OpenCL: internal implementation tests in MQL5 - page 22
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Swan:
Intel Celeron G530 2.4GHz
Here's where I don't get it:
I have GeForce GT 440 with OpenCL 1.1 (2 units, 1660 MHz, 1024 Mb, version 295.73) GPU time = 1513 ms
at Swan GeForce GT 520 with OpenCL 1.1 (1 units, 1620 MHz, 512 Mb, version 285.62) GPU time = 234 ms
how is that possible?
I'm determined, too. It's time for a union.
Better yet, have a look at the specifications in some online shop. Maybe there is a quantum leap in processing technology ( GT 4xx => GT 5xx )
--
Yep, ahead of you, though. Yeah, I looked it up. Something's not right. You need a union, though. Or rewire the driver.
And now - attention!
The processor is a Pentium G840 @ 2.8 GHz.
No discrete video card at all! (No, no, I'm not lying, as I built the system myself.) In other words, the GPU is Intel HD Graphics, not even HD Graphics 2000.
Which means the following:
1. The integrated graphics on the Sandy Bridge CPU does support OpenCL. And for some reason I thought Intel's OpenCL support for integrated graphics would only appear with Ivy Bridge...
2. And it's not that weak - at the level of a GeForce GT 440 on this particular task...
I'm slightly shocked. Maybe someone can prove to me that I am saying something wrong?
... Or change the driver.
Reinstalled a couple of days ago, the last one, I got it here a year ago, I compared them both there, it's exactly the same, they are in the same group on the official site
Mathemat:
...
No discrete video card at all!
...
And it's not that weak - it's on the level of GeForce GT 440 on this particular task...
I'm a little shocked. ...
And that killed me at all.
And now - attention!
.....
I'm in a bit of a state of shock. Maybe someone can prove to me that I'm saying something wrong?
The union will sort it out. You'll have to throw in the motherboard and chipset. For the record.
Anyway, congratulations! Hip hip!!! You can get on with your life now.
We're looking forward to your statistical tricks, super-multi-logarithmeters and differential integrators.
Don't drag it out. Codebase needs to be filled with a quality product.
1. re-purposed a couple of days ago, the last one, I got it here a year ago, I compared them both there, it's exactly the same, they're in the same group on the official website
2. this one really killed me.
Try and ask the Service Desk, there's something wrong here.
Meta quotas of course have absolutely nothing to do with it, it's just that the guys are qualified, maybe they'll come up with a clever idea.
2. :)
Don't get upset, don't get upset. You have to work it out first. Here, by the way, one idea. Look in SMOS, check the settings, maybe some weird stuff is on/off and your graphics card is slowing down. Also, run all sorts of video tests to evaluate the video card performance under different loads.
I'm not really upset.
When I bought my mother, I thought, why should I buy the built-in video, so I got an external one. Turns out I was wrong ... ))
Here's where I don't get it:
I have a GeForce GT 440 with OpenCL 1.1 (2 units, 1660 MHz, 1024 Mb, version 295.73) GPU time = 1513 ms
at Swan GeForce GT 520 with OpenCL 1.1 (1 units, 1620 MHz, 512 Mb, version 285.62) GPU time = 234 ms
How is that possible?
There's a GeForce GT 440 and there's a GeForce GT 520 comparing characteristics, mine is bigger by all parameters, and the runtime is 6.5 times bigger.
Try to use latest NVIDIA drivers 295.73 (GT440 shows 285.62 in logs). Drivers are constantly tweaking to speed up OpenCL (you can lose speed on pipelining too).
You can compare performance by testing at http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
And for comparison from the tops:
Most likely the difference "NVIDIA 440 is weaker than 520 series" because of the host system (CPU, memory) + old drivers which gave you a big system overhead on GPU target transfer.
And now - attention!
The processor is a Pentium G840 @ 2.8 GHz.
No discrete video card at all! (No, no, I'm not lying, because I built it myself). In other words, the GPU is Intel HD Graphics, not even HD Graphics 2000.
From which follows:
1. The integrated graphics on the Sandy Bridge CPU does support OpenCL. For some reason, I thought Intel's OpenCL support for integrated graphics would only become available with Ivy Bridge...
Most likely, along with Intel's drivers OpenCL came in.
Bring the GPU line when starting the terminal - let's see what it says there.
Doing a lot of thinking, reading google.
I've been scratching my head.
Or they have the most advanced mql-compiler-optimizer clamped for themselves and don't let us, or I don't know anymore.
Or rather their code generator is optimized for Intel.They themselves wonder why.
First of all, we need to look at the speed and type of memory, and at the same time the motherboard.
On the second - in the codogenerator, perhaps, there are some alignment problems when Intel eats everything successfully and AMD catches access penalties. We'll check this carefully at our own site. There is no resonance to AMD processors braking.