 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
about the FAQ "POV-Ray/raytracing on GPU" I am actually quite curious
how many systems would actually support double precession floating point
types (as needed by POV-Ray) and how *fast* they are.
If you are not using Windows(tm) there is no need to read on because
Apple's OpenCL implementation does currently not support 64bit floats
anyway and the same is AFAIK true for any Linux system. This might and
should change in the future but this is the current situation.
I've written a simple Windows program (a kind of "realtime" Mandelbrot
explorer) that is meant to check the capabilities of your system.
You can download it here (please check the included readme.txt)
http://www.lilysoft.org/Download/YAMF/yamf.zip
and send an email to me (ive[at]lilysoft[dot]org) or maybe simply reply
to this post. My guess is that both the availability and performance
gain will be quite disappointing.
thanks a lot
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.08.2011 13:58, schrieb Ive:
> about the FAQ "POV-Ray/raytracing on GPU" I am actually quite curious
> how many systems would actually support double precession floating point
> types (as needed by POV-Ray) and how *fast* they are.
>
> If you are not using Windows(tm) there is no need to read on because
> Apple's OpenCL implementation does currently not support 64bit floats
> anyway and the same is AFAIK true for any Linux system. This might and
> should change in the future but this is the current situation.
>
> I've written a simple Windows program (a kind of "realtime" Mandelbrot
> explorer) that is meant to check the capabilities of your system.
>
> You can download it here (please check the included readme.txt)
>
> http://www.lilysoft.org/Download/YAMF/yamf.zip
>
> and send an email to me (ive[at]lilysoft[dot]org) or maybe simply reply
> to this post. My guess is that both the availability and performance
> gain will be quite disappointing.
Benchmark result:
---------------------------
Window size 540 x 540 pixel
Maximal 1024 iterations
CPU with 8 threads
fps 6.82527
OpenCL GPU with 30 worker units
GeForce GTX 285
fps 26.41509
---------------------------
(CPU is an Intel i7 QuadCore)
OpenCL information:
---------------------------
Platform 0
OpenCL 1.0 CUDA 4.0.1
NVIDIA CUDA
NVIDIA Corporation
Device 0 - GPU 30 computing units active
JIT compiler installed
Data types with preferred and native vector width
8bit integer: 1, 0
16bit integer: 1, 0
32bit integer: 1, 0
64bit integer: 1, 0
16bit float: not supported
32bit float: 1, 0
64bit float: 1, 0
---------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.08.2011 11:53, schrieb clipka:
>
> CPU with 8 threads
> fps 6.82527
>
> OpenCL GPU with 30 worker units
> GeForce GTX 285
> fps 26.41509
> ---------------------------
> (CPU is an Intel i7 QuadCore)
>
Thats what I'd have guessed and for anything with more *logic* involved
there is less speedup to be expected.
You can also install the Intel OpenCL driver from
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/download-intel-opencl-sdk
only the runtime at the bottom is needed. Intel's JIT compiler does a
pretty good job in optimizing. It uses SSE4 instructions when available
and is good for a speedup of about 15% compared to 'native' CPU threads.
And people with an AMD CPU but with a NVidea graphics card can download
and install the AMD Stream-SDK to add OpenCL support for the CPU.
Currently without support for double precession floats but this is
announced to change with the next release. No need to do this when also
a AMD graphics card is used as OpenCL is part of the Catalyst driver.
> OpenCL information:
> ---------------------------
> Platform 0
> OpenCL 1.0 CUDA 4.0.1
> NVIDIA CUDA
> NVIDIA Corporation
>
> Device 0 - GPU 30 computing units active
> JIT compiler installed
> Data types with preferred and native vector width
> 8bit integer: 1, 0
> 16bit integer: 1, 0
> 32bit integer: 1, 0
> 64bit integer: 1, 0
> 16bit float: not supported
> 32bit float: 1, 0
> 64bit float: 1, 0
> ---------------------------
This isn't the latest NVidea driver or is it?
Anyway related to POV-Ray: OpenCL for 3.7 does IMHO not make any sense
as it would require major changes within the multi-threading framework.
On the other hand it looks quite straightforward to implement for MCPov
and as MCPov is currently just single-threaded a 10x speedup when
running on the GPU seems realistic. Well, most likely I do not see some
pitfalls there but as time permits I will give it a try.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.08.2011 09:11, schrieb Ive:
>> OpenCL information:
>> ---------------------------
>> Platform 0
>> OpenCL 1.0 CUDA 4.0.1
>> NVIDIA CUDA
>> NVIDIA Corporation
>>
>> Device 0 - GPU 30 computing units active
>> JIT compiler installed
>> Data types with preferred and native vector width
>> 8bit integer: 1, 0
>> 16bit integer: 1, 0
>> 32bit integer: 1, 0
>> 64bit integer: 1, 0
>> 16bit float: not supported
>> 32bit float: 1, 0
>> 64bit float: 1, 0
>> ---------------------------
>
> This isn't the latest NVidea driver or is it?
