Provide details and talk about your research But avoid Asking for assist, clarification, or responding to other answers.
Fortran Zeros Of Bessel Function Software Im OperatingHowever, this seemingly high precision is not anymore more than enough for a fresh software Im operating on.Im wondering if there is usually any means to create device functions out of those Fortran programs to be then known as by a CUDA kernel).
However, when I move to action 2, the mistake increases to 2e-4. Finally, if I give action 2) of CUDA with the result of phase 1) of Matlab, after that the rms error of phase 2) gets to be 1e-14, which can make me think that a source of inaccuracy will be due to the first step, namely, the computation of the improved Bessel function. ![]() I indicate that, for a certain test case, I evaluate the result of my own applied I0 with MatIabs by mean(méan(abs(UCUDA-UMatIab))) and I get 6.7036920e-029 as an reply. I need such a higher precision as Im applying a 2D Non-Uniform FFT regimen in CUDA. I possess a Matlab program which is much more accurate than the one I have created in CUDA, só I would like very first to realize the cause of the reduction of accuracy (and the calculation of the Bessel functionality will be one of the factors) as nicely as to improve the outcomes offered by CUDA. Just a assessment of both units of results with a higher-precision reference would allow one to determine the amount of mistake in either set and to determine which collection of outcomes has the smaller sized error. ![]() Without meaning to noise harsh - it appears your entire methodology for looking at results can be structured on a rather flawed knowing of how floating point math works and you may well be producing a great deal of challenging programming work for no good cause which eventually wont yield results which are usually various to what you have got now. Also I believe the CUDA mathematics library since edition 4 provides some bessel features, although I feel not certain if this is usually real or how relevent they are usually to your problem. With marketing turned off your personal computer will mostly deal with the 80bit portrayal (probably matlab does this), while with mathematics optimizations converted on your compiler may offer with the much less precise 64bit counsel. For example, compute 2.0 does FMA which is definitely more precise, and more closely resembles optimized a86. This type of scenario can take place if CUDA organizations procedures when Matlab doesnt. The most likely supply of differences between CPU ánd GPU in double-précision computations will be the default use of FMAs ón the GPU. This can be switched off with thé nvcc compiler banner -fmadfalse, as I acquired talked about above. Fortran Zeros Of Bessel Function Code Uses SSEAs very long as the Processor code uses SSE double precision results of specific procedures should fit with thé GPU as bóth platforms implement IEEE-754 compliant basic math. Centered on the updated query, I would say it is definitely not clear that the variations in the final results are usually credited to the little differences in Bessel function results. I was obtaining with compute capability 1.0 while running on á GPU with computé ability 2.0. Now issues are much better. In various other words, the normalized root mean rectangular mistake between Matlab and CUDA can be around 1e-13. Stage 3 of your Response was driving me to find out the remedy. Thanks. Therefore yes it is possible, Nevertheless I wasnt able to the above mentioned script to convert the legacy fortran code to CUDA G, maybe contact the designers directly. From a very rough reading, it appears that they are porting Fortran rules by automatic converters, but not really producing device functions out of them. Provide information and talk about your research But avoid Inquiring for help, clarification, or responding to other solutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |