GPUs 0

[sebastiandiel]

Hi,
my cpu is folding, but unfortunately my --> gpu is 0.

I am on a Win10 Enterprise machine with a Core i7-5775C (GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 71 Stepping 1).
Interestingly, FAH identifies my OS Arch as AMD64.... shouldn't that be Intel?

My Motherboard is an "Asus Z97-A".
The display adapter is called "Intel(R) Iris(TM) Pro Graphics 6200" in CPU-Z

CUDA: Not detected: Failed to open dynamic library 'nvcuda[dot]dll' (module not found) [the latter in braces is my translation]
OpenCL Device 0 Platform:0 Device: 0 Bus: NA Slot: NA Compute:2.0 Driver:20.19

The CUDA thing could be just an unimportant warning, I've read in a few places.

--> How can I use my gpu?
Best regards
Sebastian

[Rel25917]

AMD64 OS Arch is normal.

Intel GPUs aren't supported, only nvidia and amd are.

Cuda not detected is normal if you dont have an nvidia card.

[PantherX]

Welcome to the F@H Forum sebastiandiel,

AMD64 means that the operating system is 64-bit.

Currently, F@H doesn't support iGPUs. It only supports GPUs from AMD/Nvidia that have OpenCL 1.2 and Double Precision.

CUDA is needed only for Nvidia GPUs, not AMD GPUs.

Assuming that you have a supported AMD/Nvidia GPU, I would suggest that you:
Manually download the GPUs.txt file from here: https://apps.foldingathome.org/GPUs.txt (right-click save as GPUs.txt)
Exit the client
Copy the GPUs.txt file from the Downloads folder to %AppData%\FAHClient
Reboot your system
Start up the client and ensure that you can see your GPU in the log file
Add a GPU slot from FAHControl -> Configure -> Slots tab -> Add -> GPU -> OK -> Save

Let me know if that works or not

[sebastiandiel]

I understand that my intel GPU is currently not supported. Not a problem, as my cores are doing their chores.
Thanks for your support!

[Joe_H]

As a historical note, the architectures is called AMD64 because Intel did not create it. For 64-bit processing Intel was pushing to go to a new architecture, IA-64 or Itanium. AMD came out with an extension of the x86 instruction set and marketed their chips as being fully x86 compatible, the 32-bit performance of early IA-64 chips was atrocious. AMD was successful, and Intel ended up also adding the AMD 64-bit instructions to their existing x86 line.

[Neil-B]

Way off topic - but I always wondered if the IA-64 architecture was actually better for 64bit that AMD64 … Yes, AMD64 was a far better progression and allowed 32-bit processes to be used in 64-bit environment much better - pretty much guaranteed it would "sink" IA-64 - but from a pure 64-bit position (had 32-bit not been in play) which would have been more performant?