It's 6.14.12.7533, to which I upgraded in June this year. Don't know if
there's anything newer by now.
> Anyway related to POV-Ray: OpenCL for 3.7 does IMHO not make any sense
> as it would require major changes within the multi-threading framework.
>
> On the other hand it looks quite straightforward to implement for MCPov
> and as MCPov is currently just single-threaded a 10x speedup when
> running on the GPU seems realistic. Well, most likely I do not see some
> pitfalls there but as time permits I will give it a try.
Mind the recursion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.08.2011 14:25, schrieb clipka:
>>> OpenCL 1.0 CUDA 4.0.1
>> This isn't the latest NVidea driver or is it?
> It's 6.14.12.7533, to which I upgraded in June this year. Don't know if
> there's anything newer by now.
Strange. I was wondering about OpenCL version 1.0 and also about the
missing support for 'half' floats as they are NVideas 'own' invention.
> Mind the recursion.
Sure, but every recursion can also be expressed as an iteration ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mind the recursion.
>
> Sure, but every recursion can also be expressed as an iteration ;)
I'm fairly sure that's incorrect, but I can't find a reference...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.08.2011 19:56, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> Mind the recursion.
>>
>> Sure, but every recursion can also be expressed as an iteration ;)
>
> I'm fairly sure that's incorrect, but I can't find a reference...
>
...and I'm fairly sure it is true as long there is proof that the
iterative calculus is Turing-complete as all Turing-complete calculi are
idempotent.
But I'm much more interested in the practical aspect and expressing
recursive raytracing with iterations is trivial in this case as the
OpenCL kernel-language is close to C99 (just without recursion).
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Window size 540 x 540 pixel
Maximal 1024 iterations
CPU with 4 threads
fps 70.70707
I don't know why I don't get OpenCL options enabled , I have 11.8
Catalyst and a a couple ATI RADEON 4670 in CrossFire with a AMD Phenom
II X4 3.4Ghz. ANy clues?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.10.2011 06:06, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Window size 540 x 540 pixel
> Maximal 1024 iterations
>
>
> CPU with 4 threads
> fps 70.70707
>
> I don't know why I don't get OpenCL options enabled , I have 11.8
> Catalyst and a a couple ATI RADEON 4670 in CrossFire with a AMD Phenom
> II X4 3.4Ghz. ANy clues?
AFAIK only ATI FirePro and Radeon 5xxx/6xxx graphics cards do support
OpenCL. The Radeon 4xxxx series does definitely not support it. Sorry.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually they do but only partially, yes the 5000 series and above are
fully compliant, too bad my 4670s are double precision only, they don't
handle single precision floats and have some power to offer & guess I
got screwed over by AMD, oh well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Besides helping rendering I dreamed the GPU could make a rough preview
of the final image but people have explained to me that would be also a
lot of work and not always work, but that doesn't quite convince me
fully, I'm the kind of person that has seen incredible things happen
when people really want them to happen against all odd so I think few
things are truly impossible; take for example the hummingbird according
to scientist it should fly at all and it has the most precise flight of
all birds, people tend to call impossible things that they can see hence
the words of Dr. Albert Einstein: "Those who have seen the invisible can
achieve the impossible".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2011 15:41, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> the hummingbird according to scientist it should fly at all
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about what scientists think on this topic. :)
Even the claim that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly is wrong. Bumblebees
can't fly if they were fixed-wing aircraft. Or, more precisely, bumblebees
can't glide. But that turned into "scientists don't know everything because
they think bees can't fly."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.10.2011 00:31, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Actually they do but only partially, yes the 5000 series and above are
> fully compliant, too bad my 4670s are double precision only, they don't
> handle single precision floats and have some power to offer & guess I
> got screwed over by AMD, oh well.
The 4670 offers a subset of OpenCL 1.1 only on Snow Leopard where the
missing functionality is emulated by Apple's OpenCL software layer.
And it does *NOT* support double precision floats (only 32 bit single
precision) as this is not even part of the OpenCL 1.1 specification,
just a vendor specific additional feature and as such isn't even part of
Apple's OpenCL implementation. At least when I last time checked but
this might change in the future.
But I was assuming you are using Windows anyway where the 4xxx series
together with the Catalyst drivers offers *NO* support for OpenCL at
all. And the same is valid for Linux.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> take for example the hummingbird according
> to scientist it should fly at all and it has the most precise flight of
> all birds, people tend to call impossible things that they can see hence
> the words of Dr. Albert Einstein: "Those who have seen the invisible can
> achieve the impossible".
