| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : ati 4770
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
This ati 4770 that all the tech sites are raving about, eg X-Bit , has anyone tried it with MW? | |
| ID: 20889 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Is it double-precision? I thought only the RV770 chips were. | |
| ID: 20892 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
dunno, don't care. | |
| ID: 20893 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,682726/Review-Ati-RadeonHD-4770-vs-HD-4850-und-Geforce-9800-GT/Reviews/ | |
| ID: 20896 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
| ID: 20921 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
According to Wikipedia this 128-bit format is quadruple precision | |
| ID: 20925 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
128-bit floating point precision for all operations That just means you have 128 bits (16 Bytes) per pixel, i.e. 4 Bytes (32bit single precision floats) per component (red, green, blue, alpha). It has nothing to do with the double precision capability. Actually, I don't know if the HD4770 can work with doubles (but I hope so). PCGames are the only ones who even mentioned double precision in their review. | |
| ID: 20947 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
| |
| ID: 20959 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Is there a difference in the precision of the calculation if each number used in the calculation are stored in one 128 bit long memory location or in two 64 bit long memory locations? | |
| ID: 20964 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
Is there a difference in the precision of the calculation if each number used in the calculation are stored in one 128 bit long memory location or in two 64 bit long memory locations? Most of the stuff is stored in the registers of the GPU during the calculation ;) I don't know what you are exactly referring to, but to clarify my first comment on the "128bit precision" issue I have to say that it is mainly PR FUD. As mentioned it just says the GPU has a completely float (single precision, i.e. 32 bits) capable shader pipeline. No graphics card on the market (not even commodity CPUs) supports 128bit precision calculations in the sense of quad precision and therefore also not the storage of values in that data format. | |
| ID: 20967 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Thank you Cluster. | |
| ID: 20968 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
Thank you Cluster. Exactly. Support for calculations with such double precision values (8 Bytes or 64 bits in size) is needed by MW. | |
| ID: 20971 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
if i see the technical stats i guess it exactly places itself between the 4830 and the 4850, i just wonder myself if it would work with my mainbord gpu to create a x-crossfire solution with it. | |
| ID: 20978 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Asus 4770 TOP looks to be insanely fast w/ on board voltage tweak and smartdoctor performance control application for voltage mod to 1.2V. | |
| ID: 20983 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
This ati 4770 that all the tech sites are raving about, eg X-Bit , has anyone tried it with MW? The HD4770 has been tested to work. It is recognized by the GPU app as RV770 (looks like an overclocked HD4830, it does not know about the RV740, yet) and runs about 5% slower than a HD4850 at stock clocks. But remember there could be the same problem as with the HD4890 and the WindowsXP drivers. The current version does not run reliably under XP32 and XP64. Vista appears to work though. CAL Runtime: 1.4.255 | |
| ID: 21488 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Can anyone tell me how i can see if my card is being found by mw or boinc | |
| ID: 22827 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
Can anyone tell me how i can see if my card is being found by mw or boinc Look at the Task Details for a completed WU done by your box with the 4770's. Here is one for my Q6600 with a HD3850: <core_client_version>6.4.6</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> Running Milkyway@home ATI GPU application version 0.19e by Gipsel CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 cores/threads) 2.39898 GHz (549ms) CAL Runtime: 1.3.145 Found 1 CAL device Device 0: ATI Radeon HD 3800 (RV670) 512 MB local RAM (remote 28 MB cached + 512 MB uncached) GPU core clock: 669 MHz, memory clock: 829 MHz 320 shader units organized in 4 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads supporting double precision 1 WUs already running on GPU 0 Starting WU on GPU 0 main integral, 160 iterations predicted runtime per iteration is 408 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 13 parts borders of the domains at 0 123 246 369 492 615 738 861 984 1107 1230 1353 1476 1600 Calculated about 3.70012e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 6.34181e+007 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 85.2656 seconds. cut number 0, 40 iterations predicted runtime per iteration is 51 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 2 parts borders of the domains at 0 200 400 Calculated about 1.15629e+011 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 5.38792e+006 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 2.64063 seconds. Calculated about 2.48101e+009 floatingpoint ops on FPU (stars). WU completed. CPU time: 15.4375 seconds, GPU time: 87.9063 seconds, wall clock time: 286.817 seconds, CPU frequency: 2.40012 GHz </stderr_txt> ]]> -jim | |
| ID: 22842 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Ok i found that i looks like the famous agp can't write error which should be fixed with cat 8.12 and the fix.But the cards are only seen with the cat 9.5 drivers. I wonder if is needed on pci-e cards. | |
| ID: 22933 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
Ok i found that i looks like the famous agp can't write error which should be fixed with cat 8.12 and the fix. stderr out The error you are seeing means that some dll is missing. It has nothing to do with AGP whatsoever. You should recheck if you have the correct version (32bit vs 64bit), all dll files (brook.dll and the three CAL dlls) and .NET framework (3.5 with all updates) installed. Maybe a restart of BOINC (or the whole computer to be sure) will help (usually does if boinc was not shut down during some changes). | |
| ID: 22949 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Rechecking all parameters again | |
| ID: 22952 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Yes i found the culprits first one is when installing the new 9.5 deletes the amdcal* files, and second i found that in general some info is added to the path in windows. | |
| ID: 22969 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
Well after i solved the removed files it was starting and seemed to work untill it actually got some work. | |
| ID: 23095 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
I have just installed Catalyst 9.5 and it's not working for me at all. Computation Error on 1 unit at a time. | |
| ID: 23814 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
somehow i am wondering why i could not install 9.4 | |
| ID: 23963 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
|
I have tested on every os and whatever i do it simply crashes either it gives a core error or it reports 128 (0x80). | |
| ID: 23966 | Rating: 0 | rate:
| |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
ati 4770