Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:12:47 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 3% faster mining with phoenix+phatk, diablo, or poclbm for everyone  (Read 36641 times)
jonnynogood
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 05:26:46 AM
 #61

i dont know what this did but i switched from open CL to phoenix changed a bunch of flags and went from 275Mh to 290MH on each of my 4 6870 cards

thanks!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481177567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177567
Reply with quote  #2

1481177567
Report to moderator
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 05:31:16 AM
 #62

On normal Radeons at stock clocks and voltages, and are not overheating, have a known error rate (which is something like 1 error per several hundred million instructions)

One error per several hundred million instructions... where are you getting that information from? (an honest question, I'd like to learn more)

A 58xx series, from information I can find, can do between one and four instructions per clock.  If it is clocked at 775000000 cycles per second (775 MHz), that's up to 3.1 billion instructions per second.  So according to your information there would be many errors per second.

I think I meant 1 per several hundred billion. Its in the chip specification somewhere, ask AMD.

Quote
a silicon chip is not supposed to have errors, and will only occur if: incorrect voltage, incorrect temperature range, the silicon chip itself is faulty, something extremely rare such as a cosmic ray bouncing off and [in the case of RAM] 'flipping a bit' perhaps once every few weeks

Bzzt, wrong. GPU hardware does not use the same manufacturing process CPU hardware typically does. GPUs are not mission critical hardware, and rare calculation errors are considered acceptable.

You are correct about "incorrect" voltage, however you assume that it is incorrect at all. The professional versions of these cards run at lower clock rates and lower voltages to reduce the error rate. Consumer cards are not ran at incorrect settings, they are merely ran at settings that lead to acceptable levels of errors.

Turix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76



View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 08:59:15 AM
 #63

On normal Radeons at stock clocks and voltages, and are not overheating, have a known error rate (which is something like 1 error per several hundred million instructions)

One error per several hundred million instructions... where are you getting that information from? (an honest question, I'd like to learn more)

A 58xx series, from information I can find, can do between one and four instructions per clock.  If it is clocked at 775000000 cycles per second (775 MHz), that's up to 3.1 billion instructions per second.  So according to your information there would be many errors per second.

I think I meant 1 per several hundred billion. Its in the chip specification somewhere, ask AMD.

Quote
a silicon chip is not supposed to have errors, and will only occur if: incorrect voltage, incorrect temperature range, the silicon chip itself is faulty, something extremely rare such as a cosmic ray bouncing off and [in the case of RAM] 'flipping a bit' perhaps once every few weeks

Bzzt, wrong. GPU hardware does not use the same manufacturing process CPU hardware typically does. GPUs are not mission critical hardware, and rare calculation errors are considered acceptable.

You are correct about "incorrect" voltage, however you assume that it is incorrect at all. The professional versions of these cards run at lower clock rates and lower voltages to reduce the error rate. Consumer cards are not ran at incorrect settings, they are merely ran at settings that lead to acceptable levels of errors.

This is shown up quite well if you run something like Folding or Seti on your GPU, you will notice a lot more invalid work showing up than you do using the CPU variant and has far as I am aware work for these two does not expire within any reasonable length of time unlike bitcoin so these are actually invalid results and not just "stale".

YinCoin YangCoin ☯☯First Ever POS/POW Alternator! Multipool! ☯ ☯ http://yinyangpool.com/ 
Free Distribution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623937
Bwincoin - 100% Free POS. BSqnSwv7xdD6UEh8bJz8Xp6YcndPQ2JFyF
teukon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 30, 2011, 01:33:04 PM
 #64

359 -> 367 (2.2%) on my two 5850's (900/300 1.01V).

Thank you kindly.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
 #65

On normal Radeons at stock clocks and voltages, and are not overheating, have a known error rate (which is something like 1 error per several hundred million instructions)

One error per several hundred million instructions... where are you getting that information from? (an honest question, I'd like to learn more)

A 58xx series, from information I can find, can do between one and four instructions per clock.  If it is clocked at 775000000 cycles per second (775 MHz), that's up to 3.1 billion instructions per second.  So according to your information there would be many errors per second.

I think I meant 1 per several hundred billion. Its in the chip specification somewhere, ask AMD.

Quote
a silicon chip is not supposed to have errors, and will only occur if: incorrect voltage, incorrect temperature range, the silicon chip itself is faulty, something extremely rare such as a cosmic ray bouncing off and [in the case of RAM] 'flipping a bit' perhaps once every few weeks

Bzzt, wrong. GPU hardware does not use the same manufacturing process CPU hardware typically does. GPUs are not mission critical hardware, and rare calculation errors are considered acceptable.

You are correct about "incorrect" voltage, however you assume that it is incorrect at all. The professional versions of these cards run at lower clock rates and lower voltages to reduce the error rate. Consumer cards are not ran at incorrect settings, they are merely ran at settings that lead to acceptable levels of errors.

This is shown up quite well if you run something like Folding or Seti on your GPU, you will notice a lot more invalid work showing up than you do using the CPU variant and has far as I am aware work for these two does not expire within any reasonable length of time unlike bitcoin so these are actually invalid results and not just "stale".

No, its invalid on mining as well. My miner has a HW error counter, it only ticks up when the HW produces a hash it thinks produces H == 0, but when double checked it doesn't.

Yeti
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

Firstbits: 1yetiax


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 02:03:05 PM
 #66

410 -> 420 (2.4%) on my HD5870 with the new DiabloMiner! Suh-weeet! Thanks a bunch!

1YetiaXeuRzX9QJoQNUW84oX2EiXnHgp3 or http://payb.tc/yeti

Since Bitcoin Randomizer is dead, join the Bitcoin Pyramid (referrer id #203)! Be quick, be on top! Instant payout as soon as one of your referrals deposits!
Fiyasko
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Okey Dokey Lokey


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 05:06:03 PM
 #67

This tweek has been implemented into GUIminer.
So if you use GUIminer.
Just update.

http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=DingoRabiit&sign=ANY&type=RECV <-My Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0 GAWminers and associated things are not to be trusted, Especially the "mineral" exchange
Alan Lupton
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
 #68

280 to 289 on a stock speed 5850... will be using this on all my miners, thanks!

exact same here
getcopy
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 01:01:03 AM
 #69

4850 no difference... pity... seems it's time to buy a new card...

17HNRidPgCnyTuuwKx6L5c2bHJyJCHjVyF
rethaw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 07:18:42 AM
 #70

This tweek has been implemented into GUIminer.
So if you use GUIminer.
Just update.

Yes. As far as I know this has been implemented into the OpenCL kernel of all the main miners. If you want to implement this just update your miner. You can guarantee the change has been made by opening the kernel file and seeing if the Ma() line has been changed.

datguywhowanders
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 08:47:45 PM
 #71

382 to 395, awesome.

Donations Welcome: 163id7T8KZ6MevqT86DjrBF2kfCPrQsfZE
d.james
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

Firstbits: 12pqwk


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:11:32 AM
 #72

This patch successfully pushed the difficulty up by an extra 3% Cheesy

You can not roll a BitCoin, but you can rollback some. Cheesy
Roll me back: 1NxMkvbYn8o7kKCWPsnWR4FDvH7L9TJqGG
Clavulanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:30:30 AM
 #73

Got a few mhash on each of my systems, except on my dual 5870 system... Didn't really see a change.

This may just be me or a coincidence, but my single card system showed bigger gains than my multiple card systems. Also my more heavily overclocked systems showed less gains than my less overclocked systems.

Thanks a bunch.
pandemic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 418


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:40:27 PM
 #74

I was getting 272mh/s with my 5830. After implimenting this change, I'm getting 278 or 279. Not too shabby Smiley
Yannick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 01:58:23 AM
 #75

Thanks a ton!

newMeat1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 02:17:51 AM
 #76

This actually slows down my poor little 5670  Tongue     94==>92
 
What is meant by "This will ONLY WORK if you're running with BFI_INT"? Maybe that's my problem

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 05:35:12 AM
 #77

This actually slows down my poor little 5670  Tongue     94==>92
 
What is meant by "This will ONLY WORK if you're running with BFI_INT"? Maybe that's my problem

If you're on one, you should be. OTOH, it shouldn't be slowing it down if you dont have BFI_INT enabled

Diapolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 769



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:43:12 AM
 #78

All who tried this kernel, the MA-function patch from this thread is included in my modified phatk kernel.
You are able to run it with SDK 2.1, too ... so give it a try Smiley.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25860.0

YES, this seems to be an ad Cheesy.

Dia

Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo
dikidera
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 02:16:07 PM
 #79

This actually slows down my poor little 5670  Tongue     94==>92
 
What is meant by "This will ONLY WORK if you're running with BFI_INT"? Maybe that's my problem

If you're on one, you should be. OTOH, it shouldn't be slowing it down if you dont have BFI_INT enabled
I thought only 57XX cards support bfi int
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 02:44:35 PM
 #80

This actually slows down my poor little 5670  Tongue     94==>92
 
What is meant by "This will ONLY WORK if you're running with BFI_INT"? Maybe that's my problem

If you're on one, you should be. OTOH, it shouldn't be slowing it down if you dont have BFI_INT enabled
I thought only 57XX cards support bfi int

lol? All 5xxx and 6xxx do.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!