How high can you get

Moderator: BarsMonster

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:10 pm

Crucifix wrote:
Sc00bz wrote:Isn't there a 8 GPU limit with CUDA.
I dunno if CUDA has any specific GPU limitation.

I know for a fact Windows will not boot if there are more than 8 active GPUs.
Guess I'll find out in a week.

User avatar
LordMike
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:34 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by LordMike » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:40 am

Crucifix wrote:
Sc00bz wrote:Isn't there a 8 GPU limit with CUDA.
I dunno if CUDA has any specific GPU limitation.

I know for a fact Windows will not boot if there are more than 8 active GPUs.
lol.. Why?

DarkPrince
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:50 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by DarkPrince » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:53 am

lol cuz as u can see on his print sceens he has 8 GPUs, so i guess he is buying anotherone then ^^

Crucifix
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by Crucifix » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:03 pm

LordMike wrote:
Crucifix wrote:
Sc00bz wrote:Isn't there a 8 GPU limit with CUDA.
I dunno if CUDA has any specific GPU limitation.

I know for a fact Windows will not boot if there are more than 8 active GPUs.
lol.. Why?
Bear in mind that windows, especially XP, is a product of 2002. At the time more than 8 GPUs would sound insane.

The way I understand it, even if your motherboard BIOS actually supports more than 8 gpus, windows itself is not capable of recognizing them and you will not get past the XP boot screen.

I guess D3ad0ne will be able to tell us in a little bit if he gets his rig up and running.

By the way, just browsing and I came across this:

http://estoniadonates.wordpress.com/our-supercomputer/

How'd you like to see that puppy in BARS? :shock:

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:32 pm

By the way, just browsing and I came across this:
http://estoniadonates.wordpress.com/our-supercomputer/
How'd you like to see that puppy in BARS? :shock:
Guess you haven't seen this - http://atlasfolding.com/?page_id=148 unfortunately it would only work with distributed software.

And my current motherboard has 7 PCI-E 16X slots, if you fill all 7(four are filled now) slots some will default to 8x mode. I am currently running XP 64, so you may be right it may not load into windows with more than 8, however does that mean more than 8 attached video adapters, or more than 8 active adapters. Because under display properties>settings I currently only show 5 monitors. But CUDA detects all 8.

In any case I ordered two things one a pci-e 16x slot riser, and a 16x extender w/ cable. The riser will raise one card up about a half an inch off the motherboard, allowing me to put the extender cable in, the cable will run in between the two cards allowing me plug in the extra card above the other ones. I will fabricate a bracket that will suspend the extra card above the others.

If the extra card is not detected by the OS or windows xp does not load I will try it with windows 7. I am already aware that vista does not yet have drivers that will support more than 5 cards. If this one extra card does work I will be able to physically install two more GTX 295 for a total of 7 GTX 295's or 14 GPU's. I only currently have one extender, and riser on order to see if it is even possible.

If it doesn't work oh well no big loss, I will be replacing the 295s with 300 series cards when they come out anyway, and eventually the 395s when they are out so if there is some kind of limit on the amount of GPU's at least processing power will go up.
Attachments
current rig.JPG

Crucifix
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by Crucifix » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:47 am

D3ad0ne wrote:
By the way, just browsing and I came across this:
http://estoniadonates.wordpress.com/our-supercomputer/
How'd you like to see that puppy in BARS? :shock:
Guess you haven't seen this - http://atlasfolding.com/?page_id=148 unfortunately it would only work with distributed software.
Man, i envy these people with amazing boxes. Here I am with an HD 3870 and a pentium d....

so you may be right it may not load into windows with more than 8, however does that mean more than 8 attached video adapters, or more than 8 active adapters. Because under display properties>settings I currently only show 5 monitors.
My impression is that it means 8 functioning GPUs, regardless of whether or not they are attached to active adapters. Which means that theoretically you could have 8 single-gpu cards or 4 dual-gpu cards (as you have now), but no more.

