How to quantify the processing tradeoffs of CUDA devices for C kernels?

Question

I recently upgraded from a GTX480 to a GTX680 in the hope that the tripled number of cores would manifest as significant performance gains in my CUDA code. To my horror, I've discovered that my memory intensive CUDA kernels run 30%-50% slower on the GTX680.

I realize that this is not strictly a programming question but it does directly impact on the performance of CUDA kernels on different devices. Can anyone provide some insight into the specifications of CUDA devices and how they can be used to deduce their performance on CUDA C kernels?

Answer 1

Not exactly an answer to your question, but some information that might be of help in understanding the performance of the GK104 (Kepler, GTX680) vs. the GF110 (Fermi, GTX580):

On Fermi, the cores run on double the frequency of the rest of the logic. On Kepler, they run at the same frequency. That effectively halves the number of cores on Kepler if one wants to do more of an apples to apples comparison to Fermi. So that leaves the GK104 (Kepler) with 1536 / 2 = 768 "Fermi equivalent cores", which is only 50% more than the 512 cores on the GF110 (Fermi).

Looking at the transistor counts, the GF110 has 3 billion transistors while the GK104 has 3.5 billion. So, even though the Kepler has 3 times as many cores, it only has slightly more transistors. So now, not only does the Kepler have only 50% more "Fermi equivalent cores" than Fermi, but each of those cores must be much simpler than the ones of Fermi.

So, those two issues probably explain why many projects see a slowdown when porting to Kepler.

Further, the GK104, being a version of Kepler made for graphics cards, has been tuned in such a way that cooperation between threads is slower than on Fermi (as such cooperation is not as important for graphics). Any potential potential performance gain, after taking the above facts into account, may be negated by this.

There is also the issue of double precision floating point performance. The version of GF110 used in Tesla cards can do double precision floating point at 1/2 the performance of single precision. When the chip is used in graphics cards, the double precision performance is artificially limited to 1/8 of single precision performance, but this is still much better than the 1/24 double precision performance of GK104.

Answer 2

One of the advances of new Kepler architecture is 1536 cores grouped into 8 192-core SMX'es but at the same time this number of cores is a big problem. Because shared memory is still limited to 48 kb. So if your application needs a lot of SMX resources then you can't execute 4 warps in parallel on single SMX. You can profile your code to find real occupancy of you GPU. The possible ways to improve you application:

1. use warp vote functions instead of shared memory communications;
2. increase a number of tread blocks and decrease a number threads in one block;
3. optimize global loads/stores. Kepler have 32 load/store modules for each SMX (twice more than on Kepler).

Answer 3

I am installing nvieuw and I use coolbits 2.0 to unlock your shader cores from default to max performance. Also, you must have both connectors of your device to 1 display, which can be enabled in nVidia control panel screen 1/2 and screen 2/2. Now you must clone this screen with the other, and Windows resolution config set screen mode to extended desktop.

With nVidia inspector 1.9 (BIOS level drivers), you can activate this mode by setting up a profile for the application (you need to add application's exe file to the profile). Now you have almost double performance (keep an eye on the temperature).

DX11 also features tesselation, so you want to override that and scale your native resolution. Your native resolution can be achieved by rendering a lower like 960-540P and let the 3D pipelines do the rest to scale up to full hd (in nv control panel desktop size and position). Now scale the lower res to full screen with display, and you have full HD with double the amount of texture size rendering on the fly and everything should be good to rendering 3D textures with extreme LOD-bias (level of detail). Your display needs to be on auto zoom!

Also, you can beat sli config computers. This way I get higher scores than 3-way sli in tessmark. High AA settings like 32X mixed sample makes al look like hd in AAA quality (in tessmark and heavon benchies). There are no resolution setting in the endscore, so that shows it's not important that you render your native resolution!

This should give you some real results, so please read thoughtfully not literary.