Two mistakes for the price of one? Well, unless you can give credible
sources for those.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I might be wrong about the hummingbird but I'm right about what Einstein
said; if you don't know it that doesn't make me wrong and I don't need
to prove you anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 15:41, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> the hummingbird according to scientist it should fly at all
>
> I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about what scientists think on this
> topic. :)
>
> Even the claim that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly is wrong.
> Bumblebees can't fly if they were fixed-wing aircraft. Or, more
> precisely, bumblebees can't glide. But that turned into "scientists
> don't know everything because they think bees can't fly."
>
Yeah maybe I'm wrong about the hummingbird but scientists say the most
ridiculous things sometimes except maybe the truly wise ones like Einstein.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...but since this guy
(http://www.ats.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research_nano) says
so too I am in the safe side.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, is not double precision is quadruple precision for most operations
as stated here:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-4000/hd-4600/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-4600-specifications.aspx
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe in GPGPU mode is not 128-bit but AMD doesn't says so in their webpage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> ...but since this guy
> (http://www.ats.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research_nano) says
> so too I am in the safe side.
That page doesn't give any references either.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet... then since you're
in Europe you have enough money to buy a nice Biography of Einstein and
check why people are saying so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm writing on
the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to write crap on the
internet is now disproved. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/10/2011 10:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
>
LOL :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:55:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
Are you saying you write crap?
That was, after all, the assertion made. ;)
SCNR. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LOL :-) you're wrong, you at most make clever jokes like that one but
that was a lesson of humility with a sense of humor, good one mate :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
He opens the possibility of, hey nobody is perfect :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 18:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Are you saying you write crap?
No. I'm saying he has two PhDs writing contradictory information on the
internet, so *one* of them has to be writing crap.
That said, I don't deny that I write crap on the internet. I merely deny
that's what I was saying in that case. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
What a beautiful example of argument from authority. :P
PhDs aren't somehow immune to hearsay, urban legends and misquotes.
It's perfectly possible that he's just repeating what he has heard,
without actually checking its factuality. It's not like it's a quote
of great importance and thus would require extreme care to be correct.
I still would like to see a reliable reference.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/10/2011 10:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
1. I didn't know you actually had a PhD.
2. This is the funniest thing I've read all day! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 8:55, Invisible wrote:
> 1. I didn't know you actually had a PhD.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it, but I don't make a deal about it.
> 2. This is the funniest thing I've read all day! :-D
I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
taking the word of people with PhDs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
> taking the word of people with PhDs.
From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
authority because Darren said so." :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2011 05:56 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
>> taking the word of people with PhDs.
>
> From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
> authority because Darren said so." :P
And we will all bask in the sheer irony of it all. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 9:56, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
>> taking the word of people with PhDs.
>
> From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
> authority because Darren said so." :P
You need to add ", and he has a PhD, so he doesn't talk crap on the
internet" at the end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-10-2011 23:55, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
>
I second that.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
>> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
>> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
>>
> I second that.
I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!" :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 12:59, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!" :-D
I disagree. That would sound pompous.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 8:52 AM, Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> What a beautiful example of argument from authority. :P
>
> PhDs aren't somehow immune to hearsay, urban legends and misquotes.
> It's perfectly possible that he's just repeating what he has heard,
> without actually checking its factuality. It's not like it's a quote
> of great importance and thus would require extreme care to be correct.
>
> I still would like to see a reliable reference.
>
Actually, in some cases, the more specialized the PhD, the more likely
it can be that nothing outside that field *will* be factual. lol
Its not too uncommon for people with a fairly precise specialty to say,
and do, some spectacularly dumb things, in other fields. At the very
least, its been studied, and shown, that often the level of care
involved in verifying a conclusion in their own subject of expertise is
all but abandoned, the moment they look at something else, even to such
an extent that they fail to apply even the most "basic" level of logic
to the other thing, in some cases. Its why you can, in the one more
insane example I have seen, have a well known physicist actually
believing that psychic phenomena might be real, and looking for an
explanation for it, using a spirit medium, and the incoherent light
flashes, produced by cells, during normal metabolic processes. Logic
should have required a) examining if their was a better explanation for
"talking to the dead", b) whether anyone else had looked at that light,
and c) whether such flashes could be merely incidental (or had already
been determined to be). But.. since nothing in either "spiritualism",
nor biology, had been examined with the same rigor he would have used to
evaluate, say, someone's claim that they had found a universal field
theorem....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:49:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 18:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Are you saying you write crap?
>
> No. I'm saying he has two PhDs writing contradictory information on the
> internet, so *one* of them has to be writing crap.
>
> That said, I don't deny that I write crap on the internet. I merely deny
> that's what I was saying in that case. ;-)
LOL!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-10-2011 23:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 12:59, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!"
>> :-D
>
> I disagree. That would sound pompous.
Yes, that would be a bit too general. There are probably lots of things
that can be falsified without him.
--
Darren is the counter-example to life, the universe, and everything
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
