[REMOVED]

[losh11]

[REMOVED]

[1713434250]

1713434250

[1713434250]

1713434250

[1713434250]

1713434250

[tytanick]

if i am correct, openCL is extension that only works on gpu, .
cpu dont need that extension because it nativly supports all operations.
if you want gpu to make calculations, then you will eed openCL
so cpu and openCL ? wtf ... nooo

[atavacron]

If I understand Intel correctly it does appear that you can run OpenCL on Intel® Core™ Processors.  It might be an interesting project but I wouldn't bet on it beating a GPU, that is unless you had a server farm and a wad of cash for power.

Intel® SDK for OpenCL* Applications 2013
http://software.intel.com/en-us/vcsource/tools/opencl-sdk



 

[ssvb]

Good luck trying to beat cpuminer when you are hindered by an extra abstraction layer and can't use assembly instructions directly

[Dipnoi]

Good luck trying to beat cpuminer when you are hindered by an extra abstraction layer and can't use assembly instructions directly

I agree. Also a GPU will always be faster, unless you have something like a Xeon Phi.

[3gghead]

There's no reason to force a choice between CPU and GPU and opencl is likely the best choice for scheduling and partitioning the work.  A couple CPU cores could be used to pre-initialize the initial work state before being queued for hashing in a GPU command queue.  If it's a CPU-only kernel, you can still make use of calls to inline-assembly in the host program for the opencl kernel(s) if you want (and can do better than SSEx optimization).  Have fun with it.