Message boards :
Number crunching :
2 x 4870s or 4870X2
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
And they are running 0.19e.... |
![]() Send message Joined: 13 Nov 07 Posts: 11 Credit: 916,096,899 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I'm sorry, but I have to correct you on this: I'm running 'only' three single 4870s, no 4870X2s. I once had an 4870X2, but I wasn't able to get the GPUs to run at more than 50% load each and so it turned out to be slower than a single 4870. I also tried running four single 4870s on one board, but this only looked fine on paper...in reality something slowed this configuration down and therefore it was less productive than using three cards... |
![]() Send message Joined: 20 Mar 08 Posts: 108 Credit: 2,607,924,860 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I'm sorry, but I have to correct you on this: I'm running 'only' three single 4870s, no 4870X2s. I once had an 4870X2, but I wasn't able to get the GPUs to run at more than 50% load each and so it turned out to be slower than a single 4870. I also tried running four single 4870s on one board, but this only looked fine on paper...in reality something slowed this configuration down and therefore it was less productive than using three cards... So, up to three single-GPU cards in one computer works fine, without the "50% load" issue from the X2? This makes me wonder, are those three cards in a crossfire configuration or just three separate cards? ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 13 Nov 07 Posts: 11 Credit: 916,096,899 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Three seperate cards. They don't run at 100%, but somewhere between 70 - 90%, so if you're for the maximum total output you should run them completely single... I think CrossFireX wouldn't work...and if, I guess you would have the same issue as with the X2, but this time at 33% each... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I get enough heat with only 1 4850. How do you handle 3 * 4870's? Love to see a photo of inside your machine. |
![]() Send message Joined: 13 Nov 07 Posts: 11 Credit: 916,096,899 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I'll try to do some photos of both of the rigs running three 4870s by tomorrow... |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Three seperate cards. They don't run at 100%, but somewhere between 70 - 90%, so if you're for the maximum total output you should run them completely single... I guess that is a driver issue or something in the CAL libraries. Officially the X2 cards are not supported by ATI's Stream SDK 1.3 I've used up to now. But the Stream SDK 1.4 (released yesterday) added official support for X2 cards. They have also put some more functionality into Brook, so it should be now possible to use multiple GPUs and to have a low CPU load without modifying the official brook runtime library (brook.dll). I added those features to the 1.3 version in a quick and dirty manner. While that hack works quite well with individual cards, there are obviously some qirks with crossfire and X2 configurations. Maybe it will work only with the upcoming Cat 9.3 driver, because that will come with the CAL libraries 1.4.xx which may be needed for that functionality. While Cat 9.2 is already compatible with the 1.4 SDK (opposed to Cat 8.12 and 9.1), it has only CAL 1.3.186, so some things may not work like intended. I guess the next version (0.19f) will be based on the 1.4 SDK and will require Cat 9.2 or newer. If Travis agrees, I would also like to report the GPU time as WU time, not the CPU time. Otherwise, with the CPU load as low as it is with 0.19d and up, the task duration correction factor is easily falling below 0.02 which may cause some work fetch problems. Furthermore the GPU time is a much more representative value than the CPU time for the actual duration of the WU. |
Send message Joined: 4 Oct 08 Posts: 1734 Credit: 64,228,409 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Is GPU client 0.19e available to the masses yet? If so, where is a copy located please, Cluster P? Currently making productive use of 0.19d. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Is GPU client 0.19e available to the masses yet? I post the links in our forum first to have a smaller testing group in the beginning. That way a version can be pulled much easier, if something goes wrong (like with 0.19c). But some are using it already for 2 days and I've seen no severe complaints yet (quite the opposite ;). So I guess it is now okay to use it as the new recommended version. You can find it here. Be sure to read the readme file! Changelog: 0.19e: 12th Mar 2009 The default options used without any editing of the app_info.xml should enable a good responding system and still a high throughput. Especially systems with HD3800 series cards will see a major improvement of the system response, but also a slightly larger hit of the crunch times (probably smaller than 5%, nothing to really worry about) compared to 4800 cards. Decreasing the f value the system behaviour will get worse (but throughput may increase slightly). One should not set f below 1. |
