Do we envisage milkyway@home being able to run on these cards as I'm intending to sell up and jump to 47xx.

---

Edited. Was speaking a load of crap :)

(And I've got a couple of 4670s lying around which I can't use. Trying to sell them to get a 4850 =P)

---

On a side note, the 4890s just got released on Overclockers.co.uk today :) 210GBP is the cheapest, though.

---

Only x8xx cards are being supported, as they support double precision. This project relies on double precision accuracy, that x7xx cards do not provide. I made a thread about the issues of single vs. double precision here : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=764

I don't know how that stands against the HD4770 though. Reputed performance puts it above the HD4830 and almost to the HD4850. It comes with GDDR5 memory as well. If those stats are indicative of anything, it may well be capable of double-precision.

---

Good point. The 4770 uses the RV740 chip, which is essentially the 40nm version of the RV770LE, which is used in 4830s. The 4770 core speed is 800Mhz, between the 4850 and 4870, however only has 640 cores compared to the 800 of the 48xx series.

I couldn't find anything conclusive on whether the 47xx series was double capable or not (my initial assumption was on the fact that 46/47 series is designated 'high consumer end' and 48/49 is 'high performance end'). I did however find a post by Gipsel on the AMD forums asking this question back on 10th Feb.

---

I couldn't find anything conclusive on whether the 47xx series was double capable or not (my initial assumption was on the fact that 46/47 series is designated 'high consumer end' and 48/49 is 'high performance end'). I did however find a post by Gipsel on the AMD forums asking this question back on 10th Feb.

Yes, I asked this. But as they don't comment on future products, I don't know either.
But the 4890 is compatible for sure. The relative crunching speed should be the same as I speculated a month ago.

When neglecting the 1-2 seconds CPU calculation for every WU (which is justified if you have two or more concurrent WUs running), one can break it down to the following performance relations (taking the HD3850 as base):
3850 : 3870 : 4830 : 4850 : 4870 : 4890 : 4890 OC (900MHz) : 4890 OC (1GHz, appears to be realistic with a good card)
1 : 1.16 : 1.72 : 2.33 : 2.80 : 3.17 : 3.36 : 3.73
Of course the ratios only applies for stock clocks (670MHz for 3850, 775MHz for 3870, 575MHz for 4830, 625MHz for 4850, 750MHz for 4870 and 850MHz for 4890 with the memory speed only a very minor factor). The performance scales linearly with GPU clock speed.

But the 4890 is compatible for sure. The relative crunching speed should be the same as I speculated a month ago.

Has the HD4890 been tested as working? Has anyone got it working yet? Does it perform better than the HD4870 for MW crunching?

Has anyone found any MW WUs to test it on?

---

But the 4890 is compatible for sure. The relative crunching speed should be the same as I speculated a month ago.

Has the HD4890 been tested as working? Has anyone got it working yet? Does it perform better than the HD4870 for MW crunching?

Has anyone found any MW WUs to test it on?

I am sure you have seen the discussion started by PoorBoy in this other thread, your one, Ice. He seems to be the first to try one of the new HD4890's, and is running in to a bit of difficulty getting the card to run MW.

---

Go away, I was asleep

But the 4890 is compatible for sure. The relative crunching speed should be the same as I speculated a month ago.

Has the HD4890 been tested as working? Has anyone got it working yet? Does it perform better than the HD4870 for MW crunching?

Has anyone found any MW WUs to test it on?

I am sure you have seen the discussion started by PoorBoy in this other thread, your one, Ice. He seems to be the first to try one of the new HD4890's, and is running in to a bit of difficulty getting the card to run MW.

Yes John Clark, I have seen the discussion in my own thread. Your stating the obvious remains unabated. In my post that you quote above Cluster Physik says 'in this thread' that that "the 4890 is compatible for sure", and my web site zslip.com reflected this until this morning, when I changed it to say it does not work with the HD4890. Poorboy has indicated that he can't get his to work, but I ask in this thread with "HD4890" in the title whether anyone has got this new card to work with the ATI optimized apps, so that I can keep my website zslip.com up to date.

So I ask again, not what poorboy is doing or whether I read my own threads, but "has anyone got the HD4890 working with the optimized apps?"

---

So I ask again, not what poorboy is doing or whether I read my own threads, but "has anyone got the HD4890 working with the optimized apps?"

I would wait until the correct drivers are released. The problem at the moment seems to be that the available drivers (Cats 9.3) don't support the 4890. The 9.4s (to be released today?) should.

---

Jord.

The BOINC FAQ Service.

