |
anyone have any idea if/when the AMD R9 290 will be supported? This was posted her awhile back, you must have just missed it: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=3457#60992 And essentially they said that after some testing they got the newer cards to work by: "If you run on a R9 280X*, you can download BOINC v 7.2.39 here, but you will also need AMD APP (Accelerated Parallel Processing)" The link to download 7.2.39 is here: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=8378&postid=52011#52198 and the link to download the amd app stuff is here" http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/heterogeneous-computing/amd-accelerated-parallel-processing-app-sdk/ In some case 7.2.39 caused other problems so I would recommend you just go all the way to the newest release version, since you have to upgrade anyway. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jan 09 Posts: 589 Credit: 497,834,261 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 13 Posts: 89 Credit: 517,085,245 RAC: 0 |
Maybe posting a few lines from the log (BOINC start with GPU IDs and work request/result) might help to understand the problem. |
Send message Joined: 8 May 09 Posts: 3339 Credit: 524,010,781 RAC: 4 |
thanks Mikey. So we are not talking about your pc's but a friends pc? Because 2 of your pc's still have older versions of Boinc then will make the whole thing work, including both of the ones with the 7970 in them. |
Send message Joined: 1 Apr 10 Posts: 49 Credit: 171,863,025 RAC: 0 |
I am currently running a AMD R9 - 270X (Pitcairn) with little problem getting WU's. Even though this card is rated 40% faster in the specs released it is running 50% slower than the 7900 series AMD's. I think the problem relates to the programming of the WU's. Regards JohnG |
Send message Joined: 8 May 09 Posts: 3339 Credit: 524,010,781 RAC: 4 |
I am currently running a AMD R9 - 270X (Pitcairn) with little problem getting WU's. Even though this card is rated 40% faster in the specs released it is running 50% slower than the 7900 series AMD's. I think the problem relates to the programming of the WU's. It's also got to do with the card itself a 270X has 1280 stream processors, while a 7970 has 2048. That means a 7970 is going to process things roughly twice as fast, it is NOT exactly linear, as a 270X gpu will. A 280X has 2048 while a 290X has 2816 stream processors. If you think of stream processors like little tiny cpu cores you can see why more stream processors means faster crunching. This obviously ONLY applies to AMD cards as Nvidia cards use what they call 'cuda cores' and it is MUCH different. Also if a card is over clocked compared to another card it can make up some of the difference as the processors will be working faster. The new R series AMD cards are generally clocked faster then the cards they were based on making then slightly faster. |
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 12 Posts: 20 Credit: 105,341,548 RAC: 0 |
I am currently running a AMD R9 - 270X (Pitcairn) with little problem getting WU's. Even though this card is rated 40% faster in the specs released it is running 50% slower than the 7900 series AMD's. I think the problem relates to the programming of the WU's. Actually the difference between the 7970 and the 270X is far, far greater than the single precision Gflops and number of stream processors would suggest The reason is simple, the 7970 is 1/4 double precision, the 270X is only 1/16th double precision. In double precision the 7970 is rated at 947.2 Gflops, the 270X at only 260 Gflops. Thats why the 270X is disappointing on Milkyway as it's single precision is quite good (for gaming ) but it's double precision is artificially crippled to nVidia levels. The 280X is rated at 1/4 double precision and the 290X at 1/8. There is nothing wrong with the units, it's simply that the 270X is very poor at double precision calculations. |
Send message Joined: 8 May 09 Posts: 3339 Credit: 524,010,781 RAC: 4 |
I am currently running a AMD R9 - 270X (Pitcairn) with little problem getting WU's. Even though this card is rated 40% faster in the specs released it is running 50% slower than the 7900 series AMD's. I think the problem relates to the programming of the WU's. Aha, thanks! |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 09 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,276,166,989 RAC: 148,013 |
I recently got a R9 280-X and it works perfectly with MilkyWay (with the 14.4 driver). I also got a R9 290-X (Hawaii) and it doesn't work at all, MilkyWay claiming that it is a ATI GPU R600 (R38xx) which has no OpenCL support. However it HAS openCL support (Collatz works flawless, and also Gpu-Z confirms this), what it's missing is the CAL support... but anyway it doesn't work with Milkyway and I wanted to use it for this project (yes, I know all issues regarding bad DP performances). Has anyone here had success running an Hawaii GPU? If yes, can you please share some hints? |
Send message Joined: 8 May 09 Posts: 3339 Credit: 524,010,781 RAC: 4 |
I recently got a R9 280-X and it works perfectly with MilkyWay (with the 14.4 driver). I also got a R9 290-X (Hawaii) and it doesn't work at all, MilkyWay claiming that it is a ATI GPU R600 (R38xx) which has no OpenCL support. However it HAS openCL support (Collatz works flawless, and also Gpu-Z confirms this), what it's missing is the CAL support... but anyway it doesn't work with Milkyway and I wanted to use it for this project (yes, I know all issues regarding bad DP performances). Have you tried loading the APP stuff yet? |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 09 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,276,166,989 RAC: 148,013 |
Yep, no success at all. This may work for 280 (but my one works without it, just with the Catalyst driver) but not for 290.... |
Send message Joined: 14 Sep 09 Posts: 7 Credit: 163,221,288 RAC: 0 |
My R290 (Sapphire Tri-X) also does not work. The "APP" stuff doesn't help. Is there anybody around whos R290 (x) is working in MilkyWay? |
Send message Joined: 28 Mar 10 Posts: 13 Credit: 13,311,528 RAC: 0 |
I may throw the HD7790 (Bonaire) and R7 240 (Oland) GPUs in there as well - not getting a single WorkUnit (Catalyst 14.4 Driver). All other projects work just fine - except Milkyway. Something really needs to be done about the Server GPU detection/identification ASAP. Me thinks it's running off some rather very old lists that do not contain most modern (post Pitcairn) AMD GPUs. |
Send message Joined: 25 Dec 09 Posts: 29 Credit: 138,706,202 RAC: 0 |
This problem still exists over a month later. Anyone have an idea when it will be fixed? If ever? The silence is kinda deafening here. |
Send message Joined: 28 Mar 14 Posts: 1 Credit: 1,390,548 RAC: 0 |
Not mine. I have the same R9 290 and it has never worked on this project. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group