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 61 Credit: 18,325,284 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Three seperate cards. They don't run at 100%, but somewhere between 70 - 90%, so if you're for the maximum total output you should run them completely single... OIE! after reading this thread you guys made me suspicious! I just double checked gpu-z catalyst center readings and I'm getting 90% load on both cards if under full load. If I lower the value to say one task only one card will get the task. Win 7, catalyst 9.1 for vista, under compatibility. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it, but when win 7 was installing, it installed some serious sounding drivers which names escapes me for the pci-e. I'd be interested to know if any one under vista is using both x2 cards, considering I jumped ships from xp to 7! |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I think CrossFireX wouldn't work...and if, I guess you would have the same issue as with the X2, but this time at 33% each... So under Win7 both GPUs of a X2 card are used with Cat 9.1? Can anyone confirm this? |
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 61 Credit: 18,325,284 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I think CrossFireX wouldn't work...and if, I guess you would have the same issue as with the X2, but this time at 33% each... Also, not sure if hooking up both displays will force both cards to run! I've got one on monitor and another on TV! PROOF: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f129/hotthamir/readings.jpg |
Send message Joined: 4 Oct 08 Posts: 1734 Credit: 64,228,409 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
If so, where is a copy located please, Cluster P? Cluster Physic Many thanks for access to the SSE2 version, under Win32, of the GPU client. Watching a few WUs go through I think this is slightly faster than 0.19d (or that is the impression), and the system's graphical response has returned almost to normal. Thank you for these impressive MW GPU clients, and all the work you and your team testers are carrying out. It is much appreciated. John |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Watching a few WUs go through I think this is slightly faster than 0.19d (or that is the impression), and the system's graphical response has returned almost to normal. You're welcome. But 0.19e isn't faster. It should be even a bit slower because the partitioning of the GPU tasks costs a bit performance (maybe I can tune that a bit in the future). But you would probably gain a bit, if you set the wait factor to 1.1 (instead of 1.2). You could also delete it completely. If the GPU frequency is detected right, the CPU load shouldn't increase (but GPU load may rise slightly). |
![]() Send message Joined: 20 Mar 08 Posts: 108 Credit: 2,607,924,860 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So under Win7 both GPUs of a X2 card are used with Cat 9.1? Can anyone confirm this? I'm running XP64 (not Win7), but I had to check anyway. As expected, no difference between one display, two cloned, and two expanded. I noticed a small issue with 0.19e though: 4870X2, 0.19e, cat9.2*, works fine. (And for some reason I see ~60% load now, not ~50%.) 4870/1G, 0.19e, cat8.12, works fine. 4870/1G, 0.19d, cat9.2*, works fine. 4870/1G, 0.19e, cat9.2*, no go. Consistently 0 GPU load following a VPU recover. (* atical*.dll copied to amdcal*.dll) ![]() ![]() |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4870X2, 0.19e, cat9.2*, works fine. (And for some reason I see ~60% load now, not ~50%.) Some progress! Looks like we to have wait for Cat 9.3 to get 70% ;) 4870/1G, 0.19e, cat9.2*, no go. Consistently 0 GPU load following a VPU recover. Strange. The top host at MW (belonging UL1, SETI.Germany) runs 0.19e on WinXP64 with Cat9.2 and even 3 HD4870 (albeit only the 512MB version overclocked to 810MHz, he had even 4 cards running in that box for a day). He reported no real problems. |
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 61 Credit: 18,325,284 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
4870X2, 0.19e, cat9.2*, works fine. (And for some reason I see ~60% load now, not ~50%.) Sorry for the lousy youtube downsizing quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaVZWyqWc&feature=channel_page The original file is 50 MB capturing a screen res of 1280x1024, it took youtube 12 hours to process it! Two instances of GPU-Z read a fluctuation of 70-95% on both cards. Catlyst reads 80-99% on both cards. |
Send message Joined: 24 Nov 07 Posts: 9 Credit: 102,125,541 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I have a couple boards that have extra PCIe slots. What do I need to do to get this to run on both cards at the same time. No crossfire right? Do I need to have a monitor pluged into the second card or use a VGA dummy? Mike... |
Send message Joined: 24 Nov 07 Posts: 9 Credit: 102,125,541 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I figured it out thanks.... I put a couple of HD4830's together.. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group