Sorry guy's, I didn't notice this Thread or I would have Posted my Problem's with the 4890 here instead of where I did. The 9.4 Drivers aren't out yet as I just checked again. I left the 4890 Card in the Computer even though it wasn't doing anything but so I could try the new drivers as soon as I notice that they are out. If the new Drivers don't work I'll pull it then and put the 4870 back in.

Sorry guy's, I didn't notice this Thread or I would have Posted my Problem's with the 4890 here instead of where I did. The 9.4 Drivers aren't out yet as I just checked again. I left the 4890 Card in the Computer even though it wasn't doing anything but so I could try the new drivers as soon as I notice that they are out. If the new Drivers don't work I'll pull it then and put the 4870 back in.

Never mind, the thread you chose seemed, on the face of it, appropriate at the time, so I wouldn't feel out of sorts. Just be aware that Ice takes a poor view of anyone posting the obvious, to him, even when it is posted on the assumption it may have been missed and is directly connected to the question he asked earlier.

---

Go away, I was asleep

Sorry guy's, I didn't notice this Thread or I would have Posted my Problem's with the 4890 here instead of where I did. The 9.4 Drivers aren't out yet as I just checked again. I left the 4890 Card in the Computer even though it wasn't doing anything but so I could try the new drivers as soon as I notice that they are out. If the new Drivers don't work I'll pull it then and put the 4870 back in.

Never mind, the thread you chose seemed, on the face of it, appropriate at the time, so I wouldn't feel out of sorts. Just be aware that Ice takes a poor view of anyone posting the obvious, to him, even when it is posted on the assumption it may have been missed and is directly connected to the question he asked earlier.

No John Clark, I just take a dim view of you posting your usual drivel which has nothing to do with anything that helps.

---

To play it safe, either splurge and go for a 48xx, or go [relatively] cheap and get a 38xx, if you can find one.

---

Cheers,

PeterV

.

With the announcement on the home page of CUDA based clients for the nVidia cards. Is there a consensus on what nVidia cards would run the client, and the best bang for buck (like the HD4850 for ATI and MW).

One advantage the nVidia equivalents for MW would have over the ATI HDxxx Radeons will be the ability to run more projects than just MW.

---

Go away, I was asleep

Is there a consensus on what nVidia cards would run the client, and the best bang for buck (like the HD4850 for ATI and MW).

I would think the GTX260 has the best performance per $ or € with the new GTX275 coming in at a close second place.

Is there a consensus on what nVidia cards would run the client, and the best bang for buck (like the HD4850 for ATI and MW).

I would think the GTX260 has the best performance per $ or € with the new GTX275 coming in at a close second place.

Looking as the prices of the Asus GTX260 PCI-E2.0 512MB priced at £175 and the Asus ATI HD4870 512MB also priced at £185 they are similar. Both locally.

Is there an nVidia equivalent in performance and price to the Asus ATI HD4850, locally this is priced at £130? This latter ATI card looks like it is the golden price-performance point.

---

Go away, I was asleep

Is there an nVidia equivalent in performance and price to the Asus ATI HD4850, locally this is priced at £130? This latter ATI card looks like it is the golden price-performance point.

I picked up my two 4850s (Asus 512MB versions) for £112 each from ebuyer. Takes around 40s for a 30cred WU.

As for ATi vs. nVidia on this project, ATi should get the nod ahead given the increase in double precision speed over nVidia. Correct me if I'm wrong...

---

Is there a consensus on what nVidia cards would run the client, and the best bang for buck (like the HD4850 for ATI and MW).

I would think the GTX260 has the best performance per $ or € with the new GTX275 coming in at a close second place.

Looking as the prices of the Asus GTX260 PCI-E2.0 512MB priced at £175 and the Asus ATI HD4870 512MB also priced at £185 they are similar. Both locally.

Is there an nVidia equivalent in performance and price to the Asus ATI HD4850, locally this is priced at £130? This latter ATI card looks like it is the golden price-performance point.

I don't know where you mean by 'locally', but in England at ebuyer.com you can get a ASUS ATI HD4850 for £109.99, and a ASUS ATI HD4870 for £154.38 or a XFX HD4870 for just £149.99, all prices include VAT tax. Even pcworld.co.uk will give you a Sapphire HD4850 for £122.23 including VAT tax.

[edit] I cross posted with borandi. ebuyer is OK, but there are sites where you can get even lower prices - shop around...

---

........... Try overclockers.co.uk - they have XFX 260s (55NM, 216 SP ) at £150 inc VAT. 275s are likely to prove the best £/performance - but as of yet supply is still too short in the UK to see some sensible pricing.

£160 should give you a choice of 4870 1Gb cards ..... some sites also have free delivery at this price. You shouldn't be paying more than this for a 4870 any more....