further improved phatk_dia kernel for Phoenix + SDK 2.6 - 2012-01-13

[BOARBEAR]

69xx version would be wonderful ;-P

To all 69XX card owners, that want 1 ALU OP less, down to 1697 . Just edit the kernel.cl file and replace Line 385 (DL the latest 2011-07-17 version):

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

with

Vals[7] = Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

Please report if it works . Remember, this WILL be slower for 58XX owners, so don't try this, if you are on 58XX cards or even (s)lower!

Dia

What's the rationale behind this?  It seems very weird to me that the compiler interpret the two statement differently.

[1714189538]

1714189538

[1714189538]

1714189538

[1714189538]

1714189538

[indio007]

69xx version would be wonderful ;-P

To all 69XX card owners, that want 1 ALU OP less, down to 1697 . Just edit the kernel.cl file and replace Line 385 (DL the latest 2011-07-17 version):

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

with

Vals[7] = Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

Please report if it works . Remember, this WILL be slower for 58XX owners, so don't try this, if you are on 58XX cards or even (s)lower!

Dia

Will it be slower on a 6850?

[MiningBuddy]

69xx version would be wonderful ;-P

To all 69XX card owners, that want 1 ALU OP less, down to 1697 . Just edit the kernel.cl file and replace Line 385 (DL the latest 2011-07-17 version):

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

with

Vals[7] = Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

Please report if it works . Remember, this WILL be slower for 58XX owners, so don't try this, if you are on 58XX cards or even (s)lower!

Dia

Thanks, gave me a 0.31 Mh/s increase per core on my 6990's 

[Vince]

thats really weired. I cant see why the compiler generates better code with this statement - but it does. Verified it with SDK 2.4 myself ..

Anyone noticed that during the last few rounds a lot of variables are calculated, but never used again?

I took the time to optimize all unused statements out, but got no speed improvements at all. Seems like the compiler optimized it anyway.

Here it is - from round 124 to the #ifdef VECTORS preprocessor command

Code:

        sharound(121);

        // Optimized out all unused calculations
        W[122 - O] = P4(122) + P3(122) + P2(122) + P1(122);
        Vals[1] += K[58] + Vals[5] + W[122 - O] + s1(122) + ch(122);
        Vals[0] += K[59] + Vals[4] + s1(123) + ch(123) + P4(123) + P3(123) + P2(123) + P1(123);
        Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

#ifdef VECTORS

Maybe someone can trick the compiler into making better code ;-)

[Diapolo]

69xx version would be wonderful ;-P

To all 69XX card owners, that want 1 ALU OP less, down to 1697 . Just edit the kernel.cl file and replace Line 385 (DL the latest 2011-07-17 version):

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

with

Vals[7] = Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

Please report if it works . Remember, this WILL be slower for 58XX owners, so don't try this, if you are on 58XX cards or even (s)lower!

Dia

What's the rationale behind this?  It seems very weird to me that the compiler interpret the two statement differently.

You are not the only one , but the compiler sais it's one ALU OP less!

Dia

[Diapolo]

69xx version would be wonderful ;-P

To all 69XX card owners, that want 1 ALU OP less, down to 1697 . Just edit the kernel.cl file and replace Line 385 (DL the latest 2011-07-17 version):

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

with

Vals[7] = Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

Please report if it works . Remember, this WILL be slower for 58XX owners, so don't try this, if you are on 58XX cards or even (s)lower!

Dia

Will it be slower on a 6850?

6850 is a VLIW5 design and will be slower ... really only 69XX cards!

[Diapolo]

thats really weired. I cant see why the compiler generates better code with this statement - but it does. Verified it with SDK 2.4 myself ..

Anyone noticed that during the last few rounds a lot of variables are calculated, but never used again?

I took the time to optimize all unused statements out, but got no speed improvements at all. Seems like the compiler optimized it anyway.

Here it is - from round 124 to the #ifdef VECTORS preprocessor command

Code:

        sharound(121);

        // Optimized out all unused calculations
        W[122 - O] = P4(122) + P3(122) + P2(122) + P1(122);
        Vals[1] += K[58] + Vals[5] + W[122 - O] + s1(122) + ch(122);
        Vals[0] += K[59] + Vals[4] + s1(123) + ch(123) + P4(123) + P3(123) + P2(123) + P1(123);
        Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

#ifdef VECTORS

Maybe someone can trick the compiler into making better code ;-)

Hey Vince, tried this by myself a few days ago and didn't get a better efficiency either ... perhaps I will have to throw it into the mixer again .
And thanks again for your work!

Dia

[Diapolo]

thats really weired. I cant see why the compiler generates better code with this statement - but it does. Verified it with SDK 2.4 myself ..

Anyone noticed that during the last few rounds a lot of variables are calculated, but never used again?

I took the time to optimize all unused statements out, but got no speed improvements at all. Seems like the compiler optimized it anyway.

Here it is - from round 124 to the #ifdef VECTORS preprocessor command

Code:

        sharound(121);

        // Optimized out all unused calculations
        W[122 - O] = P4(122) + P3(122) + P2(122) + P1(122);
        Vals[1] += K[58] + Vals[5] + W[122 - O] + s1(122) + ch(122);
        Vals[0] += K[59] + Vals[4] + s1(123) + ch(123) + P4(123) + P3(123) + P2(123) + P1(123);
        Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

#ifdef VECTORS

Maybe someone can trick the compiler into making better code ;-)

Hey Vince, tried this by myself a few days ago and didn't get a better efficiency either ... perhaps I will have to throw it into the mixer again .
And thanks again for your work!

Dia

No chance, tried different things and combinations, but the OpenCL compiler does it better, than I do (again ^^).

Dia

[iopq]

Phateus posted some improvements in his own kernel, check it out:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7964.0

unfortunately it doesn't run for me, so i can't check whether it's faster on my card

[Diapolo]

Phateus posted some improvements in his own kernel, check it out:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7964.0

unfortunately it doesn't run for me, so i can't check whether it's faster on my card

Thanks for pointing me to that thread!

Dia

[Diapolo]

I'm working on a new version! The inputs came from the original Author of phatk, who released a version 2.0 of phatk (THANKS Phateus).
Currently my version IS slower, but I see this as a fair and cool competition, from which all of us will benefit in the end.

Dia

[Tx2000]

I'm working on a new version! The inputs came from the original Author of phatk, who released a version 2.0 of phatk (THANKS Phateus).
Currently my version IS slower, but I see this as a fair and cool competition, from which all of us will benefit in the end.

Dia

Hopefully you can re-work his version because atm, it doesn't work for me on Win7/2.4SDK/GUIMiner lastest.  I replaced your phatk kernel with his and it just stays at connecting spamming idle worker in console.

[pennytrader]

I'm working on a new version! The inputs came from the original Author of phatk, who released a version 2.0 of phatk (THANKS Phateus).
Currently my version IS slower, but I see this as a fair and cool competition, from which all of us will benefit in the end.

Dia

Actually your kernel is fast for me.

Catalyst 11.6 + SDK 2.1, 975/300 gives me 313 mhs (your kernel)

Catalyst 11.6 + SDK 2.4, 975/300 gives me 311 mhs (latest from the original author. SDK 2.1 doesn't work)

[deepceleron]

I tried the new kernel with phoenix/11.6/2.4/Win7/5830, and gave it lots of different command line options. I could only get it to be 'miner idle' five times a second, or 5Ghash/s with no share solves.

[ssateneth]

I tried the new kernel with phoenix/11.6/2.4/Win7/5830, and gave it lots of different command line options. I could only get it to be 'miner idle' five times a second, or 5Ghash/s with no share solves.

this is the exact same problem I have too, but i use guiminer

[Diapolo]

I tried the new kernel with phoenix/11.6/2.4/Win7/5830, and gave it lots of different command line options. I could only get it to be 'miner idle' five times a second, or 5Ghash/s with no share solves.

Are you talking about my kernel mod or phatk 2.0? What are your command line options. Try to delete the *.elf files in the phatk directory!

Dia

[deepceleron]

I tried the new kernel with phoenix/11.6/2.4/Win7/5830, and gave it lots of different command line options. I could only get it to be 'miner idle' five times a second, or 5Ghash/s with no share solves.

Are you talking about my kernel mod or phatk 2.0? What are your command line options. Try to delete the *.elf files in the phatk directory!

Dia

Sorry for the confusion, that's regarding the 2.0 phatk that came this weekend.

[Diapolo]

I tried the new kernel with phoenix/11.6/2.4/Win7/5830, and gave it lots of different command line options. I could only get it to be 'miner idle' five times a second, or 5Ghash/s with no share solves.

Are you talking about my kernel mod or phatk 2.0? What are your command line options. Try to delete the *.elf files in the phatk directory!

Dia

Sorry for the confusion, that's regarding the 2.0 phatk that came this weekend.

Okay, but then please don't use this thread for phatk 2.0 support . I think you understand that.

Regards,
Dia

[ssateneth]

Alright diapolo, you got your work cut out for you. Phateus fixed the guiminer bug (It was in his kernel. 1 too many #'s in __init__). You do great work; you might want to join forces at this point though

[Tx2000]

Alright diapolo, you got your work cut out for you. Phateus fixed the guiminer bug (It was in his kernel. 1 too many #'s in __init__). You do great work; you might want to join forces at this point though

No way! Competition breeds innovation.