There is a lot of good fun to be had with PCI riser cables, that is for sure. One of my personal favorite "home-cooked" rigs:

http://www.overclock.net/overclock-net- ... chine.html

Anyways, good luck on your super box -- let us know how it works out :!:

User avatar
LordMike
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:34 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by LordMike » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:36 am

What about Tetra cards then?..
The NVidia workhorse things... Dunno if I got the name right. :P

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:53 pm

What about Tetra cards then?..
The NVidia workhorse things... Dunno if I got the name right.
LordMike are you talking about the Tesla cards? GeForce cards are faster and have more stream processors well at least the 295s do, and are about 1/4th the price.

User avatar
LordMike
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:34 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by LordMike » Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:33 pm

D3ad0ne wrote:
What about Tetra cards then?..
The NVidia workhorse things... Dunno if I got the name right.
LordMike are you talking about the Tesla cards? GeForce cards are faster and have more stream processors well at least the 295s do, and are about 1/4th the price.
Ah, yea. :)
That's weak, really.. Aren't the workhorses supposed to be faster than the mules?... :P

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:56 pm

What about Tetra cards then?..
LordMike I'm not sure if you meant to imply this or not, but you may be on to something! Nvidia Tesla cards may not be considered video adapters, they don't even have a video cable port. If that is the case you may be able to have a machine with 4 GTX 295s and 3 Tesla cards. They are going for at least about $700 each on Ebay, so for the price of two you could have over 3 295's. If my experiment with the extension cables fail I may look at getting a Tesla.

User avatar
LordMike
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:34 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by LordMike » Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:09 am

D3ad0ne wrote:
What about Tetra cards then?..
LordMike I'm not sure if you meant to imply this or not, but you may be on to something! Nvidia Tesla cards may not be considered video adapters, they don't even have a video cable port. If that is the case you may be able to have a machine with 4 GTX 295s and 3 Tesla cards. They are going for at least about $700 each on Ebay, so for the price of two you could have over 3 295's. If my experiment with the extension cables fail I may look at getting a Tesla.
So what's the advantage of Tesla cards, besides the fact that you can boot XP with over 8 of them?

Sc00bz
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:28 am
Contact:

Re: How high can you get

Post by Sc00bz » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:11 am

C1060 is a GTX 280 with more ram (4 GiB vs 1 GiB), slower memory bandwidth ("102 GB/s" (I calculated this to be 1/2 that so it might be wrong or it can do 2 request per clock) vs 141.7 GiB/s), and less power consumption (187.8 W vs 236 W).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... 200_Series
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_te ... 60_us.html

Ohh weird wikipedia says the memory clock for the C1060 is 1600 MHz but nvidia says 800 MHz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... nits#Tesla

IvanG
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:42 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by IvanG » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:23 am

D3ad0ne wrote:If my experiment with the extension cables fail I may look at getting a Tesla.
I'm kinda curious how experiments with cables ends ;). Is a first 9+ GPUs system exists?

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by D3ad0ne » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:14 am

Hey IvanG, I'm still waiting on the cable. I guess it's coming from China. This is the one that I ordered - http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0386683283 I already have the riser card. I was notified that it was shipped on the 17th, tomorrow will be two weeks. I expect it here within a day or two. In any case if the nine cards don't work I will still have the cables and stuff for the 380's when they come out in Q1 of 2010. Since the 380's are single cards I will be able to get a max of 7 without any BIOS, Driver, or OS limitations. I will probably sell two or three of the 295's to help offset the cost. Also I have been reading and the core i9's will be coming out in Q1 or Q2 . I can only imagine 12 virtual CPU cores and 7 GTX 380's..

GTX 380 = 1955.38 Million H/sec each card
i9 = ~40 Million H/sec each core at a speed of about 3.6Ghz
1955.38 X 7 = 13687.64
40 X 12 = 480
480 + 13687.64 = total 14167.64 Million hashes a sec for single hash speed.

I usually get around 3.4 B/sec with 50k list, down from a max of 6B/sec, so a little over half. I would expect around 7B/sec using larger hash list. The nice thing is that the numbers are pretty solid. So it's only a matter of time...

User avatar
LordMike
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:34 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re:

Post by LordMike » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:53 am

D3ad0ne wrote:Hey IvanG, I'm still waiting on the cable. I guess it's coming from China. This is the one that I ordered - http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0386683283 I already have the riser card. I was notified that it was shipped on the 17th, tomorrow will be two weeks. I expect it here within a day or two. In any case if the nine cards don't work I will still have the cables and stuff for the 380's when they come out in Q1 of 2010. Since the 380's are single cards I will be able to get a max of 7 without any BIOS, Driver, or OS limitations. I will probably sell two or three of the 295's to help offset the cost. Also I have been reading and the core i9's will be coming out in Q1 or Q2 . I can only imagine 12 virtual CPU cores and 7 GTX 380's..

GTX 380 = 1955.38 Million H/sec each card
i9 = ~40 Million H/sec each core at a speed of about 3.6Ghz
1955.38 X 7 = 13687.64
40 X 12 = 480
480 + 13687.64 = total 14167.64 Million hashes a sec for single hash speed.

I usually get around 3.4 B/sec with 50k list, down from a max of 6B/sec, so a little over half. I would expect around 7B/sec using larger hash list. The nice thing is that the numbers are pretty solid. So it's only a matter of time...
Duuuude....

mrb
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:04 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re:

Post by mrb » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:58 am

D3ad0ne wrote: I can only imagine 12 virtual CPU cores and 7 GTX 380's..

GTX 380 = 1955.38 Million H/sec each card
i9 = ~40 Million H/sec each core at a speed of about 3.6Ghz
1955.38 X 7 = 13687.64
40 X 12 = 480
480 + 13687.64 = total 14167.64 Million hashes a sec for single hash speed.

I usually get around 3.4 B/sec with 50k list, down from a max of 6B/sec, so a little over half. I would expect around 7B/sec using larger hash list. The nice thing is that the numbers are pretty solid. So it's only a matter of time...
Your numbers are far from solid. In fact they are way off!

Fermi's shaders are going to be clocked between 1.0 and 1.2 GHz if you translate the double-precision GLOPS perf rating to GHz, according to Nvidia themselves based on this 2-week old press release about Fermi-based Tesla products (divide the GFLOPS rating by 512). Consumer-grade Fermi-based GTX cards are going to have the same number of SPs and same shader clock frequency --just like C1060 was equiv to GTX 280, and S1070 was equiv to 4 x GTX 275 within a 2.5% clock freq. 512 SPs at 1000-1200 MHz translate to only about 1210-1460 Mhash/sec in BarsWF. Therefore 7 cards will reach a speed of only 8.47-10.22 Ghash/sec.

Not only Fermi-based GTX cards are 4-6 months away, but you can already achieve that speed today with only 2 HD 5970: ~8.4 Ghash/sec with ighashgpu. Apparently the HD 5xxx series support 8 GPUs per system (unverified), so 4 HD 5970 would reach 16.8 Ghash/sec.

Conclusion: if you want a high-perf cracking beast, go with ATI not Nvidia :ugeek:

IvanG
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:42 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re:

Post by IvanG » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:53 am

D3ad0ne wrote:I can only imagine 12 virtual CPU cores and 7 GTX 380's..
I guess you'll need some serious cooling system in your room. And you're a maniac btw :lol:.
D3ad0ne wrote:I usually get around 3.4 B/sec with 50k list, down from a max of 6B/sec, so a little over half. I would expect around 7B/sec using larger hash list. The nice thing is that the numbers are pretty solid. So it's only a matter of time...
Shader clocks for GT300's (or GF100?) will be probably slower than for current GT200's but from other side MIMD can be useful for multihashing as well as new L1/2 Fermi caching subsystem. So it's kinda hard to predict real numbers here.
mrb wrote:Not only Fermi-based GTX cards are 4-6 months away, but you can already achieve that speed today with only 2 HD 5970: ~8.4 Ghash/sec with ighashgpu. Apparently the HD 5xxx series support 8 GPUs per system (unverified), so 4 HD 5970 would reach 16.8 Ghash/sec.
Problem with ATI is that too many theory about their GPUs while too few practical results. It's possible to reach 4.3B on 5970 for single md5 hash but for list with 75K hashes speed dropped 3x times to only 1.4B. And with larger lists it becoming even worse. So with 2x5970 you'll get lower results than with 4xGTX295. And AFAIK there still serious problems with adding more than 4 ATI GPUs to system, ATI keeps silence about this, usually it means that they simply don't care == it won't be fixed before 6000 series as it happens with 4870x2's.

Shortly, I'm (as ighashgpu's author :)) don't recommend to invest into 5970's right now, better wait for more info from nVidia and/or some SDK/driver fixes from ATI.

mrb
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:04 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by mrb » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:58 pm

It's possible to reach 4.3B on 5970 for single md5 hash but for list with 75K hashes speed dropped 3x times to only 1.4B. And with larger lists it becoming even worse
We were talking about single-hash perf. You are right about multi-hash which is a whole different thing. However we all know it sucks because ATI doesn't let Brook+ kernels access the local data share. Without it you can't implement the techniques described by Bars and Bitweasil/Syonyk. Once this is resolved, the gap between single-hash and multi-hash perf will be closed...

IvanG
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:42 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by IvanG » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:57 pm

mrb wrote:However we all know it sucks because ATI doesn't let Brook+ kernels access the local data share. Without it you can't implement the techniques described by Bars and Bitweasil/Syonyk. Once this is resolved, the gap between single-hash and multi-hash perf will be closed...
Actually it's not Brook+ issue (never used it, only CAL/IL). It's not a problem to access LDS even with Brook+ but it won't helps a lot.

Main problem right now that HD 5000's memory fetching working worse than HD 4000's one. And there no explanations from ATI why it happens and will they fix this with drivers or there are some hardware issues or we need to use different memory fetching strategy or something else.

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:00 pm

Well it looks like someone removed all 300 series specs from the GeForce comparison wiki, thats where I got the clocks from. If indeed the clock is only running at 1230Mhz that seems rather low for the 40nm fab. However going from 6B/sec to nearly 11B/sec is nothing to shake a stick at.

The Geforce 300 series wiki states
On 30 September 2009, Nvidia released a white paper describing the architecture the chip features 16 'Shader Clusters' each with 32 'Shader Cores' capable of one single-precision operation per cycle or one double-precision operation every other cycle
I have read the white paper, and it does talk about having a dual warp scheduler that states.
Most instructions can be dual issued; two integer instructions, two floating instructions, or a
mix of integer, floating point, load, store, and SFU instructions can be issued concurrently.
Double precision instructions do not support dual dispatch with any other operation.
This does seem to imply that it will only do 629.76 Billion integer operations a sec. It is however doing FMA operations instead of MAD operations so I don't know if that will improve performance at all.

As far as the ATI vs NVidia goes it's already been said several times but there are so many more apps out there that use CUDA over ATI. I would genuinely like to see someone top 6B/sec with a single ATI machine. Likewise compete with a full 300 series machine when they come out. I seriously considered going to ATI when the 58/9K series came out but weighing the extra algorithms / options available I decided to stick with Nvidia.
I guess you'll need some serious cooling system in your room. And you're a maniac btw .

Yes I have installed a dedicated A/C unit in the computer room, and this weekend installed a dedicated curcuit for power to the machine(no more popping fuses).

mrb
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:04 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by mrb » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:18 pm

IvanG wrote: Actually it's not Brook+ issue (never used it, only CAL/IL). It's not a problem to access LDS even with Brook+ but it won't helps a lot.

Main problem right now that HD 5000's memory fetching working worse than HD 4000's one. And there no explanations from ATI why it happens and will they fix this with drivers or there are some hardware issues or we need to use different memory fetching strategy or something else.
Yes the HD 5000 32kB LDS would help a lot! With a list of 50k passwords, the LDS can be used to reduce memory fetches by a factor of 5x if you used it as a bitmap-based hash table to filter out unnecessary memory accesses (32768*8/50000).

So bottom line your code base is inefficient by not using the LDS and this design flaw is magnified by what appears to be a driver issue (CAL compiler unoptimized/unaware of the HD 5000 specifics generating the same code as HD 4000).

Trust me, use the LDS and you won't see a 3x drop with 75k passwords...
D3ad0ne wrote: However going from 6B/sec to nearly 11B/sec is nothing to shake a stick at.
Don't forget power consumption too. 7 theoretical Fermi cards achieving 8.47-10.22 Ghash/sec means 6.05-7.3 Mhash/Watt (assuming 200W per card). Whereas 2 HD 5970 (294 Watt each) achieving 8.4 Ghash/sec means 14.3 Mhash/Watt. Because energy costs dwarf hw costs on the long term (12+ months), this 2x perf/Watt ATI advantage does matter... I am sure that given your power issues (dedicated circuit, etc), you would appreciate being able to crack hashes twice faster ATI without increasing your power consumption at all ;)

Regarding the dual warp scheduler, yes I was aware of it doesn't change my numbers. A warp scheduler can only issue instructions to 16 ALUs (out of the 32 in the SIMD). Therefore the dual ward scheduler setup will lead to a SIMD issuing 32 instructions to 32 ALUs per cycle, just like the current GT200 generation (N instructions to N ALUs, but N = 8).

I agree with you that if you are only an enduser, it may be sensible to favor Nvidia hw right now because the CUDA ecosystem is way more mature. However for developers like IvanG and I, it makes more sense to focus on ATI because of the enormous untapped potential perf. Keep this in mind before investing too much $$$ in an Nvidia-only cluster. I migh decide to give you a little competition to Hash Crackers and will be able to offer rates half yours with the help of ATI... hum not a bad idea :D

D3ad0ne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by D3ad0ne » Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:18 pm

you would appreciate being able to crack hashes twice faster (with) ATI
Yes I would and if you, Ivan, or anyone else wants to make a program that will support the hashing algorithms I need then I would switch, I'm not a fanboy by any means.
I might decide to give you a little competition to Hash Crackers and will be able to offer rates half yours with the help of ATI
I do hashcrackers in my spare time. I have by no means recouped the cost of hardware. If you can come up with a better business model then “for the fun of it” then by all means. Some of the hardware gets used for other things when it's not hash cracking (3D vision gaming, F@H, encoding), remember I have more then just one machine. I have considered having both ATI and NVidia systems, and I'm currently working on building another i7 machine, just need processor + vid cards. Perhaps I will run 2 X 5970's.... actually thats not bad idea. :ugeek:

IvanG
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:42 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by IvanG » Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm

mrb wrote:Yes the HD 5000 32kB LDS would help a lot! With a list of 50k passwords, the LDS can be used to reduce memory fetches by a factor of 5x if you used it as a bitmap-based hash table to filter out unnecessary memory accesses (32768*8/50000).

So bottom line your code base is inefficient by not using the LDS and this design flaw is magnified by what appears to be a driver issue (CAL compiler unoptimized/unaware of the HD 5000 specifics generating the same code as HD 4000).

Trust me, use the LDS and you won't see a 3x drop with 75k passwords...
Again, it's not a LDS issue. We don't need LDS for single hash at all. It's "memory access model changed with 5000 but still undocumented because ATI don't care" issue. With 4000 it was ok to use

Code: Select all

dcl_resource_id(0)_type(1d,unnorm)_fmtx(float)_fmty(float)_fmtz(float)_fmtw(float)
	sample_resource(0)_sampler(0) r2, r65.z000
to read values from memory. With 5000 it works in weird way. I guess (looking at output of OpenCL's kernels compiled to IL) that for 5000 it should be done now with UAV, something like

Code: Select all

uav_raw_load_id(0) r1.x___, r1.x
. But UAV usage in IL isn't documented at all, so I'm forced by ATI to disassemble their code and meditate, disassemble and meditate again. Can this called normal developing process? Hell, no!

It should be ATI problem to convert old inefficient memory fetches in IL to modern 5000's ones. Or at least document things, so it'll possible to do it by my own. But ATI just ignores any questions and cba to release any docs about R800.

That's the thing that fucking annoys me.

mrb
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:04 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by mrb » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:22 pm

IvanG wrote: Again, it's not a LDS issue. We don't need LDS for single hash at all. It's "memory access model changed with 5000 but still undocumented because ATI don't care" issue.
I know. Single hash doesn't need LDS and ighashgpu performs extremely well in this case like I said in the beginning.

This time I was talking about multi hash: if ighashgpu were using LDS it could significantly reduce the number of memory fetches, thereby increasing its perf, and it would make the HD 5000's memory fetch issue irrelevant (it would continue to be a pb only for very large password lists: roughly 1M and up).

meinname123
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:18 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: How high can you get

Post by meinname123 » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:28 pm

mrb wrote:I migh decide to give you a little competition to Hash Crackers and will be able to offer rates half yours with the help of ATI... hum not a bad idea :D
If you need a betatester if you really wanna do a ATI Multihash Bruter, i'm your man. I already have a HD5970.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest