Modified Kernel for Phoenix 1.5 - page 15.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 11, 2011, 09:52:38 PM

Quote from: Phateus on May 11, 2011, 12:05:55 PM

On a stock 5870 at AGRESSION=12, I get 371 (vs. 353 with the default kernel) and O/C at 1GHz i get 438 (vs. 420 with the default kernel)
With VECTORS and BFI_INT it compiles to 1418 ALU ops for 2 hashes.
[snip]
Id you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv

On 5870 900/300 383.17 -> 398.16
On the 5850s 852/284 327.12 -> 340.90

CLI:
DISPLAY=:0.0 python phoenix.py -q 2 -u http://15xWuDHSyKzpvp6FacGKXijBeaaaYhKWSi:[email protected]:8337/ -k phatk DEVICE=$1 AGGRESSION=13 WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS BFI_INT

SDK 2.4

While screwing around with memory settings previously I found that having an integer ratio of clock to mem made a fair improvement, around 3MH/s with the old kernel vs being near but not quite. I wasn't sure if this was chance or something substantive, but considering that I'm seeing better improvements (and performance) than some others I thought I'd mention it.

Phateus, you have my thanks and a donation of a day worth of the income improvement your code brought me.

not for me, 1020/344 has about 5Mh/s advantage over 1020/340 and another 5Mh/s than 1020/510

OtaconEmmerich

full member

Activity: 235

Merit: 100

poclbm(GUI Miner) 200MHs (-v -w64 -f0)
phatk 210MHs (BFI_INT VECTORS FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=12)

This is on a 5770@955/300
I'd say that's worth a small donation from me.
I should try out Diablo miner next, maybe after his upcoming upgrade he may beat your kernel.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: Phateus on May 11, 2011, 12:05:55 PM

On a stock 5870 at AGRESSION=12, I get 371 (vs. 353 with the default kernel) and O/C at 1GHz i get 438 (vs. 420 with the default kernel)
With VECTORS and BFI_INT it compiles to 1418 ALU ops for 2 hashes.
[snip]
Id you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv

On 5870 900/300 383.17 -> 398.16
On the 5850s 852/284 327.12 -> 340.90

CLI:
DISPLAY=:0.0 python phoenix.py -q 2 -u http://15xWuDHSyKzpvp6FacGKXijBeaaaYhKWSi:[email protected]:8337/ -k phatk DEVICE=$1 AGGRESSION=13 WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS BFI_INT

SDK 2.4

While screwing around with memory settings previously I found that having an integer ratio of clock to mem made a fair improvement, around 3MH/s with the old kernel vs being near but not quite. I wasn't sure if this was chance or something substantive, but considering that I'm seeing better improvements (and performance) than some others I thought I'd mention it.

Phateus, you have my thanks and a donation of a day worth of the income improvement your code brought me.

JWU42

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1000

Tried on 5970 (using 2.1 though so didn't expect much).

367 - poclbm
362 - phatk

Herodes

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Anyone tested it on 5970 yet?

Nicksasa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 250

Tried it again on my 6970 @ 925Mhz, dropped from 379mhash to 366mhash on 11.4 & sdk 2.4

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: jedi95 on May 11, 2011, 06:30:43 PM

Quote from: grndzero on May 11, 2011, 06:24:55 PM

5850 900/300

Went from 361 to 355 VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 BFI_INT

This is probably because it's optimized for SDK 2.4. If you are using the Linux + SDK 2.1 setup in your sig then it's probably better to stick with the poclbm kernel. The advantage of phatk is that it produces similar speed to poclbm + SDK 2.1 with SDK 2.4.

Ah, yeah, I did read that, it failed to register. (I just woke up)

jedi95

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 120

Quote from: grndzero on May 11, 2011, 06:24:55 PM

5850 900/300

Went from 361 to 355 VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 BFI_INT

This is probably because it's optimized for SDK 2.4. If you are using the Linux + SDK 2.1 setup in your sig then it's probably better to stick with the poclbm kernel. The advantage of phatk is that it produces similar speed to poclbm + SDK 2.1 with SDK 2.4.

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

5850 900/300

Went from 361 to 355 VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 BFI_INT

Herodes

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Seeing an 3-4% increase in hashing speed. Donation coming your way. Thanks for sharing.

jedi95

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 120

Very nice!
I am getting 408 Mhash/sec now vs 394 Mhash/sec using the poclbm kernel. There is also no difference in desktop responsiveness compared to the poclbm kernel.

This is very close to what I get with the poclbm kernel on Linux with SDK 2.1. (410 Mhash/sec, but that's at AGGRESSION=11)

5870 @ 930/300 (Win7 x64, 11.5 + SDK 2.4)
Arguments: FASTLOOP VECTORS BFI_INT AGGRESSION=8

Also, it appears you used an older revision of the poclbm kernel as the base for phatk. It doesn't include the FASTLOOP changes in Phoenix 1.45 and newer. The hashrate comparison above is with the FASTLOOP updates added to phatk, however with these particular settings it should be nearly identical.

Donation coming your way Cool

EPiSKiNG

legendary

Activity: 800

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EPiSKiNG on May 11, 2011, 02:19:58 PM

5870 @ 970core 300mem
Guiminer-2011.05.01: 431.5MH/s (--platform=0 -v -w 256 -f 0)
PhatK: 426.62MH/s (phoenix.exe -u http://XXX:[email protected]:8332/;askrate=15 PLATFORM=0 DEVICE=1 BFI_INT VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 -k phatk)

-EP

Also, I am using ATI-Stream-v2.1 (145) & Catalyst 11.3 (3-8-2011)... Haven't tried using 2.4 yet, and I don't really feel like switching it... Is 2.4 supposed to be better performance?

-EP

Phateus

newbie

Activity: 52

Merit: 0

Quote from: Tyran on May 11, 2011, 04:14:13 PM

Unfortunately no improvement on a 5770:
@935/300 -k poclbm: 207.5
@935/300 -k phatk: 202.5
Higher memory clocks only decrease performance more.
Might be because I'm running SDK 2.1, do you think it would make up for the ~5% loss going to 2.4?

Yeah, at least for my kernel, which was specifically written for 2.4. The optimizations are mainly tricking the compiler into doing what I want it to do, so using 2.4 should increase performance a fair amount but not actually having different SDKs on any of my machines, I cannot test it. Might be worth a shot. Its always a toss-up whether its worth the hassle/down-time to tinker with your miner.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lowering-mem-clock-to-idle-speeds-speeds-up-mhs-4292

I run 1020/344

Went from 301 Mh/s to 310 Mh/s with phatk

Tyran

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Unfortunately no improvement on a 5770:
@935/300 -k poclbm: 207.5
@935/300 -k phatk: 202.5
Higher memory clocks only decrease performance more.
Might be because I'm running SDK 2.1, do you think it would make up for the ~5% loss going to 2.4?

Convery

sr. member

Activity: 966

Merit: 254

Quote from: Phateus on May 11, 2011, 02:57:30 PM

I see most of you are running 300 Mhz memory. One thing that I've noticed from messing around with everything is that 300 Mhz memory can be too slow. I found that with 1000Mhz core, 330 was optimal for the memory. At really low memory clocks(especially with my kernel), the speed is limited by the memory. A good estimation for memory speed(for both the 5850 and 5870) was 1/3 the core speed.

5850 peak Mhash:
1055/300 - 417Mhash
1055/350 - 419Mhash
1055/375 - 420Mhash
1055/400 - 416Mhash - Unstable.
1055/425 - 417Mhash

Phateus

newbie

Activity: 52

Merit: 0

I see most of you are running 300 Mhz memory. One thing that I've noticed from messing around with everything is that 300 Mhz memory can be too slow. I found that with 1000Mhz core, 330 was optimal for the memory. At really low memory clocks(especially with my kernel), the speed is limited by the memory. A good estimation for memory speed(for both the 5850 and 5870) was 1/3 the core speed.

Happy mining

-Phateus

Kick

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: EPiSKiNG on May 11, 2011, 02:19:58 PM

5870 @ 970core 300mem
Guiminer-2011.05.01: 431.5MH/s (--platform=0 -v -w 256 -f 0)
PhatK: 426.62MH/s (phoenix.exe -u http://XXX:[email protected]:8332/;askrate=15 PLATFORM=0 DEVICE=1 BFI_INT VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 -k phatk)

-EP

not really a correct comparison. youre missing the w256 flag for phatK

actually, i take that back. default should be max the device can support.

EPiSKiNG

legendary

Activity: 800

Merit: 1001

5870 @ 970core 300mem
Guiminer-2011.05.01: 431.5MH/s (--platform=0 -v -w 256 -f 0)
PhatK: 426.62MH/s (phoenix.exe -u http://XXX:[email protected]:8332/;askrate=15 PLATFORM=0 DEVICE=1 BFI_INT VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 -k phatk)

-EP

bolapara

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

phoenix 1.46 agg=13 bfi_int vectors

card 1:

5870, 995 core, 300 mem

poclbm - 431
phatk - 438

card 2:

5870, 900 core, 300 mem

poclbm - 389
phatk - 397

Nice little bump.

Topic: Modified Kernel for Phoenix 1.5 - page 15. (Read 96713 times)