Message boards :
Number crunching :
GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Shaggie76 Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 282 Credit: 271,858,118 RAC: 196 |
Evidently I haven't updated my old thread in so long that it had to be locked so here's a fresh thread. I ran another scan today and a few things are new: the RX 570 and RX 580s are on the charts now -- surprisingly they aren't running quite as fast the RX 480s on the chart -- it might be luck but there are over a dozen hosts and over 2000 tasks counted for each so I'm not sure that this is just sampling error (in contrast the RX 480 stats in this scan covered almost 150 hosts and over 19000 tasks so I'm pretty confident). There aren't enough Vega parts in circulation for them to qualify for stats - I'll run another scan in a month or so and see if there are enough then. |
EdwardPF Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 389 Credit: 236,772,605 RAC: 374 |
I love this page!! Thanks! See 'ya again in a month or so. Ed F |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11416 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Thanx |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13855 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I love this page!! Yep. Greatly appreciated. Grant Darwin NT |
Shaggie76 Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 282 Credit: 271,858,118 RAC: 196 |
One possible explanation occurred to me for the new RX 580 scores being lower than expected: if these cards recently replaced a older and slower card my scripts might misconstrue older results from the old card as from the RX 580 -- to ease pressure on the SETI servers I get host information and only the summary of the task stats (for me to dig into each task to handle this would be 20x more server queries). I might also dig through and see if I can find some Vega parts for some preliminary results since I'm curious. |
petri33 Send message Joined: 6 Jun 02 Posts: 1668 Credit: 623,086,772 RAC: 156 |
Thank you Shaggie76, My 3x1080 + 1x1080Ti do a 350 000+ per day: 350 000/24/4 = 3640+ cr/h per card. They use, let me take a look, (3 x 145W + 224W) / 4 = 165W per card yieliding a 22 credits per Wh, Can you draw a red X on your charts for other top 20 hosts..... -- Petri. To overcome Heisenbergs: "You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 36871 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
The 3GB 1060's still do very well there and IMHO are still the best "bang for buck" going (now that the bit mining craze is over), but I may be a little prejudiced there. :-) Cheers. |
RueiKe Send message Joined: 14 Feb 16 Posts: 492 Credit: 378,512,430 RAC: 785 |
Hi Shaggie76, I recently installed a waterblock on my Vega FE. There should be about 1 day of results since then. Tasks ran prior to that would be thermally throttled. The hosted is: 8341269 One possible explanation occurred to me for the new RX 580 scores being lower than expected: if these cards recently replaced a older and slower card my scripts might misconstrue older results from the old card as from the RX 580 -- to ease pressure on the SETI servers I get host information and only the summary of the task stats (for me to dig into each task to handle this would be 20x more server queries). GitHub: Ricks-Lab Instagram: ricks_labs |
Brent Norman Send message Joined: 1 Dec 99 Posts: 2786 Credit: 685,657,289 RAC: 835 |
How many GPU tasks are you running at once? |
RueiKe Send message Joined: 14 Feb 16 Posts: 492 Credit: 378,512,430 RAC: 785 |
How many GPU tasks are you running at once? I’m running 1 at a time. GitHub: Ricks-Lab Instagram: ricks_labs |
Shaggie76 Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 282 Credit: 271,858,118 RAC: 196 |
Host: 8341269 gfx901 (Anonymous) 1052 Credit / Hour 37% Core / Task 403 TasksI'd have expected it to be a bit higher but maybe it's too soon to tell? |
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
How many GPU tasks are you running at once? Rick, looked at your stderr output and the only thing I might offer is increasing -tt to 1500. I don't know anything about the ATI cards but it might respond to that parameter like the Nvidia cards. Gives the GPU more time to process data before switching out from the kernel. From the docs ... -tt F: Sets desired target time for kernel sequence. That is, how long kernel/kernel sequence can executes w/o interruption and w/o switching to another tasks like GUI update. F is floating point number in milliseconds. Default is 15ms. App will try to adapt kernels (currently implemented for PulseFind kernels) to run designated amount of time. To increase performance try to increase this value. ?High values could result in GUI lags. If use_sleep active try to use target times divisible on sleeping time quantum for your particular system. For example at least some AMD-based systems have 15ms sleep quantum. That is, Sleep(1) will actually sleep 15ms instead of 1ms. Has no effect in iGPU build (USE_OPENCL_INTEL path). Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
