[QUOTE=Bdot;377389]On Windows, you should not build kbhit.cpp. Just include conio.h, it will provide _kbhit(). That file is just a workaround for Linux as it does not provide that functionality in standard libraries.

You will need to adjust the #ifdefs around that to choose the windows branch when building with MinGW.[/QUOTE]

Well, should I make a new Makefile then? kbhit.cpp is set to build there, and sadly I think there is no easy way to differentiate between platforms in Makefile, a reason for ./configure :smile:

[QUOTE=Bdot;377349]

Is the same required for the CPU-sieve kernels? [/QUOTE]

Yes.

In barrett24.cl replace the 4620 in mul_24_48 with (4620 % (exp72.d1 + 1000000))

in common.cl calc_FC32, replace the 4620u in mul_hi with (4620 % (exponent + 1000000))


I sure hope you're not including these workarounds into the AMD code and they can be turned off when Intel fixes their compiler/drivers. BTW, here is the link to my bug report: [url]https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/517787[/url]

[QUOTE=Bdot;377349]
What's next? I'd need to know the speed of each of the kernels. For that, best would be to send me the output of a few minutes of 'mfakto -st', with CPU sieving, with CL_PERFORMANCE_INFO defined in the build. (this would also answer the question above :smile: ) I need that to update the kernel order in find_fastest_kernel().[/QUOTE]

4 files coming -- for vector_sizes 1,2,4,8

vs2

vs4

vs8

--perftest crashes, output attached. MSVC is useless in finding the cause (call_stack is of no value).

Bdot, have you looked at the Intel OpenCL optimization guide? I'm not enough of an OpenCL / mfakto expert to make much use of it -- maybe you can help. I ran three TF assignments in the 450M area and was getting a paltry 16GHz-days/day. I don't have a feel for what should be theoretically possible.

Guide is here: [url]https://software.intel.com/en-us/iocl_2014.b1_opg?language=it[/url]

I'm especially interested in optimizations that minimize / eliminates impact on memory bandwidth. The current mfakto does slow down running LL tests.

FYI, running mfakto on Haswell overclocked to 4GHz adds 30 watts to power consumption (up from 135 watts). It also increases temps by 2-3 degrees.

[QUOTE=Prime95;377416]Bdot, have you looked at the Intel OpenCL optimization guide? I'm not enough of an OpenCL / mfakto expert to make much use of it -- maybe you can help. I ran three TF assignments in the 450M area and was getting a paltry 16GHz-days/day. I don't have a feel for what should be theoretically possible.

Guide is here: [url]https://software.intel.com/en-us/iocl_2014.b1_opg?language=it[/url]

I'm especially interested in optimizations that minimize / eliminates impact on memory bandwidth. The current mfakto does slow down running LL tests.[/QUOTE]

Just for fun. How much do you get from the DC range, lowest bit possible?

Also, how did you get mfakto to actually recognize the GPU?(I have a 4670K here)

[QUOTE=kracker;377421]Just for fun. How much do you get from the DC range, lowest bit possible?[/quote]

19.8 GHz-days/day

[quote]Also, how did you get mfakto to actually recognize the GPU?(I have a 4670K here)[/QUOTE]

I installed the OpenCL SDK and driver from Intel's web site. Then
mfakto -d 11
recognizes the HD 4600 graphics unit. Note: this is on a machine that does not have a separate GPU card.