Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
if (!W[117].x) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
if (!W[117].y)
output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
else if (!W[117].y) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 636. (Read 5806103 times)
February 23, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
Ok, one unrolled branch then!
February 23, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
Updated the 2.3.0 package with -1 extension which includes a fixed phatk kernel. Links in top post. This shouldn't affect other kernels...
If it ends up affecting other kernels, I'll have to release a full new version tomorrow.
If it ends up affecting other kernels, I'll have to release a full new version tomorrow.
February 23, 2012, 08:34:37 AM
awesome update. the new kernel gives me a +2% increase in mh/s.
i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
Read what it says at startup when your run dynamic intensity... sigh.i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
ty
February 23, 2012, 08:31:43 AM
awesome update. the new kernel gives me a +2% increase in mh/s.
i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
Read what it says at startup when you run dynamic intensity... sigh. i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
February 23, 2012, 08:30:34 AM
awesome update. the new kernel gives me a +2% increase in mh/s.
i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
i have a suggestion.
i like how you can set the intensity to d and it changes the intensity to maintain desktop interactivity. but its just a little bit too intense for me in windows but is perfect while playing world of tanks (weird, i thought gaming would be more intense) so i keep having to change the intensity depending on what i'm doing.
my suggestion is that you make an option to set the intensity to d -2 or d -1 or something. so the intensity is still dynamic but is 1 or 2 less (or more) than d.
some people might want to use d +1 or d +2. who knows? for me, intensity of d -1 would be perfect.
February 23, 2012, 08:29:52 AM
Ok, my findings so far:
5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
The old kernel is simply not compatible with the current one.5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
Well this makes me fucking angry. All I can do is shake my fist even harder at ATI for the changes just SHOULD NOT CAUSE THIS as they're meant to be trivial changes. Well more fucking quick fucking releases to deal with fucking ATI fucking fail. Rollback phatk fucking time.
Yeah and people were bashing me when I was screaming Nvidia.
ATI will probably never fix these bugs in their SDK and drivers.
CPU bug, SDK 2.6, 8 GPU hardcoded limit, needs to be linked to xserver at all times.
If only Nvidia would wake up and see that we are waiting for the 4608 shader dual GPU.
Hopefully the integer performance is much better this time around and they implement a variation of BFI_INT or bitalign.
So when will you release the fixed cgminer ?
Thank you !
February 23, 2012, 08:29:09 AM
Btw, why check for 'result' in the first place? Isn't that a redundant check?
Using now,
Seems to work! 
No, you're doing two branches on the common path now. We want as few branches as possible in the common path. It doesn't matter if we do 2 extra checks in the uncommon (i.e. found share) path. Using now,
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
if (!W[117].x) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
}
if (!W[117].y) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
February 23, 2012, 08:29:04 AM
I have posted a bounty to get better documentation around the --scan-serial option for linux -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bounty-5-btc-clear-instructions-for-cgminers-scan-serial-option-65879
If you have this knowledge, you can make some quick btc...
If you have this knowledge, you can make some quick btc...
February 23, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
Btw, why check for 'result' in the first place? Isn't that a redundant check?
Using now,
Seems to work!
Using now,
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
if (!W[117].x) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
}
if (!W[117].y) {
output[FOUND] = FOUND;
output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
February 23, 2012, 08:03:07 AM
OK, fixed it:
"bool result = any(W[117] == 0)" seems to be the slow op, changing back to the bitwise AND "W[117].x & W[117].y" (and the next if to !result), gets me back at ~400MH/s.
Goddamn. Thanks for that. The any() function is meant to be faster than manually unrolling it the way I did in the old version. I guess I shouldn't put any faith in their hardware functions..."bool result = any(W[117] == 0)" seems to be the slow op, changing back to the bitwise AND "W[117].x & W[117].y" (and the next if to !result), gets me back at ~400MH/s.
sigh...
February 23, 2012, 08:00:04 AM
OK, fixed it:
"bool result = any(W[117] == 0)" seems to be the slow op, changing back to the bitwise AND "W[117].x & W[117].y" (and the next if to !result), gets me back at ~400MH/s.
"bool result = any(W[117] == 0)" seems to be the slow op, changing back to the bitwise AND "W[117].x & W[117].y" (and the next if to !result), gets me back at ~400MH/s.
February 23, 2012, 07:58:50 AM
Ok, my findings so far:
5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
The old kernel is simply not compatible with the current one.5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
Well this makes me fucking angry. All I can do is shake my fist even harder at ATI for the changes just SHOULD NOT CAUSE THIS as they're meant to be trivial changes. Well more fucking quick fucking releases to deal with fucking ATI fucking fail. Rollback phatk fucking time.
February 23, 2012, 07:50:37 AM
Ok, my findings so far:
5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
5850 on SDK 2.5
2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213
2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!
So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?
February 23, 2012, 07:43:19 AM
thank you ckvolias for this big release on my Birthday! 
February 23, 2012, 07:32:18 AM
My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256
I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.
Based on what tenzor says, 960/1030 * 230 means you should be able to get 214
edit: He changed that to 220-225? * 960/103 is 205 which is not far off what you're getting... Try it anyway
edit2: DONT FORGET SDK MATTERS!
February 23, 2012, 07:29:44 AM
I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.
Ok. @960/300 I have 220-225 cgminer 2.2.6
Edit:
Summary:
@960/300 = 220-225
@1000/300 = around 230
cgminer 2.2.6
-I 9 -v 2 -w 256 -k phatk
SDK 2.4, ubuntu, catalyst 11.6
February 23, 2012, 07:03:39 AM
My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256
I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.
February 23, 2012, 07:01:48 AM
My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256
February 23, 2012, 07:00:14 AM
My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
Excellent, that's more the sort of news I was hoping for I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
February 23, 2012, 06:57:39 AM
My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm and phatk. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
I did notice that suddenly my poclbm performance dropped from around 185 to like 165 with this new release. But I'm not complaining because of the pleasant diablo surprise.
I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm and phatk. Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo. Really noice!
I did notice that suddenly my poclbm performance dropped from around 185 to like 165 with this new release. But I'm not complaining because of the pleasant diablo surprise.
Jump to: