The state of AMD's GPGPU implementation?

Discussion in 'GPGPU Technology & Programming' started by wingless, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. wingless

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Sounds good. We can still have performance with one GPU or keep near-Crossfire performance with 2+ GPUs. My friend and I loaded up the PhysX demos on his 790i+ 2x8800GT system and it ran like a dog. We made sure GPU Physics was selected in the PhysX driver too. I wasn't impressed by the 8800GT. I'd gamble that a 4850 or my 4870 would fare better.
     
  2. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    The new version of their sdk is coming in 2 weeks
     
  3. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    There's a hint here from one of AMD guys that CUDA like shared memory is there on r7xx chips which will be exposed in this (upcoming) version of SDK. I guess the implementation is going to look a lot like CUDA too.
     
  4. Odin

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, he's talking about being able to write in CAL (AMD's intermediate assembly format, which then compiles to RV770 bytecode) and use shared memory - a far cry from CUDA.
     
  5. Tchock

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    PVG
    That would definitely signify a big change for RV770's current performance in F@H if implemented properly. :grin:
     
  6. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,610
    Likes Received:
    825
    A fairly simple compilation step away from CUDA ... CUDA isn't exactly high level.
     
  7. Unknown Soldier

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,047
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Arnold, this is a small clip I converted using Badaboom.

    Code:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/141738589/300_-_HD-iPhone.mp4
    Complete name : 300 - HD-iPhone.mp4
    Format : MPEG-4
    Format/Info : ISO 14496-1 Base Media
    Format/Family : MPEG-4
    File size : 67.6 MiB
    PlayTime : 6mn 56s
    Bit rate : 1361 Kbps
    StreamSize : 316 KiB
    Encoded date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14
    Tagged date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14

    Video #0
    Codec : AVC
    Codec/Family : AVC
    Codec/Info : H.264 (3GPP)
    PlayTime : 6mn 57s
    Bit rate : 1292 Kbps
    Width : 320 pixels
    Height : 180 pixels
    Display Aspect ratio : 16/9
    Frame rate : 24.000 fps
    Minimum frame rate : 12.500 fps
    Maximum frame rate : 25.000 fps
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.935
    StreamSize : 64.2 MiB
    Encoded date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14
    Tagged date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14

    Audio #0
    Codec : AAC LC
    Codec/Family : AAC
    Codec/Info : AAC Low Complexity
    PlayTime : 6mn 56s
    Bit rate mode : VBR
    Bit rate : 62 Kbps
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Channel positions : L R
    Sampling rate : 48 KHz
    Resolution : 16 bits
    StreamSize : 3.06 MiB
    Encoded date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14
    Tagged date : UTC 2008-08-27 04:31:14

    See, quality isn't bad imo. Remember, this is made to view on an iPhone and like I said before, it looks pretty good.

    The original mp4 movie I made was at a higher resolution.

    Note, this 7min. clip took me about 15 secs to make at over 200FPS according to Badaboom.

    US
     
  8. pcchen

    pcchen Moderator
    Moderator Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,018
    Likes Received:
    582
    Location:
    Taiwan
    1.3Mbps for a 320x180 video clip is a bit on the high side. A better comparison would be at around 500Kbps. Personally I use about 1Mbps for 640x360 video for iPod 3G (encoded with x264).
     
  9. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,610
    Likes Received:
    825
    Dunno if you read the AMD forum, but they say HD4000 and Vista support is in beta test now so it shouldn't take too long.
     
  10. pcchen

    pcchen Moderator
    Moderator Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,018
    Likes Received:
    582
    Location:
    Taiwan
    That'd be great. I'm also looking forward to the shared memory support in new SDKs. Shared memory can save a lot of bandwidth in some situations, and current solution in Brook+ (based on multiple writes) is not exactly satisfying.
     
  11. ahu

    ahu
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    2
    Could shared memory present a significant boost in GPGPU applications for ATI?

    I'm just wondering what would be the major hindrance for ATI not getting the major GFLOPS advantage in applications like Folding@home. It's not VLIW utilization according to Mike Houston.

    Another puzzling example is the recent SiSoft Sandra 2009 GPGPU benchmark, where Nvidia 9600 GT beats ATI 4870 in single precision:
    http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=qa&location=cpu_vs_gpu_proc&langx=en&a=
     
  12. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    NY
    That's fantastic news. :grin:
     
  13. Rufus

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    61
    They don't specify what SiSoft's benchmark is written in, but I have a feeling that if it runs on both NV and ATI it's written in GL or DX, in which case shared memory won't be exposed for either card.

    For F@H adding shared memory should help a lot, assuming someone ports/rewrites the code to take advantage of it. It might be as easy as adding a few shared bits to the current ATI folding code, or it might mean completely rewriting a new algorithm to take advantage of shared mem (in which case you get 2 ATI code paths + 1 NV code path in F@H).
     
  14. Arnold Beckenbauer

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,756
    Likes Received:
    722
    Location:
    Germany
    Here is their press release:
    http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=news&location=gpgpu_release&langx=en&a=

    The strange thing is: They say, it's released, but it's not.
    http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=news&location=2009_release&langx=en&a=


    US:
    My video:

    Code:
    Complete name                    : C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Arnoldie\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Videos\VTS_01_1-iPhone.mp4
    Format                           : MPEG-4
    Format profile                   : Base Media
    Codec ID                         : isom
    File size                        : 21.1 MiB
    Duration                         : 3mn 20s
    Overal bit rate                  : [B]886 Kbps[/B]
    
    
    Video
    Format                           : AVC
    Format/Info                      : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile                   : Baseline@L3.1
    Format settings, CABAC           : No
    Format settings, ReFrames        : 1 frame
    Codec ID                         : avc1
    Duration                         : 3mn 19s
    Bit rate mode                    : Variable
    Bit rate                         : 819 Kbps
    Maximum bit rate                 : 1892 Kbps
    Width                            : 640 pixels
    Height                           : 360 pixels
    Display aspect ratio             : 16/9
    Frame rate mode                  : Constant
    Frame rate                       : 25.000 fps
    Colorimetry                      : 4:2:0
    Scan type                        : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame)               : 0.142
    Stream size                      : 19.5 MiB
    
    Audio
    Format                           : AAC
    Format/Info                      : Advanced Audio Codec
    Format version                   : Version 4
    Format profile                   : LC
    Format settings, SBR             : No
    Codec ID                         : 40
    Duration                         : 3mn 20s
    Bit rate mode                    : Variable
    Bit rate                         : 61.5 Kbps
     
  15. Unknown Soldier

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,047
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Just remember that Badaboom is still a young application(ver. 0.9), nero is up to version 8 or whatever.

    And the version I used was a demo. It's expired now, so not sure if I can do more tests. Will check it out.

    I think it's got a great future.

    How long did it take to encode those 3min.?

    US
     
  16. Arnold Beckenbauer

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,756
    Likes Received:
    722
    Location:
    Germany
    35 fps (Badaboom&8600GT) vs. 28 fps (Nero& X2 3600+).
     
  17. aaronspink

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    64
    which means nothing. All the algorithms are publicly available for even the best encoders out there.

    Its got little to no future as an encoder. It will likely be slower for encoding within a year and still have significantly bad quality.

    The only area where their flow makes sense is on the DECODE side where HW accelerated decode removes load from the CPU and offers significant speedups vs CPU decode. I wouldn't be surprised that x264 with hardware decode could beat hardware transcode in performance.
     
  18. wingless

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    You have to remember. This is just the first round of software coming out for home GPGPU use. Just like the first 3D games, software implementations were poor quality in the beginning but got better over the next half decade. If we have 1 TeraFLOPS+ processors in our rigs why not use them? I see GPGPU taking off after both AMD and Intel come out with CPU+GPU processors.

    Also lets keep this post on topic. I'm asking about the state of AMD's GPGPU platform, not Nvidia's.
     
  19. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    Disaster. :oops:

    Just downloaded the sdk to go through the new version of docs. I cannot pretend that they are any better than their predecessors. To summarize,

    1) CAL and Brook guide have been merged into one. Big change:evil:. There is hardly anything new in the docs. Just as confusing as their previous version.

    2) Mention of support for 4870x2 is conspicuous by it's absence. (though it could be supported, I don't know)

    3) In just a casual reading, I found 2 separate contradictory statements. Though I could be wrong on this, but docs are incomplete/confusing in various places. I wont be surprised if a knowledgeable person goes through it and points out several ambiguities/inconsistencies

    4) On chip memories, Local and global data share are not mentioned at all, even though they are there. WHY???

    5) Looks like either

    a) AMD doesn't care

    b) Lack of resources

    I vote for (b)

    I am extremely disappointed with their new sdk. I was particularly interested considering 4870x2 is much faster than gtx280 on raw compute basis. I guess, AMD has really ditched their current platform for DX11 compute shaders/openCL.

    I hope not.
     
  20. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,579
    Likes Received:
    4,799
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Don't know if that's true, but the market would rather that they did. CUDA already has the vendor-specific niche thing going, and it's not that widely adopted.
    Compute shaders, and to a greater extent OpenCL will provide the market with targets that are much more stable and more widely applicable.

    Given AMD's spotty execution and uncertainties of its long-term existence, why would anyone risk much on a primarily AMD-driven initiative?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...