Stream

[Brucifer]

Has anyone been messing with the stream beta? If so, what are you using it on?

[Ototero]

Not me, I'm innocent.

[Brucifer]

I got my stream going................. Pun intended, I know, I know, very sic humor.

Anyway, on with the story. I noticed yesterday that distributed.net had released a 32-bit windows stream client for beta8. So I broke down this morning and raided my coin jar where I put all my pocket change every evening. And there was enough in there to go out and buy an ATI (AMD) Stream card. Unfortunately the store was out of the 48xx that I wanted, so I ended up having to settle for a Radeon HD 4650. I figured that it would suffice to get my interest in the effort whetted a teensy weensy bit. All my other stuff is cuda. So I was curious as to how the Stream stuff would compare on a few levels. As for ease of installation. I'm running XP Professional on this system. So the first thing I did was download the beta8 stream client. Then I went and did a google on ATI Stream, and lo and behold there was a "suite" of stuff from ATI so I downloaded that. Then I replaced the cuda card (and put that in an XP-64 system) and then installed the 4650. Fired the system off, and clicked on the "suite" and let the installation go forward. Afterwards a note popped up and said that I needed .NET 2.x installed. So I went to MS and downloaded the latest .NET and installed that, along with a security update or two....

Then I installed the stream beta client. Fired that off in config and put in an email addy, and aimed it at my internal perproxy server. Then I rant the -bench util to see how the timings went. On the plus side, the client picked the correct default core for speed, however there were only 2 to pick from. LOL Then I fired the client off. It takes 24 secs per work unit, and I'm only running single work units at the moment. For comparison's sake and not to get into a cuda vs stream war here, a cuda 2.2 client on a 9800 GTX+ PNY mfr cardtakes 21 secs per unit. They are fairly close together. The cuda one does better on no screen lag when using the system while crunching. The ATI lags noticably, but not to the point where the system can't be used for stuff like forum typing, etc. The ATI was $129 and the cuda one was 147 out the door tax included.

So at this point it's pretty much a wash between the two cards. The ATI is a few bux cheaper and is fine for a cruncher system. Where the ATI card does better is that it doesn't need power plugged into the card. It is totally quiet and isn't giving off much heat at all. The cuda card is much larger and requires the additional power plug. I do have to say that I am impressed with the little ATI card though as the installation went flawless. Of course it isn't going to be flawless on linux............. but then the cuda cards aren't either cause with either you are playing the kernel compile game with SDK's and all. Performance wise they run the same really. So what do you gain with linux? Savings on the cost of the O/S is about it. With the beta game that distributed.net is going through working on the clients, the windows method is much much simpler for doing the GPU thing as far as RC5.

The larger ATI cards (which I would have bought a larger one but the store was out and I needed instant gratification) do much much better on speed. So after going through the installation on this one, I won't have any hesitation on spending the bucks for a higher end ATI when my pocketbook allows again.

But my main thing in posting this is that it is an AMD GPU card, and since this is the AMD users forum, it is nice to finally see AMD getting into the real world in the GPU thing for doing work and not just the gaming thing.
So if I didn't have to pay state sales tax here, the card was $119 at the local Best Buy, and cheaper at NewEgg. So if you have a hankering to get into playing with ATI stream on RC5, this is a relatively inexpensive way to go. This card does better than a GeForce 9800 GT by 4 seconds per work unit. So anyway, as far as distributed.net, ATI is in the game with cuda.

[Nflight]

Woo Hoo Thanks for posting Brucifier, I can finally believe again in AMD ! WoW I feel better for a while there it was toting the barge trying to support the AMD line of GPU's and Processors, they work sure but, just not the performance we all wanted to see. Now they seem to have emerged once again victorious.

I feel Better, thanks for commenting...!!!!

[Brucifer]

I lifted the below from the Free-DC rc5-72 forum thread, and the post was by Digital Parasite:
paste-----------------------------
[Aug 16 00:11:25 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (IL 4-pipe c).
[Aug 16 00:11:35 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (IL 4-pipe c)
0.00:00:07.42 [589,471,423 keys/sec]

With a Core2 Q9550 and an ATI 4870 (GPU 750 MHz, Memory 950 MHz) running Vista 64bit.
paste--------------------------------

So the 4870 was what I was wanting but the store didn't have any. What had my heart started there was the benchmark of 589,471,423 keys/sec which is flat rocking along... So it puts out some heat, well they all put out the heat when you get into the stuff that is putting out 400,000,000 keys/sec and up. So I want one of those puppies to play with. That puts AMD right up in the thick of it as far as rc5072 goes!!!

[Brucifer]

A bit of an update. Actually the stream is better than in the thick of it. The HD 4870 is a real ball buster on rc5 and for the price there is nothing else on the market that will touch it in performance. So AMD finally has a real winner on it's hands. So it stands to reason that if it is such a hot performer on rc5 it's going to do the same on other projects too. So it's good to see AMD getting back into some serious competition again.

Now I just gotta find a place that isn't out of stock...................

[NeoGen]

And if the boinc developers pick it up and start working on Stream, there will be no stopping.

If only ATI's Stream was being as well marketed and supported as CUDA is...

[Brucifer]

Give it a little time. Cuda has been on the street a while.

[Brucifer]

For anyone that's interested, we've had a bit of a discussion going on the distributed.net threads of the FDC forums concerning benchmarks on some of the Nvida GeForce and AMD Stream GPU's.

[Brucifer]

I picked up a Radeon HD 4850 last night, and the benchmarks are;

[Aug 21 15:35:18 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (IL 4-pipe c).
[Aug 21 15:35:29 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (IL 4-pipe c)
0.00:00:08.84 [489,096,269 keys/sec]
[Aug 21 15:35:29 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (IL 4-pipe c alt).
[Aug 21 15:35:42 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (IL 4-pipe c alt)
0.00:00:10.59 [411,941,905 keys/sec]
[Aug 21 15:35:42 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #0 (IL 4-pipe c)
Fastest core : #0 (IL 4-pipe c)

So it moves along at better than twice what I'm getting out of a cuda BFG GTX 260. Uses one PCIE 6-pin power cable, not two like the GTX 260. Feels like its putting out about the same (maybe less) heat than the 260. It crunches one single work unit each 8 seconds, so it's like rocking along like the cuda 260 was before the compiler problem hit. And it's not the fastest card of the stream line, but I'm pretty happy with the way it runs.

So there you go Nflight, your AMD world is now in the thick of it in the GPU world as far as crunching on RC5-72 anyway!!!