I was suggesting you to add the new entry ATi FirePro V8800 when I found that V8750 and V8700 were never added to the list even if they were listed in the pdf I linked...

oh, and ATi Radeon HD 5830 is working on MW@Home

Wow, you guys with ATI cards are posting fierce times. A WU for my GTX 285s take over ten minutes! I'm just using BOINC with no special configurations. Is there something I could be doing to speed this up (besides OC'ing, that is)?

NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 19713, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 1006MB, 702 GFLOPS peak)
NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 19713, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 1006MB, 702 GFLOPS peak)

Wow, you guys with ATI cards are posting fierce times. A WU for my GTX 285s take over ten minutes! I'm just using BOINC with no special configurations. Is there something I could be doing to speed this up (besides OC'ing, that is)?

NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 19713, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 1006MB, 702 GFLOPS peak)
NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 19713, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.3, 1006MB, 702 GFLOPS peak)

Actually for Mw you can downclock. Oc doesn't speed up the wus.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

Wow, you guys with ATI cards are posting fierce times. A WU for my GTX 285s take over ten minutes!

Is this the sort of times you are talking about?

---

Go away, I was asleep

Actually for Mw you can downclock. Oc doesn't speed up the wus.

You can downclock the memory, anyway. I do believe MW benefits from OCing the core and shading units.

Take the GPU memory down as far as it will go - even 150 would not be too low - keeping it high just creates a better space heater and wastes power.

GPU clocks can go as high as an indiviodual's setup/personal preferences allow, higher GPU clocks will speed up the WUs.

Regards
Zy

ATI Radeon HD 5970 need 1minute 43second to complet 2WU (no overclocked)

New cruncher here!

Standard 5870 with mild overclock @ 900 core/1300 mem runs a wu in about 1:26 minutes. (could reduce my mem speed for MW, but I am also encouraging all ATI gpu projects! The more the better! And very nice work getting this GPU app running this efficiantly.)

I put my fan speed at 65% with a GPU temp of +/- 60°C to 64°C, case temp +/- 27°C. Ambiant +/- 21°C. Looking to keep the GPU nice & cool for the long run.

I am also running other projects on my cpu (sorry MW, but the difference is just not worth running it on my CPU!), i7 920 @ 3.2 with 8 treads loaded at 100%. So I might be losing a few seconds per wu because of it, but I figure it's a fair trade-off.


M.

Try the 5870 @ 930/300 - it will run fine, and cooler with less power, memory speed is irrelevant here, higher mem speed just creates a better space heater, save settings as a profile in CCC for switching between apps if needed.

If you are looking for a CPU app, the FP's over at Aqua are good when they have a run going. The next run is due in a couple of days, work keeping an eye on:

News on next Aqua FP Run for CPUs

Regards
Zy

To all you people with ATI cards: I really hate you right now. I just built a new el cheapo boinc cruncher with an Nvidia GTX260 because there is CUDA support for the majority of the astrophysics and other boinc projects I like to participate in. But the times you guys are posting for your ATI cards are just ridiculous. I'm assuming the WU's themselves are the same quantity of data as the ones for CUDA? Or are there differences in size that would make them process so much faster?

Tasks are the same for all platforms both here and at Collatz Conjecture.

DNETC@HOME has shorter tasks for NVIDIA cards, I thought this was by design but it may be a bug. The work processed is the same, it just processes less packets per task on NVIDIA. There are also longer DNETC tasks designed to be processed only on ATI Cypress class cards, although I think they may also get sent to NVIDIA cards but the CUDA application only processes a small amount of the total task.

To all you people with ATI cards: I really hate you right now. I just built a new el cheapo boinc cruncher with an Nvidia GTX260 because there is CUDA support for the majority of the astrophysics and other boinc projects I like to participate in. But the times you guys are posting for your ATI cards are just ridiculous. I'm assuming the WU's themselves are the same quantity of data as the ones for CUDA? Or are there differences in size that would make them process so much faster?

The main reason for the speed difference in MW task processing is that the 48xx and 58xx series cards are dual precision across all elements. Nvidia made a design choice that limits the number of double precision processing elements in the card... so, fewer elements, slower calculations... in effect only 1/3 or less of the card is actually working here ...

On Collatz and DNETC the playing field is a bit more level, there it is just better designs when you see speed differences in processing rates. To make you hate us more, the cards typically draw less power as well ...

On the positive side you have recognized that there are more CUDA implementations out there than ATI Stream though that is slowly changing ... and if/when OpenCL gets reasonably stable we may start to see some leveling there as well ...

In my case, the economics say migrate to ATI now as Nvidia lost this round to ATI and wait for the ATI applications to come ... we are up to 3 projects now with SaH optimizers working on a beta version of an ATI application as we speak ...

To all you people with ATI cards: I really hate you right now. I just built a new el cheapo boinc cruncher with an Nvidia GTX260 because there is CUDA support for the majority of the astrophysics and other boinc projects I like to participate in. But the times you guys are posting for your ATI cards are just ridiculous. I'm assuming the WU's themselves are the same quantity of data as the ones for CUDA? Or are there differences in size that would make them process so much faster?

Just one more point regarding 'el cheapo'. There are two types of GTX260 cards, one with 196 shaders and the GTX260b which has 216 shaders. The main difference is not the speed, but with the older non 'b'-card all GPUGRID WU's will fail, ~50% of the SETI WU's fail, LATTICE dont like you. I sold my one and added a second ATI-card, which works, draws less power and is much cheaper in relation to granted credit.
I posted this not to make you hate me more but to prevent other people to make the same mistake.
Alexander

To all you people with ATI cards: I really hate you right now.

To make you hate us more, the cards typically draw less power as well ...

Not to mention less expensive and more reliable. Don't hate us, join us :-)
(I'm currently running 8 ATI & 7 NVidia GPUs. Never have a problem with the ATIs, lots of problems with the NVidias.)

For all the guys who have too much money left:

SAPPHIRE Toxic Radeon HD 5970, Full Retail, 4096MB
ATI Radeon HD 5970, 4096 MB GDDR5, aktive Kühlung
PCI-E 2.1 16x, 2xDVI (Dual Link), Mini DisplayPort
Dual GPU,GPU Takt: 900MHz; Speichertakt: 4800MHz,
2 x 256bit, Stream-Prozessoren: 2 x 1600
DirectX 11, Eyefinity, CrossfireX ready
€ 1.111,00

I am running an ATI HD Radeon 4870 X 2
Why can I only get 6 WU's in my que at a time?

When I do network maintenance I run out of work real quick. What a shame.

---

MW operates with a rule that only gives 6 wu's per CPU core. As much as we have asked for more, Travis indicates that more would cause database problems as the size would grow accordingly and the server just couldn't cope.

I am running an ATI HD Radeon 4870 X 2
Why can I only get 6 WU's in my que at a time?

When I do network maintenance I run out of work real quick. What a shame.

Like TGG said, 6 WU's per CPU core. So if you want a bigger cache I guess you need an i7 for the HT. Think I need to change my cache settings so the SETI work cache is about the same size as the MW one...


And to add to the GPU list, the 5830 is missing. Unless what I've read is wrong on it doesn't support double precision FP calculations?

---

And to add to the GPU list, the 5830 is missing. Unless what I've read is wrong on it doesn't support double precision FP calculations?

It does support double precision, the list has just not been updated in a long time.

---

And to add to the GPU list, the 5830 is missing. Unless what I've read is wrong on it doesn't support double precision FP calculations?

It does support double precision, the list has just not been updated in a long time.

Good to know for sure. Thinking of getting one though more for gaming than crunching. If I were buying for crunching I think I'd go NV again since CUDA is more widely used. But I've always liked the ATI drivers better :)

---