10-28-2014, 01:38 PM
Hm, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The R9 270 is showing up as Pitcairn, but Pitcairn is HD 7850 -- there aren't any Pitcairn-based R9 GPUs, and your core clock doesn't match the stock clock of any Pitcairn-based GPUs nor the R9 270 (overclocking?) So I'm not sure what you have. If you're positive it's an R9 270 then it might be a bug in the driver or in Hashcat. That might be the source of the problem, if Hashcat is loading a vector kernel instead of a scalar kernel.
Theoretical numbers based on the core clocks you've provided, assuming you really do have an R9 270 and HD 5850 and are overclocking both:
HD 5850 = 1440 cores @ 765 Mhz
R9 270 = 1280 cores @ 945 Mhz
(1440 * 765) / (1280 * 945) = 0.91
R9 270 should be ~10% faster (and actually a little bit more than that since you're talking VLIW5 vs GCN.)
However, if it is Pitcairn then the 5850 would be ~ 15% faster.
So either way the math doesn't add up.
The R9 270 is showing up as Pitcairn, but Pitcairn is HD 7850 -- there aren't any Pitcairn-based R9 GPUs, and your core clock doesn't match the stock clock of any Pitcairn-based GPUs nor the R9 270 (overclocking?) So I'm not sure what you have. If you're positive it's an R9 270 then it might be a bug in the driver or in Hashcat. That might be the source of the problem, if Hashcat is loading a vector kernel instead of a scalar kernel.
Theoretical numbers based on the core clocks you've provided, assuming you really do have an R9 270 and HD 5850 and are overclocking both:
HD 5850 = 1440 cores @ 765 Mhz
R9 270 = 1280 cores @ 945 Mhz
(1440 * 765) / (1280 * 945) = 0.91
R9 270 should be ~10% faster (and actually a little bit more than that since you're talking VLIW5 vs GCN.)
However, if it is Pitcairn then the 5850 would be ~ 15% faster.
So either way the math doesn't add up.