Please, remove the opencl app from applications page.

April 30, 2018 was the last time that the GPU question was discussed. Now it's 4 years later. Are there any plans to develop an AMD/NVidia GPU capable app?

It's confusing seeing "allow AMD GPU" selectable with a check box on the Universe@home preferences page when there is no GPU capable application available?!

April 30, 2018 was the last time that the GPU question was discussed. Now it's 4 years later. Are there any plans to develop an AMD/NVidia GPU capable app?

It's confusing seeing "allow AMD GPU" selectable with a check box on the Universe@home preferences page when there is no GPU capable application available?!

I just saw the AMD GPU checkbox too and was wondering the same thing. Perhaps the option could be removed from the preferences if there is no GPU app available, to avoid confusion.

---

Some news from OpenCL's world:
- ROCm is now at 1.7 version (with support to Tensorflow and Caffe).
- SyCL is now at 1.2.1 version, with a lot of new features.
- Codeplay released ComputeCPP 0.5.1 version to write SyCl/OpenCl code with Visual Studio
- KronosGroup released recently the unified and updated specifications of SPIR-V
- CodeXL from AMD is now at 2.5 version
- ARM released OpenCL Compute Library 17.12 version
- Intel released it's OpenCL SDK 2017 R2

- Rocm is now at 5.3.2 version
- Sycl 2020 release 5
- Spir-V is at 1.6 version
- Arm computer library 22.08 version
- Intel OpenCL SDK 2020 R3

Are we using Radeon GPUs here yet? Been awhile since I've been here and trying to catch up.

Are we using Radeon GPUs here yet? Been awhile since I've been here and trying to catch up.

There is no GPU application.
CPU only.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Are we using Radeon GPUs here yet? Been awhile since I've been here and trying to catch up.

Only place to use those for astrophysics is Einstein I think, since Milkyway has finished seperation as of today. Nvidias can also run Asteroids, but no faster than a CPU so a waste of time.

---

Looks like Einstein is the place to be then. Thanks!

Asteroids shows two windows apps that show "(cuda55)" in the Name / version. Is this an indication of a NVIDIA Application ?

Bill F

Yes. CUDA is a Nvidia compute language. Only runs on Nvidia cards. Much more advanced and capable compared to OpenCL.

But there are no gpu apps here.

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Asteroids shows two windows apps that show "(cuda55)" in the Name / version. Is this an indication of a NVIDIA Application ?Bill F

Yes, but those who have run it find it no faster than a CPU. Why use a more expensive and power hungry GPU to achieve the same, when that GPU could be going 50 times faster in another project like Einstein?

---

Unless you are running an absolutely ancient card from the Kepler or Maxwell families, you will never be issued a CUDA55 application. Most people will be issued the CUDA102 or CUDA118 applications which are much faster and require much newer drivers.

Those CUDA applications are much faster than running a task on the cpu. Productivity will be much greater also even if running cpu tasks on all cores.

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Unless you are running an absolutely ancient card from the Kepler or Maxwell families, you will never be issued a CUDA55 application. Most people will be issued the CUDA102 or CUDA118 applications which are much faster and require much newer drivers.

Those CUDA applications are much faster than running a task on the cpu. Productivity will be much greater also even if running cpu tasks on all cores.

220 seconds on your RTX 3080Ti
2750 seconds on my Ryzen 9 3900XT / 24 for all threads = 114 seconds

So my Ryzen is doing twice the work of your GPU.

Unless you're running more than one at a time. If you run two at a time, you're getting as much work out of that card as my CPU. Which is no good. A GPU should be 10-50 times faster than a CPU, look at the times on Einstein.

---

Yes, I am running 0.5 gpu_usage on all my gpu projects. So divide that 220 seconds in half.
I looked at the top participants list and most of the first page have cpu runtimes in the one hour to two hour values. So nowhere near your 2750 second runtimes.

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Yes, I am running 0.5 gpu_usage on all my gpu projects. So divide that 220 seconds in half.
I looked at the top participants list and most of the first page have cpu runtimes in the one hour to two hour values. So nowhere near your 2750 second runtimes.

1.5 hours is only twice as long as mine. Not everyone has Ryzen 9s. But I thought it sensible to compare a good CPU with your good GPU.

And my point stands, you're not achieving the huge speed increase with GPU as you can with say Einstein, so you're wasting your GPU.

Compare one of your GPUs and one of your CPUs with each other on Asteroids, then compare the same two on Einstein.

---

Yes, I am running 0.5 gpu_usage on all my gpu projects. So divide that 220 seconds in half.
I looked at the top participants list and most of the first page have cpu runtimes in the one hour to two hour values. So nowhere near your 2750 second runtimes.

1.5 hours is only twice as long as mine. Not everyone has Ryzen 9s. But I thought it sensible to compare a good CPU with your good GPU.

And my point stands, you're not achieving the huge speed increase with GPU as you can with say Einstein, so you're wasting your GPU.

Compare one of your GPUs and one of your CPUs with each other on Asteroids, then compare the same two on Einstein.

Well maybe he likes the Asteroids@Home project. If so then until Einstein starts serving up Asteroid tasks on the Einstein project site he will probably leave his GPU's running where they are ... don't you think?

Well maybe he likes the Asteroids@Home project. If so then until Einstein starts serving up Asteroid tasks on the Einstein project site he will probably leave his GPU's running where they are ... don't you think?

Look at the table in his sig. Einstein is his favourite right at the top.

---

The only reason why Einstein is at the top of the chart of my projects is because the Gamma-Ray gpu tasks award a very high credit award. And they run quickly with my anonymous application. And I've been doing Einstein the longest of all my existing current projects.

I looked at other fast hosts on the top participants page similar to your Ryzen 9 7900XT and the Threadripper hosts have similar clock speeds but don't achieve the same runtimes as your lighter loaded 32 thread cpu. Your host is not typical of the general populace of hosts. I'm just saying that for most hosts, the cpu tasks take a lot longer to run and even with more tasks running at the same time, they don't achieve the same RAC as my hosts using a gpu.

Also, I don't run Asteroids all by itself. It shares the gpus along with all my other gpu projects. Only 20% resource share. If I was using 100% resource share at Asteroids and exclusively running that project all by itself, like you do with a cpu only project, my RAC would be much, much higher. I only run one Asteroid task for every other 5 gpu tasks from Einstein, WCG and Numberfields.

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

The only reason why Einstein is at the top of the chart of my projects is because the Gamma-Ray gpu tasks award a very high credit award. And they run quickly with my anonymous application. And I've been doing Einstein the longest of all my existing current projects.

My point to Bill was it's a project you like.

I looked at other fast hosts on the top participants page similar to your Ryzen 9 7900XT and the Threadripper hosts have similar clock speeds but don't achieve the same runtimes as your lighter loaded 32 thread cpu.

I found some Intel CPUs almost as fast as mine according to cpubenchmark.net, and they are considerably slower, which made me think maybe Asteroids is more suited to AMD CPUs. But then you mention the threadripper. Mine is a Ryzen 9 3900XT, not 7900. Can you link to a threadripper so I can have a look? I find it hard to believe they aren't way faster than mine.

---

Most Threadrippers have a significantly lower base, and somewhat lower boost, clock speeds.
eg-

        Threadripper 3990X vs AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Base Clock     2.9 GHz             3.8 GHz	
Boost Clock    4.3 GHz             4.6 GHz

Higher clock speed, shorter processing time. But if you have enough slower threads, then you still get more work done per hour than a higher clocked system with less cores/threads.

---

Grant
Darwin NT