The GPU Folding Thread... X1900 owners in here.

Joe42 said:
So is there a proven formula to get it working it does it require individual tweaking in every case?

So if they raise the points and fix a few of these issues its all good. The points is the really annoying thing, we were promised big points.
Click to expand...

No the point is the GPU client utilises all of the cpu thus negating any benefits of running both GPU and CPU clients at the same time.
 
2bullish said:
I have had the client running all night, a couple of switch offs this morning by me, the GPU client has had no probs whatsoever. Have now completed 65 units. What I have noticed is that the client is using around 150 MB of ram, CPU utilization is at 50%, with the other 50% being split by the cpu's.

According to the cpu logs, production times have doubled, which matches data from task manager. In other words, task manager is right, the gpu client is robbing 50% of cpu output, thus doubling cpu client completion times.

For the loss of ppd it is not worth running the gpu client. I will stop using it when it has finished its current WU.
Click to expand...


65 units? Thats NOT right, if thats true then they are failing.


Today I installed Cat 6.5 and its working a treat!!

Code: 
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] *------------------------------*
[10:24:25] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[10:24:25] Version 0.05 (Sat Sep 30 16:08:52 PDT 2006)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Compiler  : Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.10.3077 for 80x86
[10:24:25] Build host: CYGWIN_NT-5.1 vishal-gpu 1.5.19(0.150/4/2) 2006-01-20 13:28 i686 Cygwin
[10:24:25] Preparing to commence simulation
[10:24:25] - Looking at optimizations...
[10:24:25] - Created dyn
[10:24:25] - Files status OK
[10:24:25] - Expanded 83027 -> 443705 (decompressed 534.4 percent)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Project: 2711 (Run 0, Clone 622, Gen 0)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[10:24:25] Entering M.D.
[10:24:34] Completed 0
[10:24:34] Starting GUI Server
[10:30:18] Completed 1
[10:36:03] Completed 2
[10:41:49] Completed 3
[10:47:34] Completed 4
[10:53:20] Completed 5
[10:59:05] Completed 6
[11:04:51] Completed 7
[11:10:36] Completed 8
[11:16:22] Completed 9
[11:22:07] Completed 10
[11:27:52] Completed 11
[11:33:37] Completed 12
[11:39:23] Completed 13
[11:45:08] Completed 14
[11:50:54] Completed 15
[11:56:39] Completed 16
[12:02:25] Completed 17
[12:08:10] Completed 18
[12:13:56] Completed 19
[12:19:41] Completed 20
[12:25:26] Completed 21
[12:31:11] Completed 22

Average time/frame = under 5 mins.

C2D @ 400x7=2800, X1900XTX @ 688/838, 58C load

Sorted.
 
Was looking at the stats summary page and there are 3 GROGPU projects that give up 220pts per WU [2711, 2722 and 2725], then another 3 or so that give up 1 point.

Why are you not getting the 220pts ? Have you not gotten those WU's yet .. or am I missing somthing here.

If they use the standard benchmark for calculating the points:

Benchmark system - P4 no SSE

110 * Days to Process the WU

The GPU would be smoking that traditional bencmark, even if it's using 50% of one core, that would still be much better throughput overall would it not ??
.
 
Last edited:
No quite sure who you are talking to but here is a snippet of my log

[11:59:39] Completed 63
[12:08:00] Completed 64
[12:16:21] Completed 65
[12:24:40] Completed 66
[12:33:01] Completed 67
[12:41:25] Completed 68
[12:49:45] Completed 69
[12:58:02] Completed 70
[13:06:21] Completed 71
[13:14:39] Completed 72

This seems right for a X1900
 
Concorde Rules said:
65 units? Thats NOT right, if thats true then they are failing.


Today I installed Cat 6.5 and its working a treat!!

