Modified Kernel for Phoenix 1.5

[JWU42]

Tried on 5970 (using 2.1 though so didn't expect much).

367 - poclbm
362 - phatk

[1713500408]

1713500408

[1713500408]

1713500408

[1713500408]

1713500408

[gmaxwell]

On a stock 5870 at AGRESSION=12, I get 371 (vs. 353 with the default kernel) and O/C at 1GHz i get  438 (vs. 420 with the default kernel)
With VECTORS and BFI_INT it compiles to 1418 ALU ops for 2 hashes.
[snip]
Id you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv

On 5870 900/300 383.17 -> 398.16
On the 5850s 852/284  327.12 -> 340.90

CLI:
DISPLAY=:0.0 python phoenix.py -q 2 -u http://15xWuDHSyKzpvp6FacGKXijBeaaaYhKWSi:x@pool.bitcoin.dashjr.org:8337/ -k phatk DEVICE=$1 AGGRESSION=13 WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS BFI_INT

SDK 2.4

While screwing around with memory settings previously I found that having an integer ratio of clock to mem made a fair improvement, around 3MH/s with the old kernel vs being near but not quite.  I wasn't sure if this was chance or something substantive, but considering that I'm seeing better improvements (and performance) than some others I thought I'd mention it.

Phateus, you have my thanks and a donation of a day worth of the income improvement your code brought me.

[OtaconEmmerich]

poclbm(GUI Miner) 200MHs (-v -w64 -f0)
phatk 210MHs (BFI_INT VECTORS FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=12)

This is on a 5770@955/300
I'd say that's worth a small donation from me.
I should try out Diablo miner next, maybe after his upcoming upgrade he may beat your kernel.

[nster]

On a stock 5870 at AGRESSION=12, I get 371 (vs. 353 with the default kernel) and O/C at 1GHz i get  438 (vs. 420 with the default kernel)
With VECTORS and BFI_INT it compiles to 1418 ALU ops for 2 hashes.
[snip]
Id you're feeling generous, any donations would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to put out bitcoin related software:
124RraPqYcEpX5qFcQ2ZBVD9MqUamfyQnv

On 5870 900/300 383.17 -> 398.16
On the 5850s 852/284  327.12 -> 340.90

CLI:
DISPLAY=:0.0 python phoenix.py -q 2 -u http://15xWuDHSyKzpvp6FacGKXijBeaaaYhKWSi:x@pool.bitcoin.dashjr.org:8337/ -k phatk DEVICE=$1 AGGRESSION=13 WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS BFI_INT

SDK 2.4

While screwing around with memory settings previously I found that having an integer ratio of clock to mem made a fair improvement, around 3MH/s with the old kernel vs being near but not quite.  I wasn't sure if this was chance or something substantive, but considering that I'm seeing better improvements (and performance) than some others I thought I'd mention it.

Phateus, you have my thanks and a donation of a day worth of the income improvement your code brought me.

not for me, 1020/344 has about 5Mh/s advantage over 1020/340 and another 5Mh/s than 1020/510

[fpgaminer]

I ran this new kernel against stock poclbm using my 5970. Although the MHash/s was +10 for the modified kernel, it ended up getting less accepted shares in the long run (several hours). That may just be terrible luck, but I tried it twice; once under Windows, and then under Ubuntu. Both times for several hours. Both times with the same results (stock poclbm with more accepted shares).




I have not tried swapping which core the respective kernels were running on, but it's been enough downtime for me today 

[Melvin132]

Seems to work great with the 5850 as well. Got my average Mh/s by by an average of 10-15, Using 6 cards that's really respectable.

[Clavulanic]

2x 5870's "-k poclbm device=1 WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS BFI_INT AGGRESSION=7 FASTLOOP  " core on both is at 935.
I got 385mhash on both with poclbm and now i'm getting 398 on both with phatk.

Does fastloop work with this or not? I'm working on upping my aggression and overclocking still.

[ataranlen]

I've just switched to this kernal, Seeing a 10% increase on all GPU's

2x 5870x2's at 950mhz core, getting 407-412mhash/s

Now I want to see just how much I can pull from these with your kernal, so I can update my listings on the wiki! Its only 3am, and I work at 6am, I'm sure I have time to finish xD

[Enky1974]

Poclbm last version = 396         -f 60 -v  -w128          gpu load 98%
phoenix tweaked kernel = 406   aggression 7 fastloop   gpu load 97%

ati 5870 sapphire 1gb ddr3
@950/@333
sdk 2.3
catalyst 11.4

[jedi95]

2x 5870's "-k poclbm device=1 WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS BFI_INT AGGRESSION=7 FASTLOOP  " core on both is at 935.
I got 385mhash on both with poclbm and now i'm getting 398 on both with phatk.

Does fastloop work with this or not? I'm working on upping my aggression and overclocking still.

It does, but it has the same behavior as the poclbm kernel included in Phoenix 1.4. This means it doesn't have as much of a speed benefit at low aggression and it causes stale shares if used with high aggression.

[gmaxwell]

I ran this new kernel against stock poclbm using my 5970. Although the MHash/s was +10 for the modified kernel, it ended up getting less accepted shares in the long run (several hours). That may just be terrible luck, but I tried it twice; once under Windows, and then under Ubuntu. Both times for several hours. Both times with the same results (stock poclbm with more accepted shares).


I have not tried swapping which core the respective kernels were running on, but it's been enough downtime for me today  

I'm in a position to speak objectively about this as I log all my found shares.

More data would helpful, but it's only run for a few hours. Ideally I would have collected data from two cards in parallel over the same time to isolate network effects, instead I'll just exclude the extreme outliers (>90s).

Using the 1814 shares before the change and 1814 since the change on a single node (the 5870), I found that the mean time between shares before was 11.127  seconds and the mean time after was 10.8.  This difference is not large enough to make the 95% confidence intervals assuming an exponential distribution, and a permutation test finds only p=0.369, so with this amount of data I can't say it made it better for _sure_ but it's certainly more likely than not, and it's also very unlikely to have made it worse.

10.8 seconds at difficulty 1 implies 397,688,225 h/s and 11.127 implies 386,000,973 h/s, which is basically what the tool shows... well, a little less— it looks like the performance was overstated a bit before and its less so now?

(The formula for hashrate from share gaps is 281474976710656/(65535*seconds)=h/s)

[jedi95]

I have uploaded a modified version of phatk to the Phoenix SVN. The main difference is that it now has the same FASTLOOP improvements as the poclbm kernel from 1.45.

Performance should be around the same except at low aggression.
Download

[Clavulanic]

I have uploaded a modified version of phatk to the Phoenix SVN. The main difference is that it now has the same FASTLOOP improvements as the poclbm kernel from 1.45.

Performance should be around the same except at low aggression.
Download

I didn't realize something had changed with fastloop. Neat.
Same rule applies though is what you're saying right? fastloop at < or = to aggression 7, no fastloop above 7.

[Phateus]

I have uploaded a modified version of phatk to the Phoenix SVN. The main difference is that it now has the same FASTLOOP improvements as the poclbm kernel from 1.45.

Performance should be around the same except at low aggression.
Download

Awesome, thanks .  I didn't even notice that you changed that code.

And everyone, thanks for informational and BTC support.  It's really really appreciated.

[Herodes]

On 5970 it seems to increase the hashing rate with 3-4%. More coins your way.

[drcoin]

Using latest catalyst drivers with 2.4 on 5830 @974/298 with AGGRESSION=12 BFI_INT VECTORS FASTLOOP=false:

poclbm: 290 Mhash/s
phatk: 301Mhash/s

Nice work!

Edit: Tweaked memory clock - seems to peak around 335Mhz at 302.5 Mhash/s.

[Tyran]

Decided to give SDK 2.4 a try on my 5770, and I can confirm that this kernel is indeed ~11 mhash/sec faster than the default one, but it is not enough to make up for the 2.1 -> 2.4 loss

[OtaconEmmerich]

Decided to give SDK 2.4 a try on my 5770, and I can confirm that this kernel is indeed ~11 mhash/sec faster than the default one, but it is not enough to make up for the 2.1 -> 2.4 loss

Is 2.1 that much better? I really don't want to use old drivers just to get SDK 2.1, Can you use SKD 2.1 on 11.5? Last time I tried that it was exactly the same speed.

[gmaxwell]

Decided to give SDK 2.4 a try on my 5770, and I can confirm that this kernel is indeed ~11 mhash/sec faster than the default one, but it is not enough to make up for the 2.1 -> 2.4 loss

Is 2.1 that much better? I really don't want to use old drivers just to get SDK 2.1, Can you use SKD 2.1 on 11.5? Last time I tried that it was exactly the same speed.

People posting numbers from 2.1 appear to be lower than mine on 2.4.

[OtaconEmmerich]

Decided to give SDK 2.4 a try on my 5770, and I can confirm that this kernel is indeed ~11 mhash/sec faster than the default one, but it is not enough to make up for the 2.1 -> 2.4 loss

Is 2.1 that much better? I really don't want to use old drivers just to get SDK 2.1, Can you use SKD 2.1 on 11.5? Last time I tried that it was exactly the same speed.

People posting numbers from 2.1 appear to be lower than mine on 2.4.

So many conflicting reports..Bah!