Topic: Post Your Hash/Sec and Hardware (Read 39078 times)
http://www.freebiebitcoin.com">Earn free bitcoin
EeePC 1001PX Debian GNU/Linux "Sid"/aptosid
Intel Atom 32bits 1.66 GHz
$ uname -r
2.6.36-0.slh.3-aptosid-686
$ bitcoind getinfo |grep hash
"hashespersec" : 261816,
Intel Atom 32bits 1.66 GHz
$ uname -r
2.6.36-0.slh.3-aptosid-686
$ bitcoind getinfo |grep hash
"hashespersec" : 261816,
I was surprised that my Athlon X2 4850e is actually faster than my laptop with a core i55 430m. 2 much older cores faster than 4 newer intel cores? Seems odd, but whatever.
Athlon X2 4850e, 2,2Mhash/s
Intel Core i5 430m 1,8Mhash/s
Athlon X2 4850e, 2,2Mhash/s
Intel Core i5 430m 1,8Mhash/s
Sandos, 2 of those are HT, try turning the laptop down to limiting it to 2 cores. You'll probably get an increase by doing that.
Doh! Youre right of course, I forgot that it was HT. I did an increase to 2Mhash/s
GTS 250
30 mhps @ default aggression
33 mhps @ aggression = 10
30 mhps @ default aggression
33 mhps @ aggression = 10
Zotac Geforce GTX 460: 53mhash @ default aggression
67khash @ aggression = 14, overclocked to 850Mhz
67khash @ aggression = 14, overclocked to 850Mhz
Desktop processors always faster than laptops... as well as GPUs.
For what it's worht i5 430m has 2 cores and 4 threads
For what it's worht i5 430m has 2 cores and 4 threads
I was surprised that my Athlon X2 4850e is actually faster than my laptop with a core i55 430m. 2 much older cores faster than 4 newer intel cores? Seems odd, but whatever.
Athlon X2 4850e, 2,2Mhash/s
Intel Core i5 430m 1,8Mhash/s
Athlon X2 4850e, 2,2Mhash/s
Intel Core i5 430m 1,8Mhash/s
AMD Phenon II 920 = 4mHash/sec
AMD Phenon II 955 = 6mHash/sec
AMD Phenon II 955 = 6mHash/sec
Windows 7 32-bit
Intel Core2Duo E7300 @ 3600MHz
2 Gb RAM
GF 9800GT
in CPU miner mode i have 3300 khash/sec
in GPU CUDA client i have 18400 khash/sec
Intel Core2Duo E7300 @ 3600MHz
2 Gb RAM
GF 9800GT
in CPU miner mode i have 3300 khash/sec
in GPU CUDA client i have 18400 khash/sec
Machine 1:
Core2Duo @ 2.4 ghz: 3khash
CUDA client & 8800 GTS 512MB: 30khash
Machine 2:
Atom 330N + ION, CUDA client: 2khash
Core2Duo @ 2.4 ghz: 3khash
CUDA client & 8800 GTS 512MB: 30khash
Machine 2:
Atom 330N + ION, CUDA client: 2khash
My main desktop:
Windows 7 Pro
Intel Celeron Dual-Core 3200 @3.8ghz
2GB DDR2 Ram
Geforce 8800GTX
With the stock client I am getting 1300Khash/s.
With the x64bit optimized client I am getting 3300Khash/s
With OSX 10.6.3 and the cuda build on the same machine I get a peak of 5400Khash/s and a low of 4200Khash/s.
Windows 7 Pro
Intel Celeron Dual-Core 3200 @3.8ghz
2GB DDR2 Ram
Geforce 8800GTX
With the stock client I am getting 1300Khash/s.
With the x64bit optimized client I am getting 3300Khash/s
With OSX 10.6.3 and the cuda build on the same machine I get a peak of 5400Khash/s and a low of 4200Khash/s.
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2ghz, WinXP 32bit:
~3600khash/sec
Edit: ~8650khash/sec with 0.3.6
Core 2 Quad Extreme Mobile @ 2.53ghz, Gentoo 32bit:
~2000khash/sec...but if the room is hot, the CPU will get up to 95C, it'll throttle and get ~1600khash/sec. I usually run it on 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, for ~630khash/sec
Edit: 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, getting ~1440khash/sec with 0.3.6
Core 2 Duo @ 2.53ghz, WinXP 32bit:
Was ~1200khash/sec, but fell back to ~800khash/sec for some reason and won't go higher?
Edit: ~2050khash/sec with 0.3.6...still slower by ratio than it was before for some reason
Some Celeron @ ~2ghz, WinXP 32bit:
~220khash/sec
Edit: ~550khash/sec with 0.3.6
Any 32-bit builds of the SSE client? Edit: Official build is quite fast now, but as everyone upgrades it won't matter
~3600khash/sec
Edit: ~8650khash/sec with 0.3.6
Core 2 Quad Extreme Mobile @ 2.53ghz, Gentoo 32bit:
~2000khash/sec...but if the room is hot, the CPU will get up to 95C, it'll throttle and get ~1600khash/sec. I usually run it on 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, for ~630khash/sec
Edit: 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, getting ~1440khash/sec with 0.3.6
Core 2 Duo @ 2.53ghz, WinXP 32bit:
Was ~1200khash/sec, but fell back to ~800khash/sec for some reason and won't go higher?
Edit: ~2050khash/sec with 0.3.6...still slower by ratio than it was before for some reason
Some Celeron @ ~2ghz, WinXP 32bit:
~220khash/sec
Edit: ~550khash/sec with 0.3.6
Any 32-bit builds of the SSE client? Edit: Official build is quite fast now, but as everyone upgrades it won't matter
Actually, I re-examined my changes based on your results and I think I may have messed up the rate calculation. Since it calculates four hashes per loop iteration I multiplied the increment to nHashCounter by four, but in retrospect it's already accounting for that by incrementing the nonce four times as quickly. Ergo, the rate was displayed as 4x higher than actual. For reference, I've generated 300 BTC (six blocks) since I started using the program on the 11th of this month, which works out to about one block out of every 400 (0.25%). Is that about what you're getting? It looks like your version should be a bit faster than mine, which is only to be expected--this was my first attempt at using SSE, or for that matter any kind of SIMD optimization.
I should've known it wouldn't be quite so simple.
Oh yeah, I had to review the khash/s code a few times to get it right. At one point it displayed 12000 but I somehow didn't believe it
I settled for this: in each thread, for each hash that I calculate, increase a counter. Every couple iterations save the khash/s *for this thread* in an array. Then every 30 seconds one thread sums up all the khash/s values and prints the total.
I don't think pure SSE can be exactly four times as fast as a well optimized C code, mostly because SSE lacks rotate instructions. Did you implement SHA completely in SSE or are you mixing SSE and C?
I implemented the rotates as ((x >> y) | (x << (32-y))), using SSE opcodes for the shifts. It's implemented completely in C, using GCC's vector extensions--no direct assembly code. I did use intrinsics for the shift operations, since the shift operators aren't implemented for vectors. The rest looks much like the original version.
Yep, that's more or less what I did. Except I used intrinsics instead of the gcc vector extension, I think that should be more portable. It was pretty easy, I took an existing implementation as a base and then only had to change some macros. Comparing my SSE version with the base yields a speedup of (only) 2.5x. It's not 4x, mainly because the lack of rotate operations in SSE. Packing and unpacking also cause a small decrease in speed.
I also heard that some compilers can generate suboptimal, sometimes even outright wrong, code from intrinsics. I was advised to stay away from them and use pure assembler instead.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
I tried to implement your idea and my SSE code is almost exactly 4x as fast as the vanilla code (~2000 khash/s with one thread, up from ~500). However, when running two threads I only get ~3000 khash/s. There is room to optimize my code, but still, the improvement is way lower that yours.
Actually, I re-examined my changes based on your results and I think I may have messed up the rate calculation. Since it calculates four hashes per loop iteration I multiplied the increment to nHashCounter by four, but in retrospect it's already accounting for that by incrementing the nonce four times as quickly. Ergo, the rate was displayed as 4x higher than actual. For reference, I've generated 300 BTC (six blocks) since I started using the program on the 11th of this month, which works out to about one block out of every 400 (0.25%). Is that about what you're getting? It looks like your version should be a bit faster than mine, which is only to be expected--this was my first attempt at using SSE, or for that matter any kind of SIMD optimization.
I should've known it wouldn't be quite so simple.
I don't think pure SSE can be exactly four times as fast as a well optimized C code, mostly because SSE lacks rotate instructions. Did you implement SHA completely in SSE or are you mixing SSE and C?
I implemented the rotates as ((x >> y) | (x << (32-y))), using SSE opcodes for the shifts. It's implemented completely in C, using GCC's vector extensions--no direct assembly code. I did use intrinsics for the shift operations, since the shift operators aren't implemented for vectors. The rest looks much like the original version.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
I tried to implement your idea and my SSE code is almost exactly 4x as fast as the vanilla code (~2000 khash/s with one thread, up from ~500). However, when running two threads I only get ~3000 khash/s. There is room to optimize my code, but still, the improvement is way lower that yours.
I don't think pure SSE can be exactly four times as fast as a well optimized C code, mostly because SSE lacks rotate instructions. Did you implement SHA completely in SSE or are you mixing SSE and C?
I upgraded to the x64 optimized client on a box that I run on rare occasions:
Windows XP Pro x64, Intel Xeon X5550 @ 2.67GHz, 8 cores. - 10,400 khash/sec in the display, 9,000 in the hashmeter log.
The rate with stock client used to be about 4,300 khash/sec.
Windows XP Pro x64, Intel Xeon X5550 @ 2.67GHz, 8 cores. - 10,400 khash/sec in the display, 9,000 in the hashmeter log.
The rate with stock client used to be about 4,300 khash/sec.
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
Wow, this is the biggest jump I've ever seen. Nearly a 250% increase in speed from the stock version, amazing. Now let's see how stable it is 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
Windows 7 64-bit
AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.61Ghz
2000 khash/sec
CPU temperature stabilises at 61C
MB temperature at 40C
I noticed something funny: After running for a long while, the khash/sec went down to 1750-1800. Is this normal? I see the same thing happening on my laptop where it went down to 275 after staying at 300 - 310 for a while.
AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.61Ghz
2000 khash/sec
CPU temperature stabilises at 61C
MB temperature at 40C
I noticed something funny: After running for a long while, the khash/sec went down to 1750-1800. Is this normal? I see the same thing happening on my laptop where it went down to 275 after staying at 300 - 310 for a while.
Bitcoin 64-bit
Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit
AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.61Ghz
2450 khash/sec
So, somewhat faster than in Windows 7. However, ubuntu lags a lot more than Windows does when Bitcoin is going fullbore.
Windows 7 64-bit
AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.61Ghz
I get 4200 - 4400 khash/sec using the SHA state cashing build above (Intel build).
Using the VS build I still get 3100 khash/sec.
Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4 GHz, 4MB cache)
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
What is this custom SSE hash code?
Now, now. If I told you that then I would lose my advantage.
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4 GHz, 4MB cache)
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
What is this custom SSE hash code?
Now, now. If I told you that then I would lose my advantage.
Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.
Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4 GHz, 4MB cache)
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
What is this custom SSE hash code?
Jump to: