Bitcoin x64 for Windows - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Olipro on July 26, 2010, 08:46:26 AM

Quote from: FreeMoney on July 26, 2010, 08:39:41 AM

Quote from: Olipro on July 26, 2010, 07:01:45 AM

if your OS is 64-bit then this has far superior performance, you need this runtime: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867&displaylang=en

OS is 64-bit. I loaded the runtime. It works now, but is the same khash as the x86.

the more cores your computer has, the more significant the performance boost, you should also use the EXE from the intel folder, the VS one is inferior but included for completeness.

I'm confused now, I don't see a VS or an Intel folder. When I unzipped vcredist_x64 I'm getting a bunch of numbered folders 1028, 1031, etc. I ran Setup and when I rerun it it just wants to repair Microsoft Visual C++ x64 Redistributable to it's original state each time.

I've also just noticed that it's getting incoming blocks like 3 or 4 at a time. It could be they're coming in close together, but I think I'm getting them like simultaneously.

EDIT: Okay, I see it now.

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: FreeMoney on July 26, 2010, 08:39:41 AM

Quote from: Olipro on July 26, 2010, 07:01:45 AM

if your OS is 64-bit then this has far superior performance, you need this runtime: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867&displaylang=en

OS is 64-bit. I loaded the runtime. It works now, but is the same khash as the x86.

the more cores your computer has, the more significant the performance boost, you should also use the EXE from the intel folder, the VS one is inferior but included for completeness.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Olipro on July 26, 2010, 07:01:45 AM

if your OS is 64-bit then this has far superior performance, you need this runtime: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867&displaylang=en

OS is 64-bit. I loaded the runtime. It works now, but is the same khash as the x86.

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

if your OS is 64-bit then this has far superior performance, you need this runtime: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867&displaylang=en

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

I'm a total newb, I tried to use Olipro's file and it failed because I was missing
MSVCR100.dll I got it, now it says "The application was unable to start correctly." Should I just not mess with this? Is it supposed to be all good to go?

Just say Olipro's new thread. Got it working, so sweet.

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: omegadraconis on July 26, 2010, 02:46:10 AM

It was indeed a large jump, not sure how stable it will be in the long run but, we will find out. The stock client ran fine 24 on this machine so I will post back some time tomorrow. I am getting less khash/s with the vc build, around 2600khash/s. The intel build for me is pushing the most khash/s.

yes, as I said, the Intel compiler produces far better code than the VS compiler does.

omegadraconis

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

It was indeed a large jump, not sure how stable it will be in the long run but, we will find out. The stock client ran fine 24 on this machine so I will post back some time tomorrow. I am getting less khash/s with the vc build, around 2600khash/s. The intel build for me is pushing the most khash/s.

ichi

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

Wow. Thank you

Windows Server 2008 x64 VM in Hyper-V
4 cores
8 connections

stock 0.3.0 build => ~2,250 khash/s
Intel x64 build => ~5,600 khash/s

Ground Loop

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Um.. Wow. That last one was a bit of a leap.

Intel Core i7-870 (2.93 GHz) running 4950 khash/s here. (4 cores Turbo'd to 3.2 GHz)
(Intel version)

Anyone seeing a speed difference between VS and Intel?

omegadraconis

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Wow, all I can say is once again the magic of optimizations and asm come through again. I went from 1300khash/s with the stock 0.3.3 to 3200khash/s with this latest build. My machine is running a dual-core Celeron 3300 @ 3.8ghz.

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

OK, now for some absolutely incredible performance.

Credit to tcatm for the caching part of the SHA context - this offers absolutely brilliant performance. Additionally, the Intel compiler really comes into its own here as its parallelisation abilities give a massive performance boost over Visual Studio.

Performance: 4700khash/s on 4 cores, I think that speaks for itself.

I've included both the VS and Intel build, but there's really no comparison, the Intel build craps all over VS.

Grab SHA state caching Bitcoin here

knightmb

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 258

Quote from: Olipro on July 25, 2010, 10:17:27 PM

OK, so given that the SHA256 is now 100% assembler code, I figured I might as well just build it entirely using Visual Studio, so I did just that and performance was exactly the same.

So, for those of you who have found the VS builds to be more stable, click here to get it

Yeah, runs every bit as fast as the Intel tweaked ones from what I could tell in testing, plus the program is half the size compiled.

BitLex

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 505

after tinkering around a bit and reinstalling the vcredist, i even got the VS build to work now.

on the regular client i get around 1600khash/sec, your latest VS build currently runs at ~2750khash/sec,
+70% that's an outstanding performance!

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

OK, so given that the SHA256 is now 100% assembler code, I figured I might as well just build it entirely using Visual Studio, so I did just that and performance was exactly the same.

So, for those of you who have found the VS builds to be more stable, click here to get it

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

If you want the code, get Crypto++

lachesis

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 104

Can you release the source for these builds, please? I would very much like to look over the changes that you made.

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

OK, I've made a new build now; this version uses the 64bit SHA256 Assembler code from Crypto++ which means the Byteswap function is now only used for re-ordering the resulting hash - and of course it's using 64-bit ASM to create the hash in the first place.

Performance? I've gone from an average of 2900k hashes on my previous builds up to a pretty stellar 3300k hashes (an improvement of about 100k per core) - I would be very surprised if the Linux builds outperform this.

Grab x64 Asm Optimised Bitcoin here

Olipro

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Here is several builds based on the latest SVN code (0.3.3), it contains the following:

Visual Studio Builds in x86 and x64 flavour.

Intel Builds in x64 only, one with stock code and the other with the 64bit byte reversal/state init tweak since it seems to squeeze a few more drops of speed out of it.

grab it here

andy_3_913

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

mind if i ask?
satoshi has released a couple of updates recently, mostly about security concerns as far as i can see.
how are the 64bit versions keeping up with these developments?

Quantumplation

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

I absolutely hate Ubuntu, mostly because of the community surrounding it. I much prefer gentoo, Debian, etc.

Topic: Bitcoin x64 for Windows - page 4. (Read 37427 times)