Folding Forum

I've completed WU 18021, and it will successfully send it to 34.72.228.44, which is the WORK server for this WU. I get the following message: 16:23:41:WU01:FS01:Sending unit results: id:01 state:SEND error:NO_ERROR project:18021 run:42 clone:1 gen:201 core:0x22 unit:0x00000001000000c9000046650000002...

Thanks for the confirmation. 6700xt support means I am limited to the most recent releases of amdgpu-pro; 20.50 21.10 21.20, all of which use the ROCr implementation. I could try them one by one, but I hate the idea of starting a WU and waiting 6+ hours for it to finish just to troubleshoot, and I'...

FYI, the same effect happens in the Linux drivers. AMD GPU Pro 21.10 is the equivalent to the Windows 21.3.1 WHQL (or 21.3.2 non WHQL). Performance is fast. And just like Windows, every other Linux driver after 21.10 is junk for F@H. Yes, 21.20, 21.30, and the newly released 21.40.1 so expect major ...

Geez. The angst.

Goodbye.

ok, give me TPF values instead of 3rd party database where it only has listed total folding time of the WU. I have no clue how that system is calculating PPD, what I do know is TPF values from which we calculate PPD. If you start calculating your PPD from the moment you began folding to the moment ...

Nope. My system falls into the averages listed here. 17714 - 1.467m https://folding.lar.systems/projects/fo ... file/17714 RX6xxx series is ranked 18th, RX Vega 56/64 is ranked 30th at 640,165 17716 - 1.455m https://folding.lar.systems/projects/fo ... file/17716 RX6xxx series is ranked 18th, RX Vega...

As for GCN? I have a 7950 that's GCN. Relatively speaking, it runs just the same as a NAVI. About 2.5x slower with this WU set. Yes, I am now aware, by others, who've explained the shortcuts that AMD is using to identify their cards. If they are aware of this problem and choose to do nothing about i...

I guess the pipe dream has arrived. I've seen 5.6m from my 6900xt at times while simultaneously folding on my 3950x. I believe that the atom count was around 270,000 or so, so well under your stated half a million. I'm presently seeing 5.2m reported (fluctuates from 4.7 to 5.2) from 17340 (prcg 17,4...

Interesting comments Bruce. Yes, I understand that the 0x73bf code pertains to the 6xxx series from AMD. Joe mentioned that the way the categorization process works involves lumping the 5xxx series into the same "bucket" even though the 0x731f code differs so turning off processing this se...

Ok, Joe. I get it now. FAH categorizes the GPU's based on incomplete scanning of the PCI device ID, and based on that categorization, you are correct, turning off 6900XT processing of this problem set will turn off all NAVI based work.

Thanks for the clarification.

My perception of the WU set is based on the PPD. "Normally" the 7950 generates about 260,000 PPD. With the problematic WU set mentioned here, that number is around 110,000, hence my 2.5x approximate slowdown.

Not sure what you mean Joe. The PCI Device ID for the 6900XT is 1002:73BF and the 5700XT is 1002:731F. Clearly they are different.

Are you saying that FAH doesn't use the PCI device ID for identification in favour of other means which doesn't discriminate like the PCI device ID does?

I just got one in this set on my Radeon HD7950. Sure enough, it's running 2.5x slower than "normal". So this problem is more AMD generic than Navi based.

"that block would include all Navi based AMD GPUs"; Not true Joe. It seems FAH does make the distinction of Navi based AMD products between the 5xxx (Navi 10) and 6xxx (Navi 21). Based on the performance of this WU set, why not exclude ALL of Navi from running them, so that they can get to...

It would be a good thing if FAH could associate WUs with appropriate graphics cards. The 17711-17724 WUs are obviously NOT optimized for AMD graphics cards.

I'm just thinking of all of the other more appropriate work that could be done with the same amount of electricity.