Thanx much... this explains what I'd thought to be an oddity between two 4850 equipped machines (one has ram clock that will not go below 993 in ccc, other has been running with VRAM clock at 650, both with GPU clock at ~650).

If it does, reduce the memory down to as low as you can get it - memory speed is irrelevant at MW (I am running a 5970 on 300 memory with no issues, others I have seen running 4xxx below 200 with no issues). A low memory setting will save you a bunch on power, run cooler and/or allow a higher gpu clocks without overvolting.

If all that holds true ..... a check on PSU capacity/output/power draw maybe a further check once you get going.

Regards
Zy

You will need a separate dummy plug or monitor ( I use the spare VGA cable) for the second monitor.

MW is still a CPU project.

The project has not come out with a ATI/CAL app that I know of.
They have come out with a CUDA app, and from what I remember, it is near baseline with the other CUDA projects.. I.e. GPUGrid.

Being such, the ATI app is optimized.

Run the baseline benchmarks for comparisons.

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps

But again, any cross project parity is a myth, a dream for DA, and a nigtmare for project admins. And a socialists focus.

Free societies determine the amount of pay/credit given, not the king.

The projects I mentioned pay better for ME. Your reply to Sailor's post, validates my point. With GPU/CPUs performances all over the map, everybody's facts will be different.

Personally I don't see how anybody could complain about the crediting on this project. Cut it half... still be more than any other project.

My original post was to address the above statement. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with GPUs,CPUs, percentages, power supplies, etc. I simply pointed out that I am complaining about the credit system on this project. MW has set the requirements for GPU computing outside the parameters of my card. Just like Einstein. Fine. But I dont like it. So Collatz and Seti Beta pay me more.

If you take the best credits for initial expenditure i.e. purchase price your right.

If you factor the electricity bills into the equation I'm not so sure :)
4770's still may hold. Anything with a 48xx or 5xxx well thats a whole other story.

You cant compare different kind of GPUs... its like stating "my Phenom x4 955 in XXX makes more credits then my Athlon 1400 in YYY, so XXX is the best paying project..."

I don't really understand how two projects can use 100% of the CPU but have such different effects on the core temps.

I see many differences between projects some do not even heat up my cpu's others i see which are memory intensive tasks heat up my cpu more.
Ofcourse it also depends on the optimisations used so in fact to many factors to mention.
Its like running collatz on my 4770 gpu card which make it 64C but when it runs MW it becomes 79 or even hotter.

Personally I don't see how anybody could complain about the crediting on this project. Cut it half... still be more than any other project.

What a ridiculous statement. There are many projects that pay a lot better than Milkyway. Collatz, GPUGRID, Seti BETA just to name a few. Check out the facts before you make such blanket statements.

cuts my electricity bills in half

Hi, I'm getting about a 28% error rate running the v.20(b) MW ATI app.

Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer
Kernel Execution : Uninitialized or Allocation failed Input streams.
Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer

This buffer alloc error is occurring on two different machines.
[..]
Both machines are running 4 WUs at a time.

I am wondering if the 4 WUs in parallel is the root cause but would like the developer's opinion on that.

Don't wonder anymore, it is the reason.

Actually I wonder how the error messages can be made clearer than they are. Do you have a suggestion? I would think that if an allocation fails (what reasons for this come to your mind?) the cause is quite clear. But that's only me I guess ;).

Hi, I'm getting about a 28% error rate running the v.20(b) MW ATI app.

Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer
Kernel Execution : Uninitialized or Allocation failed Input streams.
Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer

This buffer alloc error is occurring on two different machines.

Both machines have HD4850 cards. One clocked stock 625/993 the other one at 650/975MHz.

The stock clocked one is running WindozeXP 32b, SP3 has ~29 out of the last 100 WUs get the error below. The slightly OC'd one running WindozeXP 64b, had ~27 out of the last 100WUs get the error below.

Both are running the same app version, both using driver v8.12 and BOINC v6.10.13. Both machines are running 4 WUs at a time.

I am wondering if the 4 WUs in parallel is the root cause but would like the developer's opinion on that.

I'm currently changing the Win 64b machine to run 3 at a time in an attempt to see if that improves the error rate at all.

The error in all cases looks like THIS ONE

Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer
Kernel Execution : Uninitialized or Allocation failed Input streams.
Stream Allocation : Failed to create Buffer

If you have an ATI card I think you should no longer be using 19f but should be using v0.20 or v0.20b. I have not heard of an ATI 185.xx driver, I do not know the driver version numbers but always refer to them by their Catalyst version. 185.xx does look familiar to me though, because it looks like the version number of an nVidia driver.

ATI GPU apps prior to the silent update v0.20 all required installation of MSVC++ 2005 SP1 runtime package (or .NET Framework), since the silent update v0.20 this is no longer necessary.

Run time	0
stderr out	

<core_client_version>6.6.38</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
There are no child processes to wait for. (0x80) - exit code 128 (0x80)
</message>
]]>

Validate state	Invalid
Claimed credit	0
Granted credit	0
application version	0.19

<core_client_version>6.4.7</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
There are no child processes to wait for. (0x80) - exit code 128 (0x80)
</message>
]]>