OpenCL Oceanwave & Bandwidth Bench - 07. March 2013OpenCL AMD NVIDIA
Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:37 PM
The gpu maybe NOT detected if the gpu isnt supported in general (like ATI 3xxx gpu or Geforce 7xxx) OR the gpu is unknown by the Apple drivers and must be patched for OpenCL. OpenGL may work normal, even on unpatched drivers.
"Cool, not sure how hard that will be for you to code. Might you have any thoughts as to why some parts of OSX see the 8800GT and others see the 5770?"
OpenCL is an special thing in this case compared to OpenGL.
The OpenCL code must be edited for using not the standard (first in the OpenCL info list (log of the app).
Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:43 PM
Now can you do a comparison to the MP3,1 value?
MacPro3,1 : 615,34
MacPro5,1 : 31,45
Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:53 PM
MacPro3,1 : 615,34
MacPro5,1 : 31,45
Ohh come on guys ! Just simply edit AppleGraphicsPowerManagament.kext will fix it ! You need add your DevID to plist.
Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:55 PM
Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:21 AM
- error handling for non OpenCL gpus (cant do OpenCL at all) OR OpenCL errors by OpenCL driver failures (Fermi with unpatched driver). Users get an messagebox insted of unknown fps results
- updated results list
- no changes in the main OpenCL bench
Sorry, but no option to select gpu for OpenCL - very complex Apple code to add that feature.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:45 AM
I can play MKV (high bitrate) better in Windows7 than I can in OSX. But that perhaps is that I installed codecs in W7, do I need some codecs in OSX also ????
HACKINTOSH MacBookPro6,1 Mac OS X 10.7.2 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q 720 @ 1.60GHz 1596 MHzGPU GeForce GT 230M 1100 MHz _FPS= 65.97
Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:48 PM
On windows some gpu drivers accererate videodecoding, on OS X only some do that and only if the software uses Apple video decoding hw accell framework. Normally doesnt matter (beside higher cpu loads) but may be a problem for slower cpus.
Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:50 AM
LUXMARK can bench ALL OpenCL gpus - if you have more than one (and both not lowend) , maybe interesting.
It has much higher CPU usage (beside OpenCL) / load so cpu speed does matter compared to OceanWave with very less cpu loads.
To get close to the luxmark HEROs you need 8 * GTX 580 for results around 70000!
Posted 21 November 2011 - 03:49 PM
Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:43 PM
If you submit very different FPS (like 25 and 80 fps) please comment what you have done (Mac modell in .plist, changes in AGPM of the gpu,...)
With that many results we can see that OceanWave produced valid results, like same GPU type much differnt CPU - same result.
HACKINTOSH MacPro3,1 Mac OS X 10.7.2 CPU Q9400 @ 3400 MHz GPU GeForce 9800 GT 1500 MHz FPS= 98.68
HACKINTOSH MacPro3,1 Mac OS X 10.7.2 CPU Q6600 @ 2997 MHz GPU GeForce 9800 GT 1500 MHz FPS= 98.68
If your result is much slower to similar gpu check if your gpu may run in slow mode (1/3 - 1/2 gpu of max. clock) even the gpu has lot of work. In such cases the OpemGL performance will be also much lower than expected. Has to do with AGPM settings for that gpu / mac modell type.
Posted 10 December 2011 - 01:47 AM
BIOS: 1101 (All default settings. No Over-clocking, No XMP)
CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K 3.4 GHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Gigabyte GV-N560OC-1GI 900 MHz 1024 MB)
RAM: 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) (G.Skill Sniper 1600 MHz)
OS: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.2
Boot: Chameleon 2.1 R1713
SMBios: Mac Mini Server (Mid 2011)
Kexts Installed: FakeSMC, ALC8xxHDA, HDAEnabler892, AppleHDA (10.6.2)
I'm not using any DSDT or similar. Vainilla system. AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement patched with SpeedStepper 1.2. Added my device ID in NVDAGF100Hal, patched GeForceGLDriver and libclh.dylib for OpenCL support. Edited AppleGraphicsPowerManagement with this:
<key>Macmini5,3</key> <dict> <key>Vendor10deDevice1200</key> <dict> <key>BoostPState</key> <array> <integer>0</integer> <integer>1</integer> <integer>2</integer> <integer>3</integer> </array> <key>BoostTime</key> <array> <integer>3</integer> <integer>3</integer> <integer>3</integer> <integer>3</integer> </array> <key>Heuristic</key> <dict> <key>ID</key> <integer>0</integer> <key>IdleInterval</key> <integer>250</integer> <key>SensorOption</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>SensorSampleRate</key> <integer>4</integer> <key>TargetCount</key> <integer>5</integer> <key>Threshold_High</key> <array> <integer>60</integer> <integer>60</integer> <integer>60</integer> <integer>100</integer> </array> <key>Threshold_Low</key> <array> <integer>0</integer> <integer>75</integer> <integer>90</integer> <integer>98</integer> </array> </dict> <key>LogControl</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>control-id</key> <integer>17</integer> </dict> <key>LogControl</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>default-control-id</key> <integer>17</integer> </dict>
AGPM works fine. Stays in 2 most of the time when I'm using the computer. Goes 0 when I run this test. And I get this:
But according the first page I should get about 420 fps with this GPU and CPU. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks
Posted 10 December 2011 - 08:04 AM
Your result is OK for that card. Other, faster results may come from little more systembus/pcie speed and/or little faster cpu andor little faster VRAM speed/ GPU cock.
AGPM State 0 (when run this test) is perfect - runs as fastest gpu clock.
Posted 10 December 2011 - 10:47 AM
The guy who got 8 GeForce GTX 580 is insane! I thought you can only get two card by SLI and four GPU if the card is Dual GPU. Who manufactures a motherboard with 8 x16 PCI Express slots? And you'll need PCI Express 4.0 to get to work with full speed. I don't know I think is fake. What do you think?
Posted 11 December 2011 - 09:26 AM
8 GPUs may not be get full load by today CPU+systembus speed+system pcie speed - bottleneck in this case.
But shows how fast gpus can be in the future or used with very special universitary usage (mostly complex simulations).
Posted 12 December 2011 - 11:36 PM
Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:41 AM
Here's my score, delayed by a month! LOL
Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:58 PM
And heres my Luxmark result:
Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:24 AM
22 fps difference over my old score with an old version of the benchmark, and even more with the latest version with the stock .2 kexts!
Ran the benchmark a couple of times since this much difference has not been seen with any update since I started testing.
Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:03 AM
Bildschirmfoto 2011-12-20 um 10.57.44.jpg 227.48KB 19 downloads
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users