Tx2000
|
|
August 09, 2011, 03:17:15 AM |
|
Catalyst 11.4 / SDK 2.4 Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m
-k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12
2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s 2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s
|
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 09, 2011, 04:08:22 AM |
|
Catalyst 11.4 / SDK 2.4 Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m
-k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12
2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s 2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s
Damn those are some good hashrates for the core. I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
metacontent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
August 09, 2011, 05:50:56 AM |
|
Hey, I've been using this modified kernel for a couple weeks now, I quite like it, just wanted to say thanks.
|
|
|
|
teukon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1011
|
|
August 09, 2011, 07:00:39 AM |
|
Catalyst 11.4 / SDK 2.4 Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m
-k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12
2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s 2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s
Damn those are some good hashrates for the core. I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell. Yeah - seriously! I've come up against this before when trying to find the maximum hash-rate for a 1GHz 5850 and ended up being well and truly trumped by a Windows user with Catalyst 11.4. I may have to try playing with this version of Catalyst again.
|
|
|
|
BOARBEAR
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
August 09, 2011, 07:06:47 AM |
|
something wrong with kernel 2.2
i get 330 MHs using 2.2 410 MHs using kernel 2.1
card AMD 5870 clock at 900 Mhz
using 11.8 beta driver with SDK2.5
|
|
|
|
bcforum
|
|
August 09, 2011, 10:30:53 AM |
|
Ubuntu 10.10 Cata 11.3 SDK 2.4 6970x2 OC 940,1375
Phoenix-r112 (Diapolo 7-17 w/ Vals[7] patch) 422.8MH/s Phatk-2.2 423.3MH/s
So up 0.5MH/s, sent you my profits for the week.
|
If you found this post useful, feel free to share the wealth: 1E35gTBmJzPNJ3v72DX4wu4YtvHTWqNRbM
|
|
|
BOARBEAR
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
August 09, 2011, 05:06:12 PM |
|
I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2
|
|
|
|
ssateneth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 09, 2011, 05:40:16 PM |
|
I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2
Same. Using VECTORS4 drops my hash rate from 385 to 310 on my 5870. Using VECTORS WORKSIZE=128 brings it back up to about 380.
|
|
|
|
Phateus (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
August 09, 2011, 08:33:43 PM |
|
I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2
I optimize the code for VECTORS, so probably making it faster in 2.2 made VECTORS4 slower. I can't really optimize the kernel for both, so I would just stick with version 2.1 if that is faster for you. And everyone, thanks for your support, every little bit helps
|
|
|
|
jedi95
|
|
August 09, 2011, 08:57:30 PM |
|
I found that VECTER4 option does not work for version 2.2
Same. Using VECTORS4 drops my hash rate from 385 to 310 on my 5870. Using VECTORS WORKSIZE=128 brings it back up to about 380. This is probably because of the increased GPR usage of the VECTORS4 code. According to KernelAnalyzer VECTORS4 uses 2707 ALU OPS and 33 GPRs. This is compared with VECTORS which is 1355 ALU OPS and only 23 GPRs. Theoretically VECTORS4 would be faster, since it tests twice the number of nonces using 3 fewer ALU OPS than 2 executions of VECTORS. However, if the GPU runs out of GPRs then this limits the number of threads that can be running at once, which is what causes the performance drop. (Above ALU OPS and GPR numbers are for Cypress, AKA 58xx) VECTORS4 might be faster for 69xx users though, when combined with a smaller WORKSIZE. EDIT: Just looked at the 2.1 version and it uses even more GPRs with VECTORS4 than 2.2 does. (35 GPRs, 1358 ALU OPS) I'm not quite sure how it can be faster than 2.2.
|
Phoenix Miner developer Donations appreciated at: 1PHoenix9j9J3M6v3VQYWeXrHPPjf7y3rU
|
|
|
metacontent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
August 09, 2011, 09:16:34 PM |
|
Why not make two separate kernels then?
VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?
|
|
|
|
bcforum
|
|
August 09, 2011, 10:40:58 PM |
|
VECTORS4 might be faster for 69xx users though, when combined with a smaller WORKSIZE.
Ubuntu 10.10 Catalyst 11.3 SDK 2.4 6970 @ 940,1375 Phatk 2.2 315.5MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false 414.2MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false 321.1MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS4 FASTLOOP=false
422.8MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false 423.5MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=128 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false 420.9MH/s DEVICE=0 AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 VECTORS FASTLOOP=false
|
If you found this post useful, feel free to share the wealth: 1E35gTBmJzPNJ3v72DX4wu4YtvHTWqNRbM
|
|
|
Phateus (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
August 09, 2011, 10:43:16 PM |
|
Why not make two separate kernels then?
VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?
Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations. I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels. If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like. Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4. Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory). Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock). -Phateus
|
|
|
|
metacontent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
August 09, 2011, 11:00:04 PM |
|
Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).
I think for the foreseeable future those cards will be doing the lions share of the work, so I would say you are on the right track.
|
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
|
August 09, 2011, 11:44:27 PM |
|
Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock).
I think for the foreseeable future those cards will be doing the lions share of the work, so I would say you are on the right track. +1
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
Tx2000
|
|
August 10, 2011, 12:32:41 AM |
|
Catalyst 11.4 / SDK 2.4 Ref 5850 @ 920c/320m
-k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=12
2.1: 399.27 to 399.63 Mh/s 2.2: 399.87 to 400.17 Mh/s
Damn those are some good hashrates for the core. I think i will setup cat 11.4 aswell and test my card mem out at 320, my cores running between 1050-1150(for the extreme voltmodded version) all hd5850's aswell. Yea beats me =/ I haven't been able to get my second 5850 (new 230SA Sapphire 5850 Xtreme) to achieve the same results. In fact, it seems to hate SDK 2.4.
|
|
|
|
|
BOARBEAR
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
August 10, 2011, 09:40:16 AM |
|
Why not make two separate kernels then?
VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?
Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations. I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels. If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like. Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4. Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory). Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock). -Phateus the thing is, VECTORS4 worked perfectly for me in version 2.1 in version 2.2 its broken
|
|
|
|
Phateus (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
August 10, 2011, 04:21:30 PM |
|
Why not make two separate kernels then?
VECTORS4 might one day be the better alternative, instead of doing all that work then why not start now and keep pace?
Because I have literally put in over 100 hours on the main kernel and have gotten almost nothing in donations. I just don't have the time to keep up with two kernels. If anyone feels like making a VECTORS4 branch, go for it... the source code is in the public domain and you can use how you'd like. Also, from what I've gathered, there may be only 1 or 2 people interested it... If you can lower your memory speed, I think VECTORS will always be faster than VECTORS4. Now, I do like hearing feedback from everyone. I am just letting you know that it is not feasible to optimize the kernel for every possible configuration (SDK 2.1, 2.4, slow memory). Right now, the kernel is optimized for SDK 2.5 and the 68xx and 5xxx cards and assuming you pick the best memory clock speed for your card (somewhere around 1/3 of your core clock). -Phateus the thing is, VECTORS4 worked perfectly for me in version 2.1 in version 2.2 its broken As in it doesn't work at all, or that it is much slower?... Just use version 2.1 then
|
|
|
|
huayra.agera
|
|
August 10, 2011, 04:43:21 PM |
|
Hi! Just used v2.2 and it increased my hashrate by 3 Mhash compared to Diapolo's. From 402 > 405. Vectors4 seemed to drop the hashrate significantly on my 5850 by 50 Mhash. Great work to you guys and we are very grateful =).
I think the mods should create a Child Board under Mining support and name it "Mods" or Tweaks I guess and put this thread there.
|
BTC: 1JMPScxohom4MXy9X1Vgj8AGwcHjT8XTuy
|
|
|
|