Topic: further improved phatk_dia kernel for Phoenix + SDK 2.6 - 2012-01-13 - page 19. (Read 106900 times)

If Phoenix would allow to output the OpenCL compiler build log we could get an idea what's wrong. Perhaps jedi95 reads here and takes this as a suggestion .
Perhaps I can take the lead with 2.4 and newer versions of my kernel, but for now I have no huge optimization ideas ... (but I'm thinking about it right now ^^).

Dia

Don't worry about it.  The improvements for the SDK 2.4 users are clear and I'm impressed that you've managed to close the gap between 2.4 and 2.1 as much as you have.

I don't know how to get detailed error messages from phatk.  When I use SDK 2.1 and your latest kernel I run the command
python phoenix.py -u http://:@:/ -a 1 -q 1 -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=14 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=1
and get
[ ] FATAL kernel error: Failed to load OpenCL kernel!

If I try the same with the previous version of your kernel everything works happily.  I wish I had more details for you but I just don't know how to get them.

I'm sorry to hear that ... what are the error messages you get with 2.1? I only tried with 2.4 and will test only on 2.4 and later SDKs by myself. Buf If you give me a hint I can try to fix it.

Dia

Yes, I found the previous version worked with SDK 2.1.  But the version released today doesn't.  I had to change to SDK 2.4 for this most recent version and this change actually lost me 0.4-0.6 MH/s.

Well it worked with the previous version of the modified kernel.

My card RAM is already at 360 MHz and I've tested but I can't find a better frequency for the RAM at my core speeds if I'm only interested in MH/s.

As for CPU usage  I've not touched my CPU settings at all and the miners only use about 0.4% each.  I even removed the fan from the CPU and placed it to cool the back of my hot card (the heatsink on the CPU is not even warm).  I'm assuming significant CPU loads is a Windows thing.

What interests me is how SDK 2.1 seems to be better at higher clock speeds whereas SDK 2.4 with your kernel is better at moderate speeds (940 MHz or below).  I admit I have little data on this but if anyone else gets the same results it would be interesting to know why.

I made an interesting discovery during my own tests with the new kernel version. I had to up the memory clock of my 5870 from 200 to 350 MHz in order to achieve the highest hashing values. Another thing to mention is, that I drive a Phenom II X6 1090T with only 800 MHz for every core, due to power saving, while mining. If I let the CPU use full speed, MHash/s goes even higher, let's say 3-4 MH/s.

Conclusion: Perhaps you guys should try to raise your mem speeds + experiment with CPU clocks, too. I know it has to be a good balance, so that higher MH/s values are not eaten by higher energy costs.

Dia

Possibly you're using an old version of SDK.  I get a fatal error when trying this with SDK 2.1 but am fine with SDK 2.4.

I'm using Autominer and the newest kernel does not work for me at all, but I don't have time to troubleshoot it as I'll miss on my mining and any expected rewards.

Another improvement but still not enough to beat SDK 2.1 for me.

The two phatk kernels of interest to me are:
- Kernel A = standard phatk kernel with the MA tweak applied.
- Kernel B = the latest kernel from this thread.

I'm using: Linux, Catalyst 11.6, a Sapphire HD5850 Xtreme:

At 900 MHz things look promising...

[900 MHz - 360 MHz RAM]
SDK 2.1, kernel A: 364.4 MH/s
SDK 2.1, kernel B: Fatal error
SDK 2.4, kernel A: 360.8 MH/s
SDK 2.4, kernel B: 365.6 MH/s

...but at higher core clock rates SDK 2.1 takes the lead once more.

[980 MHz - 360 MHz RAM]
SDK 2.1, kernel A: 404.7 MH/s
SDK 2.4, kernel B: 404.3 MH/s

[1020 MHz - 360 MHz RAM]
SDK 2.1, kernel A: 421.5 MH/s
SDK 2.4, kernel B: 420.9 MH/s

I would give some higher clocks but I can't go much past 1020 MHz without overvolting my card and I don't want to do that.

I tried playing with the RAM frequency but everything dropped off slowly as I lowered it and quickly as I raised it no matter which kernel or version of SDK I choose.

It's a shame that SDK 2.1 cannot drive your latest kernel but then I guess you are specifically designing it for SDK 2.4 and are now using features which are not available in SDK 2.1.  It would be great to finally put SDK 2.1 to bed but another MH/s sounds like a tall order at this point.

I have no data on accepts and rejects (I mine solo).

no change for me and my 6950s 11.6 drivers sdk 2.4

MSI Hawk 5770
2011-07-03 kernel :: 233 MH/s
2011-07-03 kernel :: 236 MH/s

Thanks!!!

 

from ~402Mh/s ---to--- ~405Mh/s   and I have 4x5850 sapphires each clocked to 1000Mhz.


Will take time to see what stales rate will be. With the last kernel it was around 2-3 %. Usually closer to 2%.


PLEASE KEEP THESE COMING 

New version is ready, DL here: http://www.mediafire.com/?f8b8q3w5u5p0ln0

Updated first post with changelog and performance info. This one should be a bit faster on 69XX cards than the original phatk, faster than all other phatk versions I did on 58XX and faster on non BFI_INT cards because of a change user 1MLyg5WVFSMifFjkrZiyGW2nw suggested!

Try, have fun, comment and donate .

Thanks,
Dia

Well, you may get better results.  For me:

SDK 2.4:  393.7 -> 396.8
SDK 2.1:  399.4 -> 399.4

That's for a Sapphire HD5850 Xtreme 970/[email protected] using catalyst 11.6 on Linux and phatk
VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=14 WORKSIZE=256

Definitely try out both SDK 2.1 and SDK 2.4 though.  If you are using Windows there's also an early version of SDK 2.5 with catalyst 11.7 which may be worth a look.

Since most gpu miners are using now the phatk kernel you should upgrade to 2.4. Phatk kernel is optimized for 2.4. You will get better results.

I get 5MH/s increase on 5850 (372MH/s -> 377MH/s) and 2MH/s increase on 5770 (215MH/s -> 217MH/s)

hmm, it does seem to vary a hell of a lot more though

saapphire 5830 xtreme.. upped me from 329.2 to 332.6

overclocked 1040/355

aggression 12 worksize 256

66c

5870, SDK 2.1, 11.6: no change, 419->419

4x 5870 @ 960Mhz Core = rock solid 1748Mhash/s

After I put the modified kernel:

Variable 1746-1751 with most of the time staying around 1748

So no use for me, but thanks for your effort anyway