I just got one of these cards, and despite being better than my expired R9 290X in every benchmark I've seen, my work units are, on average, 1.5-2 minutes slower to complete. Anyone have any idea on speeding it back up?

I think the 290x is faster.

The RX480 is inferior in memory bandwidth (though that shouldn't be an issue) to the R9 290X.

It has fewer cores, but clocks them higher.

Also, the current 520 client being used for opencl support doesn't work all that well with cards like the RX 480 that use opencl 2.0, especially under LINUX - it really should get upgraded to the 521 client that DOES.

What is the Trick to even get the AMD R9 290x to Run.
I have two of them set with:
<app_config>
<app>
<max_concurrent>1</max_concurrent>
<name>dnetc</name>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>2.0</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.5</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>
</app_config>

No Luck
This Computer http://moowrap.net/show_host_detail.php?hostid=397295

Thanks for any help.

---

Crunching@EVGA The Number One Team in the BOINC Community. Folding@EVGA The Number One Team in the Folding@Home Community.

greetings,

I would try the simplest case first - to get started, as:
<gpu_usage>1.0</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>1.0</cpu_usage>

I have just joined moo, but have been crunching with GPU on
SETI and Einstein.

Other posts say that a single Moo will use all of the resources of a GPU.
(that post was a year old, though.)
I have a Radeon 7750 and can finish a wu in abot 87 minutes.
I will try to run 2 simultaneously soon.
Not holding my breath. I also use that GPU for my 'regular' video.

Good luck,
jay

You could always try to download the newer version at distributed.net and use it instead.
dnet is running version 5.21 which moowrap has not updated to yet.
Just download it and rename it to the same name as the moowrap version.
programdata/boinc/projects/moowrap.net and replace the .exe

You could always try to download the newer version at distributed.net and use it instead.
dnet is running version 5.21 which moowrap has not updated to yet.
Just download it and rename it to the same name as the moowrap version.
programdata/boinc/projects/moowrap.net and replace the .exe

I'll have to give that a try sometimes to see if I can get my R9 390X to actually complete tasks without trashing them.

This is the app_config to run two tasks on my new rx480:

<app_config>
<app>
<name>dnetc</name>
<max_concurrent>2</max_concurrent>
<fraction_done_exact/>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.05</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>
</app_config>

Two tasks complete in 90 -100 seconds of cpu time. Not too bad considering the cpu
is just an Athlon II 259 and the pcie slot is 2.0.

Distributed.net RC5-72 speeds have almost ZERO resemblence to any other benchmark in existance, don't bother trying to compare.
The only benchmark I have ever seen that is even CLOSE to similar is Bitcoin mining, which is also a form of cryptographic work in it's root basis - but still involves a lot more data usage and therefore memory throughput affects it a lot more than RC5-72 work does.

The keyrate of any AMD GPU that is capable of running Dnet at all is almost 100% proportional to the product of the number of shaders/cores on the card time the core clockrate.
The RC5 CODE is very simplistic - it does a few rotates and a few adds and not much else - so comparing it to a benchmark that does a LOT more complicated code and needs a lot of data to/from memory doesn't work.

I don't have an exact number, but it works out to 1 Megakey/sec per shader/core at a little under 700 Mhz clock - and it doesn't matter if it's a current GCN card or the older Terrascale stuff like the HD 76xx series and older (including the applicable GPU on AMD A-series APUs).

The memory usage is TINY - all the "core" code AND all the data fits easily in cache memory, even on the older CPU-based clients, since at least the AMD K6 and Intel Pentium II/Celeron series which had cache memory sizes in the several KILObyte range.
It is entirely practical to clock your memory on a GPU to the LOWEST it will go and have ZERO effect on keyrate, while saving a bit of power and heat.

RX 480 has 2304 cores, the R9 290X has 2816 (22% more) - the RX 480 DOES clock higher but it is AT BEST going to have similar keyrate - it comes down to can you clock the RX 480 more than 22% higher than you managed on your R9 290X.
On the POSITIVE side, the RX 480 uses a LOT less power to manage similar keyrate.


I don't personally have a R9 290X or a RX 480, but I DO have several R9 290 and a pair of RX 470 - which are both slightly-downsize from your cards, and have the same "about the same keyrate due to more cores but slower clock" comparison you see.