SP I would presume?

Seems like it is time to buy AMD-card! :) (had no reasons to buy card before and still use Sandy Bridge HD3000)
Is it possible to take a look at some comparison charts for compute power of typical CPU and GPU for Einstein@Home-type of calculations?

CPU does not even compare. CPUs are also incredibly inefficient compared to GPU. NVIDIA.I believe they said is currently 20x faster, and currently AMD will be 10x faster. I would believe this number will increase as changes are made IMHO.

thx for the ati/amd app, it works on my hd5870
my first result:http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/result.php?resultid=288520169
but the gpu-load is only ~60%, one cpu-core is only for gpu-tasks (cpu: i7-2600k)
should i set 'GPU utilization factor' to 0,5?
on my second machine is a 560ti running, there i have the best results with 'GPU utilization factor' 0,33

michel

Would assume the same applies, my 680 also runs at around 60% with one applied, and around 90% with .33 set.

It works!!!

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/results.php?hostid=5353241

I run it with the "dangerous" option of 0.5 2tasks at once.
And it runs 1 + 1 on the GPU together with Milkyway, SETI, Primegrid and POEM Which are also using 0.5 in the app_info.xml file.

SP indeed. No support is offered for HD 4xxx generation cards (without support for OpenCL 1.1), anything more recent should do fine.

Cheers
HB

ok i see, where does this 512MB limit comes from? OPENCL 1.0?
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Hm are there so much 5xxx or higher with 512MB?
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

I ment ONLY 512MB ;) ;) But i see half of the cards could possible have only 512MB. Hm sad.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

I'll leave my 4850 to do Milkyway and Collatz for as long as it lives.
I can't put any better card in that computor since the PCIE-Express card is only 1.x something.....

My HD 4870 with 1 GB (and a GeForce 320M with 256 MB) is eagerly awaiting something cooler than boring math projects. No dice as of yet.
____________

WCG Badges:

noderaser: use it like im do with my 4850 with 1GB onto POEM (when you dont like MW). Possible Three WUs @ once, 84000 Credits/day. Thx god they supporting OpenCL since a short time. Its medical research
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

The BOINC site is unavailable for 2 days! Cannot download new client! Can somewone send 64bit Windows client ver 27 to kido00 (a t) ya.ru ?
____________

The BOINC site is unavailable for 2 days! Cannot download new client! Can somewone send 64bit Windows client ver 27 to kido00 (a t) ya.ru ?

[img][/img][url]ok george kalemakis.[/url]
____________

Seems like it is time to buy AMD-card! :) (had no reasons to buy card before and still use Sandy Bridge HD3000)
Is it possible to take a look at some comparison charts for compute power of typical CPU and GPU for Einstein@Home-type of calculations?

Yesterday I attached my mainsys with 2 AMD-cards to the project.
Until now 12 wu's were done, 4 validated (2 against AMD, 1 against Cuda and one against SSE).
Looks like the team has done a wonderful job! THX!
____________

Thanks to everyone involved in the development of the AMD/OpenCL app!

I'm still waiting for the first result to validate, but so far so good on a HD 7950 with Win8 preview:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/result.php?resultid=289196474

BOINC 7.0.27 (x64)
Catalyst 12.4 (installed in Win7 comp. mode)
Windows 8 Dev. Preview x64

Performance not overwelming yet, appears to be only ~9% faster than my GTX 560 Ti, but since this is the first public release (and in my case not the real win8 driver), who knows what is still to come ... :-)

Regards

Seems like it is time to buy AMD-card! :) (had no reasons to buy card before and still use Sandy Bridge HD3000)
Is it possible to take a look at some comparison charts for compute power of typical CPU and GPU for Einstein@Home-type of calculations?

You can find some performance figures here: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=8888&nowrap=true#112053
A HD6950 runs 1% /min @ 2 wu's concurrent.

Seems like it is time to buy AMD-card! :) (had no reasons to buy card before and still use Sandy Bridge HD3000)
Is it possible to take a look at some comparison charts for compute power of typical CPU and GPU for Einstein@Home-type of calculations?

You can find some performance figures here: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=8888&nowrap=true#112053
A HD6950 runs 1% /min @ 2 wu's concurrent.

I just checked: I have 0.6% /min @ 3 concurrent einstein tasks at i7-2600K 4.5GHz. So is possible average GPU-acceleration(AMD or NV) in my case just about 2 times?..

I'm still waiting for the first result to validate,

I just checked: I have 0.6% /min @ 3 concurrent einstein tasks at i7-2600K 4.5GHz. So is possible average GPU-acceleration(AMD or NV) in my case just about 2 times?..

You need to compare the same types of wu's. AMD-wu's are BRP(Arecibo) wu's (500 credits).
2 concurrent means that 2 wu's are running simultanous on one GPU; my PC finishes 2 wu's every 1:45 on the HD6950 and 2 wu's every 2:45 on the HD5850 (no overclocking). CPU is i7-860 @ 2.8GHz, win7-64. Midrange HD7xxx should perform better.

When crunching, gpus use less energy than if they were playing video. No video output.

It was not easy to find the same task... well, it is http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/result.php?resultid=288218220 , and BRP(Arecibo) 500 credits task used 21,678 sec of my CPU, so 1% takes 217 sec. Your device1 speed is 1% for 97 sec. So again your device1-OpenCL is just about 2 times faster, and your device0-GPU is about 3 times faster. I don't know about evolution in energy efficiency for HD7970 relatively to your 160 Wt HD5850, but you have 75 Wt per task, and my i7 - 35 Wt per task (4 core overclocked i7-2600 4.5 GHz consumption is 150 Wt). We have almost the same energy efficiency! No reason for GPU installation?..
By the way, the same task (see http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/workunit.php?wuid=123117782 ) used 10 times more time on Pentium-4 3GHz. This progress in CPU is more impressive than current version OpenGL benefits. So sad...

Sorry, you missed one important fact: in these ' 1% for 97sec ' TWO wu's make this progress, they run at the same time, not one after the other.

My both gpu's are outdated, actual ones are faster and consume less power.

Anyway, we do not fight a war 'CPU against GPU'

why would anyone buy ati for this project is beyond me. CUDA runs faster here. If you're going to buy a card specifically for this project you should buy NVIDIA. 680 on W7 can run 3 tasks at a time and average around 3000 seconds per task with PCIe 3.0, a little more if CPU is running other projects (3100).

On Linux it's even a little faster

why would anyone buy ati for this project is beyond me. CUDA runs faster here.

680 on W7 can run 3 tasks at a time and average around 3000 seconds per task with PCIe 3.0

Found this on Albert

http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/results.php?hostid=2209&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3&appid=

Based on the time stamps, I only managed to find one where they were close enough together that would give me the GUESS that they were running 2x at a time. The CPU being used can bring in some speculation. But even with those times, and the increase in TDP of the 7970, CUDA is still a better choice.

Also don't forget what Oliver stated, "Yes, that's an observation we also made during our testing phase. OpenCL, well at least AMD's implementation, is much more sensitive to the amount of CPU-power available to serve the GPU than NVIDIA's CUDA. Also, for CUDA we (as developers) can decide and influence how to trade GPU efficiency against CPU-consumption quite a bit - OpenCL doesn't offer such fine-tuning.

This statement does not seem to be in favor of OpenCl from the dev's perspective. What is very noted from the PCIe discussion in cruncher's corner, is that PCIe 3 is MUCH better than 2 when loading multiple tasks.

EDIT: Since many people will not have a 7970, I would send them a private message. That person ive seen in quite a few forums, so I'm "sure" they would be willing to help.

EDIT 2x= Even if this person was running 2, the time would still be higher than my 680 running 3. Thereby DRASTICALLY reducing efficiency.

Bikeman, no war, no spinning out - just measurement, some statistics and a few ideas about attractiveness of different approaches for GPGPU. You are deep in OpenCL and CUDA for this project, so can you give us estimation of new 7970 energy-efficiency in this particular kind of calculations? ( "Is it possible to take a look at some comparison charts for compute power of typical CPU and GPU for Einstein@Home-type of calculations?" ) I believe you have some info and measurements results. Sure OpenCL is yonger, and your version of this GPGPU-library is the first and may be not perfect yet. I don't even try to use it in war "AMD vs NVidia" as a benchmark.
I remember Jul 2011 we had been told at Hannover meeting that in average GPGPU is approximately 5 times more energy efficient than CPU. But one year passed: i7, AMD 7970, NVidia 680 and you OpenCL-library appeared. So please tell me like Holy Father to the parishioner: should I buy AMD GPU or not ( games only are not enough motivation for me :) ).

Here are some tasks from my 7970 running one wu at a time while seti was down cos of their power grid failing.
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/results.php?hostid=5365549
The motherboard is an xfx780i with PCIe v2 16x slot.
the cpu is 3.6 P4 with ht on and running other cpu projects so the gpu is starved of cpu time to run einstein, so times are longer than should be,
I also have other problems with this pc having now had to go back one month with system restore which removed ccc 12.4 and BM 7:0:28
When i am shure the other problems are gone/fixed i will upgrade again and try again with einstein.
I built this system with ATI gpu so that it can run SETI VLAR workunits
einstein work was just for fun and fill in time,
I was lucky that E@H come up with OCL app in time :¬)

just measurement, some statistics and a few ideas about attractiveness of different approaches for GPGPU.

These two jobs are not really comparable tho: one is a brand-new (1.25) prototype for an OpenCL app specifically modified to cure validation problems of HD6900 series cards. It is slower than the previous version 1.24.

Cheers
HB

Bikeman, Oliver Bock, Alex and others - thank you all! I bought it. Let me share results of my new 7970, for Arecibo 1.24 atiOpenCL:
1 task on GPU (0.5 CPU + 1 ATI GPU): 18-25 min, GPU Load by GPU-Z 40-45% (although Catalist Control Center show "activity 60%"), CPU Load by W7 TaskManager - 5% (it is ~40% load of one core)
2 tasks on GPU (0.5 CPU + 0.5 ATI GPU): ~38 min, GPU Load by GPU-Z 58-62% (Catalist CC - 80-84%), CPU Load - 3%
Have no idea why dispersion (17-25 min) in the case of 1 task so large if tasks need equal(?) amount of calculation. CPU is not heavy loaded by other tasks.

Whatever... if we assume that "1.22 BRP4 SSE" and "1.24 atiOpenCL" need the same amount of calculations, then for one task even on PCIe2.0 GPU 7970 1GHz is ~20 times faster (and ~5-7 times more energy efficient) than my i7-2600k 4.5 GHz CPU. Good job!
And thank you for inducement me to by GPU, I am going to check the progress in game industry for the last 7-8 years.

Congratulations!
To get the same results with my both cards I need to switch over to the 36h-day!
____________

Bikeman, Oliver Bock, Alex and others - thank you all! I bought it. Let me share results of my new 7970, for Arecibo 1.24 atiOpenCL:
1 task on GPU (0.5 CPU + 1 ATI GPU): 18-25 min, GPU Load by GPU-Z 40-45% (although Catalist Control Center show "activity 60%"), CPU Load by W7 TaskManager - 5% (it is ~40% load of one core)
2 tasks on GPU (0.5 CPU + 0.5 ATI GPU): ~38 min, GPU Load by GPU-Z 58-62% (Catalist CC - 80-84%), CPU Load - 3%
Have no idea why dispersion (17-25 min) in the case of 1 task so large if tasks need equal(?) amount of calculation. CPU is not heavy loaded by other tasks.

And thank you for inducement me to by GPU, I am going to check the progress in game industry for the last 7-8 years.

OK -- so I wonder about combinations.

I've built up a farm with HD 4850's. I realize that advances in programming and drivers are pushing this card off the table.

Not being inclined to spend excessive dollars either on cards, power supplies, and cooling, I'm looking at something like the HD 6750 (I realize I can't use that card with MilkyWay and so over time I'll fade away from that project as I'm unwilling to go with the high wattage high dollar newer DP AMD cards).

But with Einstein, my impression is that I *can* use HD 6750 cards - *provided* I am not running Windows XP it seems as the BOINC client under XP doesn't believe the HD 6750 is a usable GPU (is that true or is it simply a driver of the month issue with AMD there -- I was trying the 12.4 driver for this).

So, can some of the folks who've been there / done that confirm I can use an HD 6750 with Windows 7 and a BOINC client and have the BOINC client believe in the GPU tooth fairy? If so, which AMD driver of the month should I match to it?

I also realize that the Einstein AMD GPU application currently *requires* the 'client of the week' BOINC beta -- (is that true??) Can someone confirm that as well.

I tried the 6750 with an XP set up - no fun there -- and lot's of games to get the 12.4 driver out of the system since it (like a number of the AMD drivers of the month seems to really not like the HD 4850)

So before I sink more time in the this HD 6750 test, I would like some feedback from folks.

Thanks
____________

But with Einstein, my impression is that I *can* use HD 6750 cards - *provided* I am not running Windows XP it seems as the BOINC client under XP doesn't believe the HD 6750 is a usable GPU (is that true or is it simply a driver of the month issue with AMD there -- I was trying the 12.4 driver for this).

So, can some of the folks who've been there / done that confirm I can use an HD 6750 with Windows 7 and a BOINC client and have the BOINC client believe in the GPU tooth fairy? If so, which AMD driver of the month should I match to it?

Vit,

If you happen to catch this. Have you tried to see how it scales up to 3 tasks? Also which OS are you currently using?

Oh, and the real energy efficiency is probably much higher than 5-7x, since you have you CPU OC'd to 4.5. Would think, IMHO, that it's probably around 8-9, maybe even 10. 4.5 is high enough that more juice is being drawn from the higher vcore.

Nice runs BTW. Welcome to GPU crunching.

Cheers

How can i see that my graphics card is used in computing.......?

How can i see that my graphics card is used in computing.......?

How can i see that my graphics card is used in computing.......?

We hope to have a version for Macintosh (Apple OS X 10.8, Mountain Lion) sometime this summer, but there are still some problems that need to be fixed or worked around.

Following my earlier report, it's now been confirmed by AMD that OpenCL runtime support has been removed from Windows XP drivers, despite what it says on the download page: source http://devgurus.amd.com/message/1282438#1282438.

In that forum, Sirish Kumar says that support was removed "from Cat-12.4 (8.961) onwards", but in practice it's missing in 12.2 and 12.3 as well.

So, the last Catalyst download usable here on Windows XP is 12.1

HAL6000 also updated his driver list today.

http://www.hal6000.com/seti/boinc_ati_gpu_cheat_sheet.htm
____________

We hope to have a version for Macintosh (Apple OS X 10.8, Mountain Lion) sometime this summer, but there are still some problems that need to be fixed or worked around.

Hurrah that there is work being done on OS X.

Is there a particular reason why Mountain Lion will be the minimum OS requirement?

Thanks!

Steve

Actually, currently it looks as if we will have something that will work (at least) for "Lion" and up, for AMD/ATI GPUs. We are currently testing a release candidate at our test project, Albert@Home ( http://albert.phys.uwm.edu), results so far look perfect.

What took us so long was that Apple's implementation of the OpenCL standard had some ...well... very unique features (I'd call them bugs actually). We saw some improvements in the previews for Mountain Lion, and had initially hoped for a fix there (which are not always backported by Apple to earlier OSX releases) , but then we found a way to work around the problem.

Stay tuned.

HB