Topic: Modified Kernel for Phoenix 1.5 (Read 96713 times)
Note: new sdk version works best work worksize 64 for 5870
I'm checking back in after being gone for so long... I just downloaded the 2.6 SDK and it destroys my optimization... 
I will see if there is anything I can do without completely rewriting. Stay tuned and I should have more info later this week.
P.S. Thanks to everyone who has donated to me in the past, I have been busy lately, but I have not forgotten.
-Phateus
I will see if there is anything I can do without completely rewriting. Stay tuned and I should have more info later this week.P.S. Thanks to everyone who has donated to me in the past, I have been busy lately, but I have not forgotten.
-Phateus
Should be noted that current phatk 2.2 still runs amazingly fast on 2.1 SDK; people suggested poclbm but phatk2 still runs fastest for my system with 2.1 along with 2.4/2.5. At least it does for me. I use VLIW5 hardware. Perhaps keep a 2.1-2.5 kernel around for those that want to keep using it, and a seperate 2.6 optimized kernel for those that need it for GCN architecture hardware or people that game with their gpus (they'll probably be running 1GHz+ on memory which is better suited for VECTORS4 which works well with high memory frequency)
I'm checking back in after being gone for so long... I just downloaded the 2.6 SDK and it destroys my optimization... I will see if there is anything I can do without completely rewriting. Stay tuned and I should have more info later this week.
P.S. Thanks to everyone who has donated to me in the past, I have been busy lately, but I have not forgotten.
-Phateus
I will see if there is anything I can do without completely rewriting. Stay tuned and I should have more info later this week.P.S. Thanks to everyone who has donated to me in the past, I have been busy lately, but I have not forgotten.
-Phateus
Bumping an ancient thread. Just noting that phatk 2.2 still holds the crown for fastest kernel on 2.1, 2.5, and 2.6 SDKs for VLIW5 tech (radeon 5xxx and 60xx-68xx). I hope phateus can come back and do even moar tweaks for moar speed!
If it works out for you and you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv
-Phateus
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv
-Phateus
It worked out for me and I'm feeling generous, so I donated for further development.
+1
I would if I could. I wonder how many BTC enthusiasts live below the USA's so-called "poverty line"?
If it works out for you and you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv
-Phateus
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv
-Phateus
It worked out for me and I'm feeling generous, so I donated for further development.
Is the latest version of phatk the one that's included in LinuxCoin final?
I could probably check somehow, as I am a LinuxCoin user... I just don't know much about Linux and don't want to poke at my rig while it's on a roll...
I could probably check somehow, as I am a LinuxCoin user... I just don't know much about Linux and don't want to poke at my rig while it's on a roll...
first you shocked me with TWO double hashes 
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
It's actually closer to 3375 because some VLIW5 instructions only have 4 operations in them. I can get a more exact number if needed, but its kinda a PITA cuz AMD's software won't actually tell you outright.
first you shocked me with TWO double hashes
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
It's actually closer to 3375 because some VLIW5 instructions only have 4 operations in them. I can get a more exact number if needed, but its kinda a PITA cuz AMD's software won't actually tell you outright.
first you shocked me with TWO double hashes
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
but ~3375 integer operations per hash is just perfect
edit: did you mean 3385??
are the 1354 ALU OPs for a single SHA256 or for double? as in SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header))
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1293/how-many-integer-operations-on-a-gpu-are-necessary-for-one-hash
network speed guinness world record
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-estimate-network-speed-for-guinness-world-record-38064
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1293/how-many-integer-operations-on-a-gpu-are-necessary-for-one-hash
network speed guinness world record
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-estimate-network-speed-for-guinness-world-record-38064
1354 OPs are for two double hashes.
SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header1)), SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header2))
so, 677 per double hash.
Although, there aren't completely full hashes, since the first and last few rounds (a few %) have optimized out.
Also, each ALU OP is a VLIW5 (very long instruction word) instruction which contains 5 integer operations that run simultaneously, so... depending on how you think about it,
could be ~3375 integer operations or 677 VLIW5 instructions
Hope this helps, let me know if you need any more help with this. I am interested in how this turns out.
are the 1354 ALU OPs for a single SHA256 or for double? as in SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header))
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1293/how-many-integer-operations-on-a-gpu-are-necessary-for-one-hash
network speed guinness world record
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-estimate-network-speed-for-guinness-world-record-38064
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1293/how-many-integer-operations-on-a-gpu-are-necessary-for-one-hash
network speed guinness world record
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-estimate-network-speed-for-guinness-world-record-38064
donated knickknack
go to google docs, make a spreadsheet, test all the speeds and options on your end manually (this part will be extremely time consuming for a high resolution graph), and put the data in yourself, and generate graph. presto pronto.
although on my cards some values will make them unstable, lol
well the OP already said he did it manually. you're free to write a program to do it automatically, or hire someone to write one for you.
go to google docs, make a spreadsheet, test all the speeds and options on your end manually (this part will be extremely time consuming for a high resolution graph), and put the data in yourself, and generate graph. presto pronto.
although on my cards some values will make them unstable, lol
go to google docs, make a spreadsheet, test all the speeds and options on your end manually (this part will be extremely time consuming for a high resolution graph), and put the data in yourself, and generate graph. presto pronto.
Hey phateus, just a head's up. Your cgminer code only worked for 2 vectors. I've updated it in my git tree to work with 1 and 4. Simple enough change.
I am using BFI_INT, the hardware errors are kind of random
I should mention I'm using fpgaminer's poclbm fork for this so maybe it might have something to do with it
I should mention I'm using fpgaminer's poclbm fork for this so maybe it might have something to do with it
I'm getting hardware errors on phatk 2.2, didn't get them on diapolo's or 2.1
the three are about undistinguishable in terms of speed for me
the three are about undistinguishable in terms of speed for me
Are you using BFI_INT? Of not, there is a bug in the 2.2 kernel, Vince found that in the kernel.cl file, you have to replace
Code:
#define Ch(x, y, z) bitselect(x,y,z)
on line 78 with
Code:
#define Ch(x, y, z) bitselect(z, y, x)
I haven't gotten around to release a new version, but if you make the change yourself, it should fix it.
-Phateus
Jump to: