Welcome to MilkyWay@home

R9 290


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : R9 290
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profileverstapp
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 09
Posts: 589
Credit: 497,834,261
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61479 - Posted: 8 Apr 2014, 7:58:18 UTC
Last modified: 8 Apr 2014, 7:59:42 UTC

anyone have any idea if/when the AMD R9 290 will be supported?
just got one, boinc refuses to d/l any mw wus for it, so its running Drt instead of mw.
Cheers,

PeterV

.
ID: 61479 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2247
Credit: 323,009,342
RAC: 845,971
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61481 - Posted: 8 Apr 2014, 11:20:32 UTC - in response to Message 61479.  

anyone have any idea if/when the AMD R9 290 will be supported?
just got one, boinc refuses to d/l any mw wus for it, so its running Drt instead of mw.


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.
ID: 61481 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profileverstapp
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 09
Posts: 589
Credit: 497,834,261
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61483 - Posted: 8 Apr 2014, 11:51:33 UTC - in response to Message 61481.  

thanks Mikey.
k_w_h has tried it, must have seen the earlier post, didn't work for him. it'll take me a day or so to get motivated enough to try. given the hoops i've already jumped through trying to get mw to d/l work for it, i don't have high hopes.
Cheers,

PeterV

.
ID: 61483 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileMumak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Apr 13
Posts: 89
Credit: 517,085,245
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge6 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61484 - Posted: 8 Apr 2014, 12:18:14 UTC

Maybe posting a few lines from the log (BOINC start with GPU IDs and work request/result) might help to understand the problem.
ID: 61484 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2247
Credit: 323,009,342
RAC: 845,971
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61491 - Posted: 9 Apr 2014, 10:57:00 UTC - in response to Message 61483.  

thanks Mikey.
k_w_h has tried it, must have seen the earlier post, didn't work for him. it'll take me a day or so to get motivated enough to try. given the hoops i've already jumped through trying to get mw to d/l work for it, i don't have high hopes.


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.
ID: 61491 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John G

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 10
Posts: 49
Credit: 171,863,025
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 61493 - Posted: 9 Apr 2014, 13:22:15 UTC

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
ID: 61493 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2247
Credit: 323,009,342
RAC: 845,971
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61497 - Posted: 10 Apr 2014, 11:05:05 UTC - in response to Message 61493.  

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


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.
ID: 61497 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alez

Send message
Joined: 15 Sep 12
Posts: 20
Credit: 101,595,972
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge7 year member badge
Message 61498 - Posted: 10 Apr 2014, 11:54:58 UTC - in response to Message 61497.  

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


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.


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.
ID: 61498 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2247
Credit: 323,009,342
RAC: 845,971
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61508 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 11:20:03 UTC - in response to Message 61498.  

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


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.


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.


Aha, thanks!
ID: 61508 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilevalterc

Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 09
Posts: 22
Credit: 673,188,911
RAC: 165,012
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61847 - Posted: 6 Jun 2014, 15:07:31 UTC

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?

ID: 61847 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2247
Credit: 323,009,342
RAC: 845,971
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 61848 - Posted: 7 Jun 2014, 10:35:32 UTC - in response to Message 61847.  

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?


Have you tried loading the APP stuff yet?
ID: 61848 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilevalterc

Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 09
Posts: 22
Credit: 673,188,911
RAC: 165,012
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 61849 - Posted: 7 Jun 2014, 10:41:24 UTC - in response to Message 61848.  

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....
ID: 61849 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hans-Ulrich Hugi

Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 09
Posts: 7
Credit: 163,221,288
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 62239 - Posted: 31 Aug 2014, 22:17:25 UTC - in response to Message 61849.  

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?
ID: 62239 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileFalconFly
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 10
Posts: 13
Credit: 13,311,528
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 62311 - Posted: 11 Sep 2014, 12:13:04 UTC - in response to Message 62239.  

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.
ID: 62311 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemesyn191

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 09
Posts: 29
Credit: 126,023,571
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge9 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 62607 - Posted: 21 Oct 2014, 14:38:08 UTC

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.
ID: 62607 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
hunter1978

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 14
Posts: 1
Credit: 1,292,289
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge5 year member badge
Message 62652 - Posted: 1 Nov 2014, 21:05:18 UTC

Not mine. I have the same R9 290 and it has never worked on this project.
ID: 62652 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : R9 290

©2019 Astroinformatics Group