Message boards :
Number crunching :
anyone running a 2200/2400G? what performance are you getting?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 27 Apr 09 Posts: 1 Credit: 15,016,555 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
anyone running a Ryzen 2200G or 2400G? just curious as to what you're getting points-wise per day ...just running 1 stick of DDR4-2400 on a 2400G and getting ~60K points per day here |
![]() Send message Joined: 8 Jan 18 Posts: 44 Credit: 43,420,395 RAC: 4,852 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I just ordered a Ryzen 3 2200G, plus a whole rig today! Once I get the components, get it assembled and up and running I will let you know. Are you running your 2400G with other projects besides MilkyWay? I will be running a few others, and not running a separate GPU. |
Send message Joined: 8 Mar 15 Posts: 30 Credit: 78,342,487 RAC: 7 ![]() ![]() |
...just running 1 stick of DDR4-2400 on a 2400G and getting ~60K points per day here AMD Ryzen processors work better with high-speed RAM (3000 MHz at least). So if you change your 2400 MHz RAM with a 3000 or 3200 MHz one you'll get more points per day. ASUS X570 E-Gaming AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, 16 core / 32 thread 4.4 GHz AMD Radeon Sapphire RX 480 4GB Nitro+ Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X Trio 4x16 GB Corsair Vengeance RGB 3466 MHz ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 8 Jan 18 Posts: 44 Credit: 43,420,395 RAC: 4,852 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So I have used my new Ryzen 2200G setup recently, and I am getting some problems with the integrated GPU work units. All of them seem to end in error. Is anyone else having this problem? I am running MW@H as a backup project, so I am not processing WUs consistently. The CPU tasks, even the 4 core tasks, seem to crunch just fine. |
Send message Joined: 8 Mar 15 Posts: 30 Credit: 78,342,487 RAC: 7 ![]() ![]() |
Have you downloaded the latest drivers for your integrated GPU? ASUS X570 E-Gaming AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, 16 core / 32 thread 4.4 GHz AMD Radeon Sapphire RX 480 4GB Nitro+ Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X Trio 4x16 GB Corsair Vengeance RGB 3466 MHz ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 8 Jan 18 Posts: 44 Credit: 43,420,395 RAC: 4,852 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Have you downloaded the latest drivers for your integrated GPU? So I was running 18.12.2, and I deferred from running optional 18.12.3. However, I just checked and see that 19.1.1 is available as optional, so I installed that. I will check back and see what happens. |
![]() Send message Joined: 8 Jan 18 Posts: 44 Credit: 43,420,395 RAC: 4,852 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So this problem has been happening at Seti@Home as well. The long and short of it is that the estimated time to complete these GPU tasks is 0, which prompts the error 197 (0xc5) EXIT_TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED What has been discovered so far is the calculation of the Gflops for the GPU is WAY off - by at least a factor of 1,000. This has been reported on Github and will be looked at. So, I think the solution for now is either modify your peak gflops for the project, or simply don't crunch GPU WUs. |
Send message Joined: 4 Sep 12 Posts: 219 Credit: 456,474 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Hi everyone, I've been working with Bill in the SETI@Home thread, and we've tracked down this error to a faulty (greatly inflated) 'GFLOPS Peak' value returned to BOINC by the ATI OpenCL driver. You can see the value - about 43 ExaFLOPS, about 10,000X too big - in the opening lines of your Event Log after startup. I've submitted a formal bug report to ATI today, and we're working urgently on a hotfix version of BOINC which will trap and subdue the wayward flops value. Watch out for further announcements. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group