IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> CUDA Toolkit 3.0 beta released, now with public downloads
Sylvain Collange
post Nov 16 2009, 06:13 PM
Post #41



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 7-November 07
Member No.: 77,477
Org.: Université de Perpignan



QUOTE (SPWorley @ Nov 15 2009, 11:31 PM) *
The above is pure speculation based entirely on the names of the new intrinsics.


Come on, guys... Don't tell me you didn't even try to compile with -arch=sm_20 and look at the PTX. ;-)


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
plegresley
post Nov 16 2009, 10:52 PM
Post #42



**

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 5-June 07
From: Foster City, CA
Member No.: 56,261
Org.: Life Technologies



What's the expected compatibility between different versions of cuda-gdb and different driver versions? I assumed it was like the toolkit, but when I try to start the 2.3 debugger with the 195.17 driver I get an API version error:

CUDA GDB could not access debug API version 20090511 and is incompatible with the installed CUDA driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tmurray
post Nov 17 2009, 10:49 PM
Post #43



********

Group: NVIDIA Employees
Posts: 2,072
Joined: 3-June 08
From: Santa Clara, CA
Member No.: 106,363
Org.: NVIDIA



QUOTE (plegresley @ Nov 16 2009, 02:52 PM) *
What's the expected compatibility between different versions of cuda-gdb and different driver versions? I assumed it was like the toolkit, but when I try to start the 2.3 debugger with the 195.17 driver I get an API version error:

CUDA GDB could not access debug API version 20090511 and is incompatible with the installed CUDA driver.

cuda-gdb isn't compatible across major driver revisions. I'm not sure if apps compiled with nvcc 2.3 and -g -G will work with cuda-gdb 3.0, either; worth a try, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erdooom
post Nov 18 2009, 11:07 AM
Post #44



****

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 9-November 08
Member No.: 125,244
Org.: OptiTex



I also have the problem of severe performance degradation when moving to the 195.39 driver (booth with CUDA 2.3 and 3.0), this is on xp 32 bit. on windows 7 i don't see such a performance hit. but it runs slower on 7 any ways ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MisterAnderson42
post Nov 18 2009, 12:29 PM
Post #45



********

Group: Extranet Users
Posts: 2,289
Joined: 23-March 07
Member No.: 46,425
Org.: University of Michigan



QUOTE (erdooom @ Nov 18 2009, 06:07 AM) *
I also have the problem of severe performance degradation when moving to the 195.39 driver (booth with CUDA 2.3 and 3.0), this is on xp 32 bit. on windows 7 i don't see such a performance hit. but it runs slower on 7 any ways ...

I get no performance degradation on linux 32-bit or on Mac OS X. I haven't tried windows yet, will check tomorrow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jam1
post Nov 18 2009, 08:35 PM
Post #46



****

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 22-June 09
Member No.: 160,462



There seems to be a problem with the cublas function cublas_ZGERC.
It generates a lot of print " CUBLAS_ZGERC stub" which is indicating an error. That is the only cublas function doing this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erdooom
post Nov 19 2009, 07:21 AM
Post #47



****

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 9-November 08
Member No.: 125,244
Org.: OptiTex



with driver 195.55 the performance drop i get is around 24% compared to 50% in the 195.33 this is with CUDA 2.3, with CUDA 3.0 there is another drop in performance to around 40%. i will check specific kernel times with the visual profiler. this is still on winxp pro sp3 32bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jam1
post Nov 19 2009, 12:28 PM
Post #48



****

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 22-June 09
Member No.: 160,462



QUOTE (jam1 @ Nov 18 2009, 04:35 PM) *
There seems to be a problem with the cublas function cublas_ZGERC.
It generates a lot of print " CUBLAS_ZGERC stub" which is indicating an error. That is the only cublas function doing this.


There is another one : CUBLAS_ZGERU , same problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erdooom
post Nov 22 2009, 07:44 AM
Post #49



****

Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 9-November 08
Member No.: 125,244
Org.: OptiTex



it seems that there is some overhead created with the new driver. when i look at the visual proflier the times seem to be identical, but when looking at the times on the cpu they grow substantially.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gregory Diamos
post Yesterday, 11:42 AM
Post #50



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 7-November 08
Member No.: 125,063
Org.: Georgia Institue of Technology



QUOTE (tmurray)
CUDA C/C++ kernels are now compiled to standard ELF format


Could someone elaborate a little bit about exactly what this means? Does this mean that the native GPU binary format is now based on ELF, or does it mean that NVCC actually produces an ELF object for the CUDA kernels and then uses the native c/c++ compiler to generate another ELF object for the CPU code before linking them both together?

It looks to me like nvcc still just does source to source translation to generate an intermediate .cpp file with the device code inlined that is passed directly to the native compiler.

This post has been edited by Gregory Diamos: Yesterday, 05:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smokey__
post Yesterday, 09:46 PM
Post #51



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 13-December 04
Member No.: 1,673



QUOTE (Gregory Diamos @ Nov 23 2009, 09:42 PM) *
Could someone elaborate a little bit about exactly what this means? Does this mean that the native GPU binary format is now based on ELF, or does it mean that NVCC actually produces an ELF object for the CUDA kernels and then uses the native c/c++ compiler to generate another ELF object for the CPU code before linking them both together?

It looks to me like nvcc still just does source to source translation to generate an intermediate .cpp file with the device code inlined that is passed directly to the native compiler.


I assumed it was referring to the cubin and fat cubin files, but I'll agree it's quite vague.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tmurray
post Yesterday, 10:07 PM
Post #52



********

Group: NVIDIA Employees
Posts: 2,072
Joined: 3-June 08
From: Santa Clara, CA
Member No.: 106,363
Org.: NVIDIA



Yeah, compare a cubin from 3.0 with a cubin from pre-3.0. Very different!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Copyright 2008 NVIDIA Corporation.  Terms of Use | Legal Info | Privacy Policy Time is now: 24th November 2009 - 12:50 AM
Unites States Argentina Brazil Chile China Colombia France Germany India Italy Japan Korea Mexico Poland Russia Spain Taiwan United Kingdom Venezuela