1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Ati Back in the Game

Discussion in 'Folding@Home' started by thraxed, Sep 21, 2009.

  1. thraxed Guest

    [​IMG]

    As you can see with cat 9.9, AMD added an option to force your maximum desktop clock speeds. (Note if ya put vista in test mode and remove CCC and install a new beta of ati tray tools, it too will allow ya to push the clock speeds further then what CCC will allowing higher ppd). Though with a crappy overclock in the screenshot, my ppd and folding times are not bad and rank well with most nvidia cards. 9.9 seems rock solid for folding, best time I still find with 9.3 dlls. If i get 2 384 packets they fold in synch about 6400 ppd avg wo the smp fold which is only using 4 threads @ 9:30 sec a fold at no overclock which seems a lot faster then vmware folding.
  2. audiotranceable

    audiotranceable New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    351 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Westminster, B.C
    Why does Ati get lower points. My 9600GSO is 3K to 3.5K
  3. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,320 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    He just explained why. They get lower points because on the desktop they run in 2d mode at lower clocks, this will now force them into 3dmode and the higher clocks for a much higher score.
  4. audiotranceable

    audiotranceable New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    351 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Westminster, B.C
    ah I didn't see that at the time
  5. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,065 (5.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Florida
    although that still isnt entirely accurate as its known that nvidia cards pull more ppd in genreal.
  6. thraxed Guest

    Well everything been based off previous cat drivers which sucked for folding and stability. With a good overclock on a card, your ppd should be about 8-12k on a 4870x2.

    (ATI uses v1.17, Nvidia v1.15), the community witnessed further fall in number of completed packets per day. If you’re not familiar with Folding@Home packets, every package features certain number of mathematical simulations for tested protein – in case of Nvidia, packet consists out of 25 million, while ATI’s one features 10 million operations. However, due do different type of mathematical operations, Nvidia’s packet usually will result in 480 points, while ATI’s 10 million will return 548 points (or recently introduced ATI packets with 338 points).

    I don't know if that really makes a difference in point accumulation overall and scores.
  7. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,653 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    That isn't true, F@H triggers the 3DClock. My HD4890 runs at 1000/1000 sitting at the desktop with F@H going. Even at those clocks, it is outpaced by a single 9600GSO. A 4870x2 isn't going to see 1000Mhz on the core. ATi cards are just bad at folding.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  8. thraxed Guest

    Yeah but this wasn't true for those with crossfire or x2 cards, clock wouldn't trigger past the stock of 504/500 on our secondary gpu:( Which started the who ATi cards are bad for folding plus stability issues it was a mess in the beginning. Notice the screenshot it show the secondary core running at the exact same speed as the primary, this is new to 9.9 cats.

    [​IMG]

    If your 4890 is getting dusted by a gso then you've configured something wrong. Try the 9.3 dlls with 9.9 cat, had a thread here on how to do it pictures and all, but it never stuck around, there the best IMO. http://hotfile.com/dl/13124728/bcb9d77/GPU.rar.html If ya need the 9.3 dlls. My 4870 single core gets the same ppd result as According to Nvidia PPD charts, and If you pop my results in, it fits right in between gtx285 gtx295 810/910 clock speed at a price of $300 (well what i bought card for). I'm sure default manufacturer OC card like an ASUS top card would show better results then mine:/ Not as economical as a GSO, but neither is my machine. So I cant really agree with ATi cards are just bad for folding.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2009
  9. Homeless

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,025 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Location:
    USA
    That's an incredible chart
  10. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,653 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    Sorry, hadn't realized this was a x2 specific problem.

    And no, there is nothing configured wrong. No matter what I do, the HD4890@1000/1000 only pulls at most 3500PPD, matching the 9600GSO@600/1500/900. The HD4890 of course cost me $260 and the 9600GSO cost me $40, both brand new. And the HD4890 consumes more power and puts off more head than the 9600GSO... Yeah, sorry to say, ATi cards are just bad at folding.

    The only thing that might be holding my HD4890 back is the fact that right now it is paired with an Athlon X2 4200+, and the ATi folding puts a lot more pressure on the CPU. But then again, that is just another reason that ATi cards are bad at folding. I can run both my 9600GSOs and have next to 0 CPU load. I run the single HD4890, and it loads a CPU to ~25%.

    There is a reason that all the people out there putting up huge numbers with large folding farms use nVidia cards and not ATi.

    And whoever put the average PPD of the GTX285 at 6000 was obviously on drug. My GTX285 pulls between 8500-9500 PPD easily.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
    [Ion] says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  11. thraxed Guest

    Well unless you configured it like I did, I'm sure there something wrong. Try the link, as ya can see it contains different files then what you would normally have when you download the client from @home.
  12. [Ion]

    [Ion] WCG Team Assistant

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    11,786 (6.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,889
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    I had an HD2600XT (POS, don't buy), and when I tried to fold on it it loaded the CPU to about 20% on my quad. All the while getting 400 PPD. My current Geforce 9300 gets about 700-800 PPD, and uses anywhere from 1-2% of the quad. I don't plan on folding on ATi cards as long as this problem exists.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,107 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,123
    ATI cards aren't bad at folding, tehy are more adapted to complesx use of multiple shaders, as opposed tio Nvidias use of simple shaders. ATI requires more complex software, and thus is being limited to the current GPU client as it fits both Nvidia and ATI.



    If they were to use the full amount of shaders by making new code ATI would outperform the nvidia client by 3-5X depending on card. Thus the use of 1600 shaders on the new 5XXX series, GPGPU will allow use of them natively and increase the performance of the client, and of other GPU accelerated software.



    For right now the 1>5 configuratino is hurting ATI performance.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  14. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,199 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    From what I heard, optimizing code for ATI cards to run all 800/1600 shaders is brutally hard, since 4 of the shaders attached to each of the 160 ALUs are not full shaders, and are incapable of certain functions... So you have to find alternate ways of performing certain calculation just to load all 160 pipelines at once and have all 800 shaders and semishaders kicking.

    I think one of the programmers described it as "trying to lick your own elbow".

    CUDA is supposedly much easier to use (again, I don't know - just what I have read/been told, so take with an unhealthy dose of salt). That might explain why there has been so little adoption of what is considered to be a very powerful architecture.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
  15. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,653 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    That is basically the same thing I heard. So while ATi cards might have 800 "Shaders", they really only have 160 usable shaders, the rest don't really help much in the F@H world. Add to that the fact that te Shader domain is locked to the Core clock, and you have poor performance. That is why a card with only 96 Shaders can outperfrm a card with 800(160).
    [Ion] says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  16. [Ion]

    [Ion] WCG Team Assistant

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    11,786 (6.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,889
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    Well, that would explain the "success" with the 2600, because it only has 24 real shaders.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  17. audiotranceable

    audiotranceable New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    351 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Westminster, B.C
    [​IMG]
  18. bogmali

    bogmali Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641 (2.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,124
    Location:
    Olympia, WA USA
    Nice PPD there Matthew, is that OCed? Sorry for the TC folks:D

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page