RueiKe Send message Joined: 14 Feb 16 Posts: 492 Credit: 378,512,430 RAC: 785 |
Host: 8341269 gfx901 (Anonymous) 1052 Credit / Hour 37% Core / Task 403 TasksI'd have expected it to be a bit higher but maybe it's too soon to tell? Me too! With 60% increase in clock speed, I expected it would be significantly better than my Fiji based cards. I ran a bench test on a WU between Fiji and Vega and only saw a 10% improvement. I have not tried tweak command line arguments at all, so there may be some unrealized potential. GitHub: Ricks-Lab Instagram: ricks_labs |
RueiKe Send message Joined: 14 Feb 16 Posts: 492 Credit: 378,512,430 RAC: 785 |
How many GPU tasks are you running at once? Hi Keith, Thanks for the recommendation. I will give this a try today. I probably need to redo some of the DOE work I did on Fiji to optimize command line options. GitHub: Ricks-Lab Instagram: ricks_labs |
Shaggie76 Send message Joined: 9 Oct 09 Posts: 282 Credit: 271,858,118 RAC: 196 |
I was hoping for more Vega parts in circulation by now but we aren't quite there yet (I require a certain number of completed work units per card to qualify and then enough separate computers for the card to show up on the charts. It's close, but not quite there yet: C:\SETI>grep -i Vega GPUs.csv 7626762,Radeon RX Vega 7842719,Radeon RX Vega 7854642,Radeon RX Vega 8081803,Radeon RX Vega 8103729,Radeon RX Vega 8230810,Radeon RX Vega 8243334,Radeon RX Vega 8249242,Radeon RX Vega 8261851,Radeon RX Vega 8307472,Radeon RX Vega 8330537,Radeon RX Vega 8334662,Radeon RX Vega 8341269,Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 8344100,Radeon RX Vega 8344505,Radeon RX Vega I also fixed a bug in my code that was mixing up the two types of Titan X cards but even now there aren't a lot of the Pascal parts crunching for SETI yet either: C:\SETI>grep -i Pascal GPUs.csv 4693382,TITAN X (Pascal) 6987408,TITAN X (Pascal) 7978195,TITAN X (Pascal) 8008690,TITAN X (Pascal) 8076145,TITAN X (Pascal) 8107587,TITAN X (Pascal) 8163371,TITAN X (Pascal) 8184679,TITAN X (Pascal) 8286999,TITAN X (Pascal) 8312198,TITAN X (Pascal) 8333199,TITAN X (Pascal) |
Dimitar Stoynev Send message Joined: 7 Jan 09 Posts: 19 Credit: 336,531 RAC: 0 |
EPYC work! I just wonder how a measly 770 can produce the same credit as a RX 580? |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22540 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Simple - the nVidia offerings are far better at number crunching than the AMD offerings at (just about) every price point. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Dimitar Stoynev Send message Joined: 7 Jan 09 Posts: 19 Credit: 336,531 RAC: 0 |
Simple - the nVidia offerings are far better at number crunching than the AMD offerings at (just about) every price point. Something tells me the entire alt coin mining community begs to differ. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13855 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Simple - the nVidia offerings are far better at number crunching than the AMD offerings at (just about) every price point. This isn't mining. If you want to mine, but AMD, if you want to crunch Seti, buy Nvidia. Grant Darwin NT |
Dimitar Stoynev Send message Joined: 7 Jan 09 Posts: 19 Credit: 336,531 RAC: 0 |
Fanboy-ism and trolling aside, we all know historically AMD cards have (almost) always had better raw computational power in the consumer market. Professional offerings are almost neck-and-neck (drivers and SW support not taken into account). A GTX580 (stock clocks) has ~1.6 GFLOPS of compute power. RX 580 on the other side has ~6.2 GFLOPS. That is 5 times (!) more raw power. Do you really believe the alt coin miners would go for 100s of AMD cards if they had a way to make GTX580 profitable? No way nvidia's GTX580 crunches more numbers than a RX 580, all other factors aside. This means that the key is in the "other factors", e.g. CUDA vs OpenCL, or other cruncher optimizations. Maybe the workload is just too non-typical and AMD cards have no shortcuts crunching it? Maybe I'm simply misinterpreting the chart? Anyhow, yesterday I got an email from S@H about how much more processing power is needed for the new telescopes and projects. Maybe, just maybe, if some skilled individual(s) spend some time optimizing the code for AMD cards more, we'll get some of that needed power for "free"? Bear in mind however, that I don't really know how many of the AMD owners are contributing to SETI@home, with all the mining craze currently raging. It might be not worth it to optimize further for just a few AMD cards, which would be really sad for me, since my RX is crunching for SETI most of the time. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.