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

[zimpixa]

SDK 2.1 working for 5h now.

Newest version seems to behave more stable (less delta max-min). Speed is about 0.5MHash higher, but it can be just impression.

[teukon]

Excellent.

It looks like this SDK 2.1 bugfix is popular!  Perhaps now people will stop telling me to use SDK 2.4.

Thanks Diapolo for the fix and I'm glad I was able to help.

[bmgjet]

version 2011-07-06 gives best over all speed. 0.500 faster then my modded one but opening firefox drops speed from 277 down to 233 where my one only drops 2mh/s. Probably just the way phatk works since iv never used the stock one.

version 2011-07-07 is all over the place. jumps between 255-280 without firefox open so don't know if its faster or slower. With firefox its more stable then older version and drops to 252-258

Im using it with poclbm.exe -v -w 256 (128 gave same result) on 6850 overclocked/underclocked and 2.1 SDK.

[BOARBEAR]

I have a feature request

Can you please make it work with intel openCL?

thank you

[Diapolo]

Excellent.

It looks like this SDK 2.1 bugfix is popular!  Perhaps now people will stop telling me to use SDK 2.4.

Thanks Diapolo for the fix and I'm glad I was able to help.

It was only possible to fix it that fast, because you showed me the log files and error output! So we helped eachother, thanks too!

Dia

[Diapolo]

version 2011-07-06 gives best over all speed. 0.500 faster then my modded one but opening firefox drops speed from 277 down to 233 where my one only drops 2mh/s. Probably just the way phatk works since iv never used the stock one.

version 2011-07-07 is all over the place. jumps between 255-280 without firefox open so don't know if its faster or slower. With firefox its more stable then older version and drops to 252-258

Im using it with poclbm.exe -v -w 256 (128 gave same result) on 6850 overclocked/underclocked and 2.1 SDK.

I discovered a MH/sec drop while, using Firefox, too. It has to be related with the new GPU acceleration that FF implemented in 4.0 and up.

[Diapolo]

I have a feature request

Can you please make it work with intel openCL?

thank you

I know that Intel recently released and OpenCL gold SDK ... the kernel uses standard OpenCL commands and an AMD extension only for BFI_INT / BITALIGN. I see no reason why it should not work. Have you got some error logs for me? You know that for Intel it will only use the CPUs!?

Dia

[kwaaak]

Thanks a lot

[r3v3rs3]

2011-07-03 -> 2011-07-07

Wheezy x64, 11.4, SDK 2.4:

Box #1:

- HD5750, 875/300, AGGRESSION=11, 175 MH/s -> 176 MH/s

Box #2:

- HD5750, 900/300, AGGRESSION=11, 181 MH/s -> 183 MH/s
- HD5770, 950/300, AGGRESSION=11, 215 MH/s -> 217 MH/s

XP 32, 11.7 preview, SDK 2.5:

- HD5770, 1000/300, AGGRESSION=12, 222 MH/s -> 223 MH/s
- HD5830, 1050/300, AGGRESSION=9, 337 MH/s -> 337 MH/s

phatk w/ Ma patch -> 2011-07-07

Natty x32, 11.6, SDK 2.4:

- HD5750, 900/300, AGGRESSION=9, 176 MH/s -> 176 MH/s
- HD5770, 950/1200 (going to be RBE'ed to 300 ), AGGRESSION=9, 204 MH/s -> 204 MH/s
- HD5830, 1000/300, AGGRESSION=9, 312 MH/s -> 313 MH/s

phoenix 1.50 w/ common flags: VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256

Nice work, sent some bitcents to 1B6LEGEUu1USreFNaUfvPWLu6JZb7TLivM.

[Diapolo]

Guys, I introduced a small glitch, which produces an OpenCL compiler warning in version 07-07. For stability reasons please change line 77:

old:
u W[123];

new:
u W[124];

I missed sharound(123), which writes to W[123], which is undefined, because it's out of range. Sorry for that!
Will upload a fixed version shortly (only includes the change above and stays 07-07).