Code: 
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] *------------------------------*
[10:24:25] Folding@Home GPU Core - Beta
[10:24:25] Version 0.05 (Sat Sep 30 16:08:52 PDT 2006)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Compiler  : Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.10.3077 for 80x86
[10:24:25] Build host: CYGWIN_NT-5.1 vishal-gpu 1.5.19(0.150/4/2) 2006-01-20 13:28 i686 Cygwin
[10:24:25] Preparing to commence simulation
[10:24:25] - Looking at optimizations...
[10:24:25] - Created dyn
[10:24:25] - Files status OK
[10:24:25] - Expanded 83027 -> 443705 (decompressed 534.4 percent)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Project: 2711 (Run 0, Clone 622, Gen 0)
[10:24:25] 
[10:24:25] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[10:24:25] Entering M.D.
[10:24:34] Completed 0
[10:24:34] Starting GUI Server
[10:30:18] Completed 1
[10:36:03] Completed 2
[10:41:49] Completed 3
[10:47:34] Completed 4
[10:53:20] Completed 5
[10:59:05] Completed 6
[11:04:51] Completed 7
[11:10:36] Completed 8
[11:16:22] Completed 9
[11:22:07] Completed 10
[11:27:52] Completed 11
[11:33:37] Completed 12
[11:39:23] Completed 13
[11:45:08] Completed 14
[11:50:54] Completed 15
[11:56:39] Completed 16
[12:02:25] Completed 17
[12:08:10] Completed 18
[12:13:56] Completed 19
[12:19:41] Completed 20
[12:25:26] Completed 21
[12:31:11] Completed 22

Average time/frame = under 5 mins.

C2D @ 400x7=2800, X1900XTX @ 688/838, 58C load

Sorted.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, whay are they failing?

100 units at 8 mis each = 800 mins = 13 plus hours
 
Well, I'm in with my X1900XT. I'm using the 6.10 beta catalyst drivers - is the general consensus that the 6.5 drivers are better, as I'll switch over?

At the minute, I'm loosing about 50% CPU to the GPU client, so I'll put the CPU ones on 25% each for the moment.

What temps is everyone getting with their gfx cards - mine is hovering about the 68C mark?
 
Last edited:
A.N.Other said:
Well, I'm in with my X1900XT. I'm using the new catalyst drivers - is the general concensus that the 6.5 drivers are better, as I'll switch over?

At the minute, I'm loosing about 50% CPU to the GPU client, so I'll put the CPU ones on 25% each for the moment.

What temps is everyone getting with their gfx cards - mine is hovering about the 68C mark?
Click to expand...

My temp is exactly the same.
 
rich99million said:
ahhhh completed 65 steps/frames/whatevers - I thought you meant you'd completed 65 GPU WUs, that would have been going some! :p
Click to expand...


Aye, its fine then :)


Also I've just had a kentsfield core donated to me for a month!!

F@H forums said:
you nailed it! system is now running. Thanks a ton! what team do you fold for? ill donate 1 core of this kentsfield to your team for the next month.
Click to expand...

a 4.2ghz Kentsfield!! LOL
 
A.N.Other said:
Well, I'm in with my X1900XT. I'm using the 6.10 beta catalyst drivers - is the general consensus that the 6.5 drivers are better, as I'll switch over?

At the minute, I'm loosing about 50% CPU to the GPU client, so I'll put the CPU ones on 25% each for the moment.

What temps is everyone getting with their gfx cards - mine is hovering about the 68C mark?
Click to expand...
around 50c (vf-900), watercooling pipes been ordered, my watercooling stuff has sat unused for too long :)

*edit* installed atitool and set clocks to stock (xtx) and vcore to 1.4 and now its at 77c :eek:

Seems its finnaly doing some work!

*fingers crossed that 6.5 is faster and more stable*
 
Last edited:
Combat squirrel said:
hmmmmm i dont get it, iv installed the latest cat 10 drivers, folding at home 5.03 GUI version and started it, its just using my CPU and NOT GPU, any ideas ?
Click to expand...


Install Cat 6.5s, download the GPU 5.05 client, run it as a program.

Job done.
 
My P2711 just finished at step 85, whats happening with everyone elses???

It uploaded it fine, then downloaded a new different P2711, new core and its started fine...
 
mine is at step 36, going smoothly so far, i bet it will crash after posting this. :rolleyes:

If it does i dont care about it untill the client/wu's become stable, even if it is a beta it shouldnt have random eue bugs everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom