Topic: [ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX] - page 74. (Read 3426944 times)
October 02, 2014, 03:05:19 AM
For anyone wondering, cudamining.co.uk has been down for around 36 hours now. I have had 6 machines fail in the last 2 days so the server hasn't been able to be fixed yet
October 02, 2014, 03:03:54 AM
1. " bit hacking it "
2. or write a new compiler.
I think I will go for option 2
2. or write a new compiler.
I think I will go for option 2
October 01, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
I was a little disappointed that the Nascar endorsed car didn't do better for Doge Coin.
...now if BTC would sponsor one. and not a "cheap" one, that might do something for the market as well.
October 01, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11622587/georgia-tech-yellow-jackets-first-program-use-bitcoin-stadium-concessions
I think this is an awesome move by Georgia Tech University.
For several reasons this will be huge I feel for the momentum of BitCoins going forward. It now will start putting it more mainstream for a group that is probably one of the biggest age groups using/mining it. Also I feel like these kids will "grow" up with BitCoins in use so it will be natural for them to use.
Now if more University's follow this path I think here in the U. S. That BitCoins will become more mainstream and not considered some type of shady dealings.
Also the BitCoin Bowl game will get the name out there also.
I was a little disappointed that the Nascar endorsed car didn't do better for Doge Coin.
I think this is an awesome move by Georgia Tech University.
For several reasons this will be huge I feel for the momentum of BitCoins going forward. It now will start putting it more mainstream for a group that is probably one of the biggest age groups using/mining it. Also I feel like these kids will "grow" up with BitCoins in use so it will be natural for them to use.
Now if more University's follow this path I think here in the U. S. That BitCoins will become more mainstream and not considered some type of shady dealings.
Also the BitCoin Bowl game will get the name out there also.
I was a little disappointed that the Nascar endorsed car didn't do better for Doge Coin.
October 01, 2014, 11:19:50 AM
Tested some more. The dual hash macro below pumps the speed to 420MHASH on blake coin (+20%). I tried to do 3 and 4 hash in parallell within each cudacore, but the compiler started to spill registers and slow down.
Blake is the first X in X11,x13 and x15. I think x11 will run around 150KHash faster with this (recoded to 64bit). (This meens around 2700 KHASH with base clocks and 3000KHASH+ overclocked on the 750TI)
Blake is the first X in X11,x13 and x15. I think x11 will run around 150KHash faster with this (recoded to 64bit). (This meens around 2700 KHASH with base clocks and 3000KHASH+ overclocked on the 750TI)
Code:
#define GS2(a,b,c,d,x) { \
const uint32_t idx1 = c_sigma[i][x]; \
const uint32_t idx2 = c_sigma[i][x+1]; \
v[a] += (m[idx1] ^ c_u256[idx2]) + v[b]; \
v1[a] += (m1[idx1] ^ c_u256[idx2]) + v1[b]; \
v[d] = swab32_16(v[d] ^ v[a]); \
v1[d] = swab32_16(v1[d] ^ v1[a]); \
v[c] += v[d]; \
v1[c] += v1[d]; \
v[b] = SPH_ROTR32(v[b] ^ v[c], 12); \
v1[b] = SPH_ROTR32(v1[b] ^ v1[c], 12); \
\
v[a] += (m[idx2] ^ c_u256[idx1]) + v[b]; \
v1[a] += (m1[idx2] ^ c_u256[idx1]) + v1[b]; \
v[d] = SPH_ROTR32(v[d] ^ v[a], 8); \
v1[d] = SPH_ROTR32(v1[d] ^ v1[a], 8); \
v[c] += v[d]; \
v1[c] += v1[d]; \
v[b] = SPH_ROTR32(v[b] ^ v[c], 7); \
v1[b] = SPH_ROTR32(v1[b] ^ v1[c], 7); \
}
October 01, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
Does someone have a hashrate for the GTX 980 on x11?
How does she compete to the others?
http://cryptomining-blog.com/3503-crypto-mining-performance-of-the-new-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980/How does she compete to the others?
It's better to buy loads of 750ti's though, for the price a 980 goes. But to reach ROI, even with 750ti's, you'll need some fairy dust and magic too
October 01, 2014, 09:20:41 AM
Does someone have a hashrate for the GTX 980 on x11?
How does she compete to the others?
How does she compete to the others?
October 01, 2014, 07:23:03 AM
If you unroll the loops and write the constants directly in the codestatements like this:
v1^=v2^0x99999999UL;
The compiler will not fetch the constant from constantmemory but include it in the instructioncache. If the constant is used many times, it will load the constant into a register and use the register. The problem is when you have many constants the register space is filled up. If I somehow can find away to force the compile to encode the constant directly into the instruction, it will improve the superscalar/latency and register perfomance. With less registers used, you can have more superscalar pipelines.
Each maxwell instruction is 8 bytes of size, and many of the instructions support 1 immidiate operator within the encoding without increasing the size or slow down.
v1^=v2^0x99999999UL;
The compiler will not fetch the constant from constantmemory but include it in the instructioncache. If the constant is used many times, it will load the constant into a register and use the register. The problem is when you have many constants the register space is filled up. If I somehow can find away to force the compile to encode the constant directly into the instruction, it will improve the superscalar/latency and register perfomance. With less registers used, you can have more superscalar pipelines.
Each maxwell instruction is 8 bytes of size, and many of the instructions support 1 immidiate operator within the encoding without increasing the size or slow down.
October 01, 2014, 05:35:38 AM
Is there a way to declare an array so that its content will be stored into the register memory (rather than in global memory) ?
October 01, 2014, 01:24:11 AM
Advertizing says that the Maxwell can do more work per core per cycle. I compiled some code for the compute 5.0 and noticed that after the return statement in the assembly code there where NOP operations. 5 of them actually. This meens that the maxwell core probobly is superscalar with 4 pipes.
I did a quick test with blakecoin. instead of computing 1 hash per run, I did 2 with superscalare paralell. In my test I changed the GS(a,b,c,d,x) macro to calculate 2 hashes instead of one with interleaving the instructions. The speed went from 350 to over 400MHASH(750ti base clock). (15% gain). I excpected more, so I disassembled again I noticed that the CUDA compiler doesn't like to inline constants directly inside the assembly statements. Instead it fetches from the constant buffer/shared memory or put the values in registers. Registers is ok, but when doing more than one hash superscalar I need the register count to stay low.
eor r1,r2,[0][3]
eor r3,r4,[3][3]
eor r5,r6,[4][10]
eor r7,r8,[10][5]
4 cycles
eor r1,r2,0xsomenumber
eor r3,r4,0xsomenumber
eor r5,r6,0xsomenumber
eor r7,r8,0xsomenumber
1 cycle
I did a quick test with blakecoin. instead of computing 1 hash per run, I did 2 with superscalare paralell. In my test I changed the GS(a,b,c,d,x) macro to calculate 2 hashes instead of one with interleaving the instructions. The speed went from 350 to over 400MHASH(750ti base clock). (15% gain). I excpected more, so I disassembled again I noticed that the CUDA compiler doesn't like to inline constants directly inside the assembly statements. Instead it fetches from the constant buffer/shared memory or put the values in registers. Registers is ok, but when doing more than one hash superscalar I need the register count to stay low.
eor r1,r2,[0][3]
eor r3,r4,[3][3]
eor r5,r6,[4][10]
eor r7,r8,[10][5]
4 cycles
eor r1,r2,0xsomenumber
eor r3,r4,0xsomenumber
eor r5,r6,0xsomenumber
eor r7,r8,0xsomenumber
1 cycle
September 30, 2014, 08:03:26 AM
djm are you optimizing ccminer for 980?
Optimizing ccminer for 9xx specifically at this point would be an extremely inefficient use of time - it can be cleaned up and optimized more generally, making it faster on Kepler (compute 3.5) to Maxwell (compute 5.2) and everything in between (probably 3.0 Kepler and Fermi, too, but nobody cares about them anymore.) Once that shit is done, then you start doing improvements targeted at specific chips in an attempt to squeeze out that last bit of performance.
yes and no... the launch parameters which are optimal for the 750ti are different from those of 980 or the 780ti
So for the moment, I tried to play a bit with them. And for example on xcn, I got an easy additionnal 1MH by just playing with these (mostly on multiplication algo).
But for the moment I haven't tried to play with the code itself at that level
My main problem is to get my 980 running at p0 perf level instead as it is the case for the moment at p2.... I think it is an evga problem though...
So I need a way to make ccminer detected as a full 3D application...
September 30, 2014, 05:19:04 AM
djm are you optimizing ccminer for 980?
September 29, 2014, 03:51:40 PM
so here is a question for you all. has anyone here done much work with KVM on ubuntu using gpu pass through? im looking to consolidate 2 machines into 1 monster machine and running 2 os's in virtuals with a physical gpu given to each one
September 29, 2014, 05:36:20 AM
thanks Ignition75, i ordered a switch and light diode for 3 usd that will do it too. for 3 usd...not bad 
Even better... I always meant to order those for my farm but never got around to it....
September 29, 2014, 04:42:20 AM
ITS ALIVE 
thanks djm and bigjme
thanks djm and bigjme You can setup in your Bios that in case of a power loss the computer should turn on so you can turn it on the next time only by switching off and then on your power supply, so no need to short it to turn it on ever again.
Yes but if you're like me and you want to see how far you can OC your hardware and your PC freezes often, it's a pain in the ass to wait 30 seconds for all the charge to leave your Mobo so the AC Power On setting can be invoked.
Phillips head screwdrivers are good for shorting the pins
September 28, 2014, 10:11:33 PM
ITS ALIVE thanks djm and bigjme
thanks djm and bigjme You can setup in your Bios that in case of a power loss the computer should turn on so you can turn it on the next time only by switching off and then on your power supply, so no need to short it to turn it on ever again.
Yes but if you're like me and you want to see how far you can OC your hardware and your PC freezes often, it's a pain in the ass to wait 30 seconds for all the charge to leave your Mobo so the AC Power On setting can be invoked.
Phillips head screwdrivers are good for shorting the pins
September 28, 2014, 04:22:43 PM
ITS ALIVE thanks djm and bigjme
thanks djm and bigjme You can setup in your Bios that in case of a power loss the computer should turn on so you can turn it on the next time only by switching off and then on your power supply, so no need to short it to turn it on ever again.
right now i have to get windows installed. have to use the disc drive from my other computer. 
September 28, 2014, 03:13:19 PM
ITS ALIVE thanks djm and bigjme
thanks djm and bigjme You can setup in your Bios that in case of a power loss the computer should turn on so you can turn it on the next time only by switching off and then on your power supply, so no need to short it to turn it on ever again.
September 28, 2014, 12:03:05 PM
@ djm34 yes on page 21
September 28, 2014, 11:36:37 AM
anyone, i need to jump start my first asrock 81, i dont have the power switch yet, is it PWRBTN and RESET that you quick jump? thank you
Hold the board with both your hand. Jump 3 times in 1 sec. That should quick jump your board.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81%20Pro%20BTC/index.us.asp?cat=Manual
download please and its page 21 top
what he means is that he has the motherboard basically by itself with no power button atall. he wants to jump the power button pins to get it to start (mimic power button press)
I understood that... but if he has the manual, well it will be written how to wire it...
looking into my manual it says 6 and 8 (standard I/O connectivity design)
° 9
6 ° ° 7
8 ° ° 5
4 ° ° 3
2 ° ° 1
just need to short 6 and 8
ITS ALIVE
thanks djm and bigjme Jump to: