<<  >> (p.12)
    Author Topic: Modified Kernel for Phoenix 1.5  (Read 96960 times)

    • Tx2000
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 182
    Merit: 100



    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
     #221
    Catalyst 11.4 SDK 2.4
    Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m

    -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12

    2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s
    2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s

  • Clipse
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 504
    Merit: 502


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 04:08:22 AM
     #222
    Quote from: Tx2000 on August 09, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
    Catalyst 11.4 SDK 2.4
    Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m

    -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12

    2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s
    2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s



    Damn those are some good hashrates for the core.

    I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell.
    ...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

    We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)

  • metacontent
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 16
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 05:50:56 AM
     #223
    Hey, I've been using this modified kernel for a couple weeks now, I quite like it, just wanted to say thanks.

  • teukon
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1246
    Merit: 1014



    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
     #224
    Quote from: Clipse on August 09, 2011, 04:08:22 AM
    Quote from: Tx2000 on August 09, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
    Catalyst 11.4 SDK 2.4
    Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m

    -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12

    2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s
    2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s



    Damn those are some good hashrates for the core.

    I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell.

    Yeah - seriously!  I've come up against this before when trying to find the maximum hash-rate for a 1GHz 5850 and ended up being well and truly trumped by a Windows user with Catalyst 11.4.  I may have to try playing with this version of Catalyst again.

  • BOARBEAR
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 77
    Merit: 10


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 07:06:47 AM
     #225
    something wrong with kernel 2.2

    i get 330 MHs using 2.2
    410 MHs using kernel 2.1

    card AMD 5870 clock at 900 Mhz

    using 11.8 beta driver with SDK2.5

  • bcforum
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 140
    Merit: 100


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 10:30:53 AM
     #226
    Ubuntu 10.10
    Cata 11.3
    SDK 2.4
    6970x2 OC 940,1375

    Phoenix-r112 (Diapolo 7-17 w/ Vals[7] patch) 422.8MH/s
    Phatk-2.2 423.3MH/s

    So up 0.5MH/s, sent you my profits for the week.
    If you found this post useful, feel free to share the wealth: 1E35gTBmJzPNJ3v72DX4wu4YtvHTWqNRbM

  • BOARBEAR
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 77
    Merit: 10


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
     #227
    I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2

  • ssateneth
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1344
    Merit: 1004



    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 05:40:16 PM
     #228
    Quote from: BOARBEAR on August 09, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
    I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2



    Same. Using VECTORS4 drops my hash rate from 385 to 310 on my 5870. Using VECTORS WORKSIZE=128 brings it back up to about 380.
    I am a long time trusted user: Bitcointalk forum trust ratings, Bitcoin-OTC Ratings, eBay Feedback, and Localbitcoins public profile.

  • Phateus (OP)
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 52
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 08:33:43 PM
     #229
    Quote from: BOARBEAR on August 09, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
    I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2



    I optimize the code for VECTORS, so probably making it faster in 2.2 made VECTORS4 slower.  I can't really optimize the kernel for both, so I would just stick with version 2.1 if that is faster for you.

    And everyone, thanks for your support, every little bit helps Smiley

  • jedi95
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 219
    Merit: 120


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 08:57:30 PM
     #230
    Quote from: ssateneth on August 09, 2011, 05:40:16 PM
    Quote from: BOARBEAR on August 09, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
    I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2



    Same. Using VECTORS4 drops my hash rate from 385 to 310 on my 5870. Using VECTORS WORKSIZE=128 brings it back up to about 380.

    This is probably because of the increased GPR usage of the VECTORS4 code. According to KernelAnalyzer VECTORS4 uses 2707 ALU OPS and 33 GPRs. This is compared with VECTORS which is 1355 ALU OPS and only 23 GPRs. Theoretically VECTORS4 would be faster, since it tests twice the number of nonces using 3 fewer ALU OPS than 2 executions of VECTORS. However, if the GPU runs out of GPRs then this limits the number of threads that can be running at once, which is what causes the performance drop.

    (Above ALU OPS and GPR numbers are for Cypress, AKA 58xx)

    VECTORS4 might be faster for 69xx users though, when combined with a smaller WORKSIZE.

    EDIT: Just looked at the 2.1 version and it uses even more GPRs with VECTORS4 than 2.2 does. (35 GPRs, 1358 ALU OPS) I'm not quite sure how it can be faster than 2.2.
    Phoenix Miner developer

    Donations appreciated at:
    1PHoenix9j9J3M6v3VQYWeXrHPPjf7y3rU

  • metacontent
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 16
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 09:16:34 PM
     #231
    Why not make two separate kernels then?

    VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?

  • bcforum
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 140
    Merit: 100


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 10:40:58 PM
     #232
    Quote from: jedi95 on August 09, 2011, 08:57:30 PM
    VECTORS4 might be faster for 69xx users though, when combined with a smaller WORKSIZE.

    Ubuntu 10.10
    Catalyst 11.3
    SDK 2.4
    6970 @ 940,1375
    Phatk 2.2

    Quote
    315.5MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false
    414.2MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false
    321.1MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false

    422.8MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false
    423.5MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false
    420.9MH/s      DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false
    If you found this post useful, feel free to share the wealth: 1E35gTBmJzPNJ3v72DX4wu4YtvHTWqNRbM

  • Phateus (OP)
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 52
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
     #233
    Quote from: metacontent on August 09, 2011, 09:16:34 PM
    Why not make two separate kernels then?

    VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?



    Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations.  I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels.  If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like.  Wink

    Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4.

    Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory).  Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).

    -Phateus

  • metacontent
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 16
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
     #234
    Quote from: Phateus on August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
     Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).

    I think for the foreseeable future those cards will be doing the lions share of the work, so I would say you are on the right track.

  • cyberlync
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 226
    Merit: 100



    View Profile
    August 09, 2011, 11:44:27 PM
     #235
    Quote from: metacontent on August 09, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
    Quote from: Phateus on August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
     Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).

    I think for the foreseeable future those cards will be doing the lions share of the work, so I would say you are on the right track.

    +1
    Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf

  • Tx2000
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 182
    Merit: 100



    View Profile
    August 10, 2011, 12:32:41 AM
     #236
    Quote from: Clipse on August 09, 2011, 04:08:22 AM
    Quote from: Tx2000 on August 09, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
    Catalyst 11.4 SDK 2.4
    Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m

    -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12

    2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s
    2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s



    Damn those are some good hashrates for the core.

    I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell.

    Yea beats me =/  I haven't been able to get my second 5850 (new 230SA Sapphire 5850 Xtreme) to achieve the same results.  In fact, it seems to hate SDK 2.4.

  • fpgaminer
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 560
    Merit: 517



    View Profile WWW
    August 10, 2011, 04:35:50 AM
     #237
    Updated my poclbm branch to support phatk2.2 through the --phatk2_2 command line option:

    https://github.com/progranism/poclbm
    https://github.com/fpgaminer/Open-Source-FPGA-Bitcoin-Miner | Bitcoin Hardware Wallet
     
    1NT4RyJMqtRuDRr6zHdXdKSpmX3SR5he6z

  • BOARBEAR
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 77
    Merit: 10


    View Profile
    August 10, 2011, 09:40:16 AM
     #238
    Quote from: Phateus on August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
    Quote from: metacontent on August 09, 2011, 09:16:34 PM
    Why not make two separate kernels then?

    VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?



    Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations.  I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels.  If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like.  Wink

    Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4.

    Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory).  Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).

    -Phateus
    the thing is, VECTORS4 worked perfectly for me in version 2.1
    in version 2.2 its broken

  • Phateus (OP)
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 52
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 10, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
     #239
    Quote from: BOARBEAR on August 10, 2011, 09:40:16 AM
    Quote from: Phateus on August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
    Quote from: metacontent on August 09, 2011, 09:16:34 PM
    Why not make two separate kernels then?

    VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?



    Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations.  I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels.  If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like.  Wink

    Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4.

    Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory).  Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).

    -Phateus
    the thing is, VECTORS4 worked perfectly for me in version 2.1
    in version 2.2 its broken

    As in it doesn't work at all, or that it is much slower?... Just use version 2.1 then

  • huayra.agera
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 154
    Merit: 100



    View Profile
    August 10, 2011, 04:43:21 PM
     #240
    Hi! Just used v2.2 and it increased my hashrate by 3 Mhash compared to Diapolo's. From 402 > 405. Vectors4 seemed to drop the hashrate significantly on my 5850 by 50 Mhash. Great work to you guys and we are very grateful =).

    I think the mods should create a Child Board under Mining support and name it "Mods" or Tweaks I guess and put this thread there.
    BTC: 1JMPScxohom4MXy9X1Vgj8AGwcHjT8XTuy
    Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 »  All
      Print  
Page 11
Viewing Page: 12

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com