Edit:
Download 07-07 fixed: http://www.mediafire.com/?o7jfp60s7xefrg4

Dia

[Tx2000]

Tried it out for the first time and I do see some noticable gains.



5850 @ 970/350
GUIMiner 2011-7-1

poclbm opencl - 410-413Mh
phoenix phatk - 408-413Mh

with your modified kern - 415-416.4Mh



Send a little something your way

[BOARBEAR]

I have a feature request

Can you please make it work with intel openCL?

thank you

I know that Intel recently released and OpenCL gold SDK ... the kernel uses standard OpenCL commands and an AMD extension only for BFI_INT / BITALIGN. I see no reason why it should not work. Have you got some error logs for me? You know that for Intel it will only use the CPUs!?

Dia

I have tried.  Poclum will not run at all.  It crashed upon starting.

I took a look at the code.  I think the comments are messy and some not really helpful.  Do you think its an good idea to 'fix' the comment?  btw comment why you type cast the hex value so other developer wont think its unnecessary and remove it.

[error]

These two changes have taken my 5850s from 345MHash/sec to 360MHash/sec. Very nice.

[Diapolo]

I have a feature request

Can you please make it work with intel openCL?

thank you

I know that Intel recently released and OpenCL gold SDK ... the kernel uses standard OpenCL commands and an AMD extension only for BFI_INT / BITALIGN. I see no reason why it should not work. Have you got some error logs for me? You know that for Intel it will only use the CPUs!?

Dia

I have tried.  Poclum will not run at all.  It crashed upon starting.

I took a look at the code.  I think the comments are messy and some not really helpful.  Do you think its an good idea to 'fix' the comment?  btw comment why you type cast the hex value so other developer wont think its unnecessary and remove it.

Hex-values are type-casted so that the kernel works with AMD 2.1 SDK, which throws an error, if NOT type-casted.
I don't understand what you want to tell me with the "comments are messy" part.

If you get an error log with Intel SDK please post it here, so I can have a look at it.

Dia

[Diapolo]

These two changes have taken my 5850s from 345MHash/sec to 360MHash/sec. Very nice.

5830s seem like THE card for my modded kernel. Great to hear .

Dia

[Vince]

Hi Diapolo!

Great to see you're making progress!
There's one thing that pops into my eye:

you already do:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

why not add the K[60] right into it and remove from upper instruction? Saves a whole instruction and will work 100% ;-)

if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])


Lets see if I can find more ..

[Diapolo]

Hi Diapolo!

Great to see you're making progress!
There's one thing that pops into my eye:

you already do:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

why not add the K[60] right into it and remove from upper instruction? Saves a whole instruction and will work 100% ;-)

if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])


Lets see if I can find more ..

Good idea and works, can't verify via KernelAnalyzer, but seems like a vector addition less.
Will be included in the next version!

Dia

[Vince]

Another addition waiting to be removed:

 Vals[7] = (Vals[3] = (u)0xb956c25b + D1 + s1(4) + ch(4)) + H1;

-> D1 is only used here, so why not add (u)0xb956c25b during precalculation?  

Add

self.state2[3] = np.uint32(self.state2[3] + 0xb956c25b);

to __init__.py, line 77 for me, right behind:

self.calculateF(data)

And remove (u)0xb956c25b from kernel.cl

This also works 100%, no logic change involved here.

[bcforum]

What parameters are you using with phatk?

On my normally aspirated R6970 Lightning I get 419.xMH/s (Ma fix in poclbm):

Code:

-k poclbm DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false

The fastest I've ever gotten with phatk is 403.xMH/s

Code:

-k phatk DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false

Any suggestions?

[huayra.agera]

I hope you can make an optimization for the next OCL version (v2.5 (684.212)) available in beta form already. =)