Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 07:00:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin x64 for Windows  (Read 25854 times)
Bitquux
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117



View Profile
July 21, 2010, 08:32:00 PM
 #41

So --- Bitquux, that was Olipro's binary that found the coin?


Negative, that was before the switch. And at this rate, it will be a long time before I can tell if it will. Even if it's a dirty bin it's clever enough to earn a donation.
1480964426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964426
Reply with quote  #2

1480964426
Report to moderator
1480964426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964426
Reply with quote  #2

1480964426
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480964426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964426
Reply with quote  #2

1480964426
Report to moderator
Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 21, 2010, 08:44:26 PM
 #42

So --- Bitquux, that was Olipro's binary that found the coin?


Negative, that was before the switch. And at this rate, it will be a long time before I can tell if it will. Even if it's a dirty bin it's clever enough to earn a donation.

It shouldn't be dirty, the SHA256 is untouched and I don't think the compiler has introduced any errors.
Bitquux
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117



View Profile
July 21, 2010, 08:52:19 PM
 #43

It shouldn't be dirty, the SHA256 is untouched and I don't think the compiler has introduced any errors.

Yes, let me clarify. This is not a dirty bin. There is no reason so far to believe it's anything other than what Olipro says it is. The performance of my previously mentioned machine has even gone up since I first posted those numbers.
knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2010, 08:52:44 PM
 #44

Here's a weird question.. has anyone actually generated a block with this faster version?

I have a few machines that used to regularly generate, and since switching to this version -- zip.  I know these things are subject to random variation, and it could be a dry spell, and the difficulty is going up, but... could it be a bug?

Yes, about 10 so far. The other "regular" clients acknowledge test Coin transfer between the two, so far it appears good. I also have a packet sniffer running on my test machine and it's basically doing what the other clients do, nothing out of the ordinary so far.

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 21, 2010, 09:14:16 PM
 #45

This worked perfectly! On linux and windows if you compile yourself. I went from 380khash/s on one core to over 1200khash/s!

yeah, because dividing a number by 300 instead of 1000 makes it look a lot bigger, doesn't *actually* improve performance.
Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 04:33:50 AM
 #46

OK, I've made a new build of Bitcoin, this one is compiled using the Intel compiler which is considerably more advanced than the standard MS compiler.

Please note this build is 64-bit only since I see no reason to compile a build for 32-bit when most 32-bit processors lack the newer SSE instructions anyway.

Performance? my MSVC build averages about 2400K for me, this averages 2900K so you're looking at an improvement of about 125k per core or thereabouts although this does come at the cost of a larger EXE, improved performance is worth it in my opinion Smiley

My next goal is to see if this PolarSSL SHA256 algo really is faster. for now however, download Bitcoin x64 ICC optimised build here
Ground Loop
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 05:00:15 AM
 #47

Runs about the same speed as the VC++ version here (Xeon, Win7 64-bit).

Bitcoin accepted here: 1HrAmQk9EuH3Ak6ugsw3qi3g23DG6YUNPq
knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2010, 05:27:44 AM
 #48

OK, I've made a new build of Bitcoin, this one is compiled using the Intel compiler which is considerably more advanced than the standard MS compiler.

Please note this build is 64-bit only since I see no reason to compile a build for 32-bit when most 32-bit processors lack the newer SSE instructions anyway.

Performance? my MSVC build averages about 2400K for me, this averages 2900K so you're looking at an improvement of about 125k per core or thereabouts although this does come at the cost of a larger EXE, improved performance is worth it in my opinion Smiley

My next goal is to see if this PolarSSL SHA256 algo really is faster. for now however, download Bitcoin x64 ICC optimised build here
Awesome, gives a 41% speed boost over the stock binary.

My experience so far.

Stock = Stock
Last x64 Build = 28% speed increase over stock
This x64 Build = 41% speed increase over stock

Nice stuff!

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 07:06:24 AM
 #49

Runs about the same speed as the VC++ version here (Xeon, Win7 64-bit).

which Xeon, there's quite a few.

I don't think I need to point this out but here goes anyway: the significance of the performance benefit from using any of my builds will depend entirely on how many cores your computer has.

Also, in case anyone missed it: the PolarSSL algo is *not* faster.

next step... CUDA.
ichi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 07:25:12 AM
 #50

What would I expect for two Xeon 5570?
Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 07:43:34 AM
 #51

What would I expect for two Xeon 5570?

a 4 core processor with hyperthreading... and two of them? a pretty significant performance increase.
Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 09:49:07 AM
 #52

OK, I've made a new EXE, this one seems to get me an extra 100-200k (or about 25-50k per core).

Difference? I modified the ByteSwap function to operate on 64-bit integers; it does this by using the bswap intrinsic on a 64 bit register followed by rotate right through 32 bits to put the result in the correct order. it also initializes the SHA256 vectors using unsigned 64 bit values (however, the actual hashing still uses 32-bit so I doubt this is making much of a difference) and yes, I did convert the 32 bit numbers to 64 bit correctly (i.e. 0x12345678UL 0xabcdef0UL -> 0xabcdef012345678ULL) if that appears wrong to you, think about how little endian machines store 32 bit integers in memory.

anyway, grab it here
Quantumplation
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 01:16:10 PM
 #53

Wow, that tweaked one... I'm getting stunning rates.  I have a quad core Intel laptop.

I have two different number sets, 1 while operating as usual, with other programs running, and one while everything but bitcoin (including explorer.exe) is shut down.
Stock:         x64 v1          x64 v2           x64 v2 Tweaked       
Standard Usage:500-12001000-1800750-15002200-2700
Optimized Usage:1500-18002000-25001500-20002700-3400

O_O

Against my better judgement... 1ADjszXMSRuAUjyy3ShFRy54SyRVrNDgDc
m0mchil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 171


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 02:05:33 PM
 #54

May I kindly ask you, mighty Olipro, to patch bitcoin 0.3.1 or may be 0.3.2? There were some issues in 0.3

knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2010, 02:51:11 PM
 #55

OK, I've made a new EXE, this one seems to get me an extra 100-200k (or about 25-50k per core).

Difference? I modified the ByteSwap function to operate on 64-bit integers; it does this by using the bswap intrinsic on a 64 bit register followed by rotate right through 32 bits to put the result in the correct order. it also initializes the SHA256 vectors using unsigned 64 bit values (however, the actual hashing still uses 32-bit so I doubt this is making much of a difference) and yes, I did convert the 32 bit numbers to 64 bit correctly (i.e. 0x12345678UL 0xabcdef0UL -> 0xabcdef012345678ULL) if that appears wrong to you, think about how little endian machines store 32 bit integers in memory.

anyway, grab it here
I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 03:12:38 PM
 #56

May I kindly ask you, mighty Olipro, to patch bitcoin 0.3.1 or may be 0.3.2? There were some issues in 0.3

my builds are from the latest SVN source code, of course, had you checked the about page, you would notice it clearly states itself as 0.3.2
m0mchil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 171


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 03:23:47 PM
 #57

hmmmmm, that's strange... because I am experiencing the problem already fixed in http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin?view=revision&revision=102

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 04:59:31 PM
 #58

hmmmmm, that's strange... because I am experiencing the problem already fixed in http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin?view=revision&revision=102

then either it got re-broken or he also modified something in wxWidgets itself which I don't have.

on an unrelated note: I have CUDA working for SHA256 hashing... currently the host has to iterate the nonce so performance is terrible, working on moving the whole kit and kaboodle into the card and then performance should be pretty damn sexy.
sgtstein
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 05:24:36 PM
 #59

DEFINITELY in to test CUDA!
Quantumplation
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 05:26:39 PM
 #60

Oli: One alternative is to start the CUDA part hashing with a nonce of MAXINT and subtract one, and the host client start at one and go upwards.  Then, either one could find a hash and you're not repeating work.

Against my better judgement... 1ADjszXMSRuAUjyy3ShFRy54SyRVrNDgDc
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  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!