|
Jenkins, you do realize reporting posts reports them to me right?
Go bug some other forum. Or, alternatively, I can have theymos ban you. Your choice.
|
|
|
|
It looks like the 7970 is going to be garbage, unless there's something I'm missing. The 5970 has 3200 stream processors, for a cost of $500. The 7970 has 2048 stream processors, for a cost of  I should point out that stream processors are EVERYTHING when it comes to mining. If that weren't the case, we'd all be happily mining on nVidia hardware. So the card better be cheap, like around $330, to be an equivalent value. If the card is $600 or $700 you can forget it. You're missing a lot. Stream processor numbers across unrelated archs are not equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
BTW, anyone using the donate function, update to newest. That multipool bug apparently screws up donating too, it hops to the wrong pool to donate on.
|
|
|
|
|
+5 from tonto
+0.11 from burger
Thanks guys.
Current total: 25.1201976.
20BTC sold for around $4.75
5BTC sold for around $6.50
|
|
|
|
Well good news, looks like with 2.6, bitselect() is mapped to the corresponding bfi instruction on GCN archs. But not on VLIW ones. That is nice. So the bfi problem is solved.
This is extremely good news. Less ugly code is always better. |
|
|
|
Downloaded the sources for diablominer and compiled them. ~650MH/s with the default diablominer settings and the card OC'd @ 1125/975MHz:
~530MH/s at standard clocks:
WTF and thats with -v 1? 79xx could be glorious if I can find the right settings. Edit: You know, I just noticed the op post said GPU threads had a viable increase beyond two. Huh. I should go see if that is worth abuse, I never got better performance beyond 2 on DM (its hardwired to 2, and was the first miner to abuse that trick). |
|
|
|
Here's a screenshot of the last few hours' worth of mining.  I'm downloading diablo's miner to give it a shot. Is dat some git log?  |
|
|
|
For those wondering, DiabloMiner already only runs BFI_INT on cards that can do it: it will not do it on 79xx (at least, not until we can change the kernel binary, the instruction is different on GCN). I was right then, I think. I said 7970 should exceed 500 stock properly tuned, and that guy is doing it with a minor overclock. well I wouldn't call a 20%+ overclock "mild".  Well, what do you call my 5850, stock 725, at 960?  |
|
|
|
For those wondering, DiabloMiner already only runs BFI_INT on cards that can do it: it will not do it on 79xx (at least, not until we can change the kernel binary, the instruction is different on GCN). I was right then, I think. I said 7970 should exceed 500 stock properly tuned, and that guy is doing it with a minor overclock. |
|
|
|
6 x 7670 should get 1.2 ghsh/motherboard, might be worthwhile.
Depending on what that series ends up being, sure. AMD needs to stop with the chimera families. I liked it better when every member of the family was some variant of the main arch. |
|
|
|
i will be pretty upset if the 7xxx comes out only marginally better for mining. Because i just sold both 5970 at $300 a pop on ebay getting ready for the 7xxx series. Miner is down right now waiting for the new card to release.
Why would you do that? The discussion has been for months that GCN architecture may not be mining friendly. Your sold 5970s deliver 1.4 to 1.5GH. You do realize that it is a pipe dream to think the 7970 will be ANYWHERE near that. Worse at launch the card is likely going to sell at $549 and even then availability may be difficult. Disablo may be able to pull some respectable performance out of the card (eventually) but your sale was downright foolish. If the 7970 could someday deliver 500 MH that would be decent. 600 MH+ would be amazing. It isn't going to deliver 1.5GH. You can't optimize something out of nothing. He did not say 7970. He could wait for a 7890 or something that uses VLIW4 which are better at mining. 78xx is most likely going to be the existing 69xx arch fabbed at 28nm (since it was originally meant for 28nm anyhow). 69xx still doesn't beat SDK 2.1-able VLIW5. That isn't a good trade unless you can get a 6970-like card for under $150 (and then he can go buy four of them). |
|
|
|
|
Update: Improved error handling for argument parsing, will now quit if you do not supply enough connection parameters, or try to use 0 with -D
|
|
|
|
Do you guys have a recommendation on a manufacturer? like XFX, Sapphire, etc?
It'll be my first high-end video card purchase, so I don't want to buy crappy and suffer later.
Stick with ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, and Sapphire. The rest is second or third tier shit, especially XFX and Powercolor and Club3D. I've always found HIS to be acceptable. Not the first choice of mine, but it is acceptable. HIS is probably okay as long as you stick with the reference designs. |
|
|
|
i will be pretty upset if the 7xxx comes out only marginally better for mining. Because i just sold both 5970 at $300 a pop on ebay getting ready for the 7xxx series. Miner is down right now waiting for the new card to release.
Why would you do that? The discussion has been for months that GCN architecture may not be mining friendly. Your sold 5970s deliver 1.4 to 1.5GH. You do realize that it is a pipe dream to think the 7970 will be ANYWHERE near that. Worse at launch the card is likely going to sell at $549 and even then availability may be difficult. Disablo may be able to pull some respectable performance out of the card (eventually) but your sale was downright foolish. If the 7970 could someday deliver 500 MH that would be decent. 600 MH+ would be amazing. It isn't going to deliver 1.5GH. You can't optimize something out of nothing. I'll have to agree here. Unless I hit it out of the park and find, like, some hidden single cycle "hash ALL the coins" function, I'd still use a 5970 over a 7970 especially since they're two different products... what you want is a 7990 (the dual 7970 board, matching the 6990 and the 5970), which will have a retail price of approximately $9001. |
|
|
|
problem is.... this card cannot be bought anywhere yet.
Yet, but soon. We already know its going to be between $400 and $600. Donations do not happen over night. |
|
|
|
Do you guys have a recommendation on a manufacturer? like XFX, Sapphire, etc?
It'll be my first high-end video card purchase, so I don't want to buy crappy and suffer later.
Stick with ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, and Sapphire. The rest is second or third tier shit, especially XFX and Powercolor and Club3D. |
|
|
|
I just did a whole bunch of benchmarking on my ATI Radeon 5830, with an overclocked core of 1060MHz. The goal was to find out all about the new AMD Stream SDK 2.6's OpenCL performance, and what miner optimizations may get performance back where it was with 2.5.775.2 and previous SDK runtimes. The 5830 is basically a 5870 (the same chip die) with the 1600 stream processors cut down to 1120 (failed die yields or simply product segmentation). The stock core clock on the 5870 is 850MHz, while the 5830 is 800MHz. My card's highest possible mhash with 2.4-2.5 are at 1060/366Mhz with Phoenix 1.7.2 (exe) phatk2 VECTORS AGGRESSION=13 FASTLOOP=False WORKSIZE=256. The odd 366MHz optimal RAM speed differs on 6xxx, 5850, and 57xx, where 300MHz is where the peak performance is usually found. Lets see what we find, I was curious what Diapolo's new 2011-12-21 kernel could do, so lots of Phoenix 1.7.2 benchmarks with different kernels, worksize, and RAM speeds (the scaling is similar to standard phatk2), tests were ran for several minutes and shares (unless the setting was obviously poor), with the -a averaging option: SDK 2.5/11.6| worksize: | | | 256 | 128 | 64 | | Diapolo | VECTORS2 | 366MHz | 340.87 | 335.56 | 324.79 | | Diapolo | VECTORS2 | 1000MHz | 328.81 | 335.56 | 332.32 | | Diapolo | VECTORS4 | 366MHz | 200.94 | 204.04 | 200.97 | | Diapolo | VECTORS4 | 1000MHz | 244.39 | 250.09 | 244.39 | | phatk2 | VECTORS | 366MHz | 345.32 | | |
Note: VECTORS3 is in the diapolo init file, but phoenix crashes with a python traceback error if it is used.SDK 2.6/11.12 (12.1 is identical)| worksize: | | | 256 | 128 | 64 | | Diapolo | VECTORS2 | 366MHz | 332.99 | 327.86 | 321.16 | | Diapolo | VECTORS2 | 1000MHz | 326.03 | 327.90 | 325.99 | | Diapolo | VECTORS4 | 366MHz | 219 | 298 | 329.74 | | Diapolo | VECTORS4 | 1000MHz | 255 | 278 | 216 | | phatk2 | VECTORS | 366MHz | 307.37 | 306.78 | 297.25 | | phatk2 | VECTORS | 1000MHz | 300.87 | 304.61 | 298.81 | | phatk2 | VECTORS4 | 366MHz | 217.42 | 289.25 | 288.78 | | phatk2 | VECTORS4 | 1000MHz | 262.69 | 339.5 | 340.21 | | phatk | VECTORS | 366MHz | 326 | 323.5 | 315.3 | | phatk | VECTORS | 1000MHz | 317 | 321.2 | 320.5 |
Conclusions: -AMD seems to have fixed the "bug" where underclocking memory is required for best performance; there is no massive drop at full RAM clock speed in most cases. -Performance using phatk2/VECTORS4/WORKSIZE 64 is 99% of the old maximum, but with the video card using more power because of not underclocking -The new driver/SDK fixes the CPU bug; maybe you break even in power usage by not using 100% CPU too... -The stock 1000MHz RAM speed is the optimum speed, from 300MHz-1200MHz, the highest performance was at 1000MHz, and no further tweaking could get more out of the best setting. -If you need the latest driver, play games, don't want to underclock, now you have your setting! Dedicated miners still get more hashrate for less wattage with SDK 2.5 (until OpenCL kernel tweakers can figure out how to get even more out of 2.6...) Soon to come: recompiling pyOpenCL against the 2.6 SDK. jedi95 might try this for his exe distribution. pyOpenCL-0.98 seems to get about 1% more than the newest pyOpenCL-2011.2, BTW, and appears to be the version rolled into the exe. edit: My 5770 give similar results - it's default memory clock is 1200MHz, but the performance peak is at 1000MHz. VECTORS4 AGGRESSION=12 FASTLOOP=False WORKSIZE=128 gives me 229Mhash/s, vs the best before at 230Mhash/s. I found the exact same results on DiabloMiner a few days ago. -v 4 -w 64 seems to give almost the same results, but not quite as much. However, I did the test with underclocked RAM, not full speed. However, I still recommend 2.1 on Radeon 5xxx hardware instead of 2.5, as that gets you the full performance. |
|
|
|
Windows Defender FAIL, it is telling me diablominer may be a virus and ask me to delete it. Danger level: average
Of course it's a false positive, diablominer is safe, but for MICROSOFT, it isn't.
Program:Win32/BitCoinMiner
Program:MacOS/BitCoinMiner
Program:Linux/BitCoinMiner
Program:Solaris/BitCoinMiner
So much fail.
Also it shows that microsoft consider miners as dangerous software
There has been an actual virus that distributes miners as their payloads, and the authors of the anti-viruses are too stupid to tag the right binaries (ie, the virus instead of the otherwise legitimate payload). The same has happened to cgminer, btw. |
|
|
|
|
Update: Bug in multipool pool advance fixed, uncovered by return to primary. D'oh.
|
|
|
|
Nice. Too bad AMD hasn't contacted me about me supporting their GCN platform yet on DiabloMiner. Seriously, AMD, send me a 7970, I will love you all night long. Wink wink. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
