How does this HSR Miner compare to CCMiner when used on the Lyra2Rev2 algo? Looking for the best miner for that algo..
HSRMiner fork is for Neoscrypt only, not Lyra2Rev2. My advice would be to use the Excavator 1.4.4a release to get max hash rate out of most NVidia cards for Lyra2Rev2 (and other algorithms, like Nist5 and Blake2s). the JSON config files for it are a little odd to build, but the hash rate boost is worth it. Thank you my man! |
|
|
|
|
How does this HSR Miner compare to CCMiner when used on the Lyra2Rev2 algo? Looking for the best miner for that algo..
|
|
|
|
Did you stop the older version from running? Suddenly my older version says program can't run..
Never mind.. My virus protection got to it and deleted it, I've restored it. |
|
|
|
|
Did you stop the older version from running? Suddenly my older version says program can't run..
|
|
|
|
|
LoL.. Why is it still closed source? I'd say there are no innocent players here, it's closed source for a reason. And a dev dying and him getting sick while at the same time while "friends" sent messages of having marital problems? Yea.. everything is very coincidental and shady.
|
|
|
|
|
I know a couple of people that are waiting for the Titan update to try it on their cards.
|
|
|
|
You mine at 2048 difficulty? How do you know what difficulty is a good rate for your mining rig?
just make sure that you can submits 5 to 15 shares per minute. When I look at the pool, it says I have 240s/s, I'm guessing that's 240 shares per second? I mine at 512 difficulty with about 15mh/s rig. Is 512 too low? That's 240 shares of value 1 per second. So with 512 diff, it's about one share submission every 2 seconds. Difficulty doesn't matter that much. Let the pool choose it for you. I can't let the pool choose, it's not a variable difficulty pool. The next option for difficulty is 2048, is that too high for me? |
|
|
|
You mine at 2048 difficulty? How do you know what difficulty is a good rate for your mining rig?
just make sure that you can submits 5 to 15 shares per minute. When I look at the pool, it says I have 240s/s, I'm guessing that's 240 shares per second? I mine at 512 difficulty with about 15mh/s rig. Is 512 too low? |
|
|
|
|
You mine at 2048 difficulty? How do you know what difficulty is a good rate for your mining rig?
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno what it was but I had some cards that were just really under performing, this miner has improved even the ones that were under performers.. I saw them in the low 1600's and this brought them to upper 1700's.. Not sure why the large disparity, since some of my cards hit 1900+ mining at the same time but I guess I just have a bad card.
|
|
|
|
|
I was using Palgin's original HSR Miner for weeks.. It was a pretty good improvement over Klaust CCMiner for neoscrypt. When I was using one 1080 ti card I was getting around 1815kh/s. When I expanded my rig to 8 cards, the hashrate of the combined cards was closer to 1650kh/s. Still better than Klaust CCminer by about 5%. I guess because of multiple cards the efficiency went down.
Then I tried Just A Miner's fork with high intensity, same high OC settings I've always used (90tdp, +120core +600mem)... Combined hashrate for 8 1080 ti cards back up to 14.8mh/s, that gives an individual rate of 1850kh/s. I'm really impressed, and I want to thank you..
|
|
|
|
|
How will you improve it if you don't have access to the code?
|
|
|
|
for two days testing the miner with GTX 1070
i found its giving fake hashrate number
i get 1300 for neoscrypt with my GTX 1070
CCminer Klaust 1250
but still the profit from nicehash if i use ccminer higher then hsrminer
i test one card for one hour with both software and the winner is ccminer Klaust
three hour also ccminer
two card for one hour and three hours also ccminer better
anyone agree with me ?
come on its close source software
Again, you can't compare miners by comparing coins mined because the difficulty can be set at 20 for one hour while using one miner and set to 2000 while using the other. Comparing miners by coins mined at different times is useless.. |
|
|
|
@Zorday , great job on the testing but yes, a much larger testing window would be better. If a baseball batter got up to bat 3times and got 2 hits you'd think he was the greatest baseball player in history by looking at his average. As the batter got more at bats the natural average would kick in and you'd see he's only batting .230 and now we're dumping him back into the minor leagues  A slightly higher hashrate with higher shares submitted should produce better results over the long haul but because the increase is so minor, we're talking 5-8% at most, a much longer time period would be best to flesh out this very minor increase. Definitely on the right path though for testing the two and I appreciate the info. Agreed and I will do more tests... I have to restart though as one of the miners got disconnected yesterday and I was not paying attention. Yes I am well aware that the stats are a bit scarce, but still I would expect to see a slightly different angle on the slope. Isn't the difference more like 20%? 1480kH/s compared to 1790kH/s reported? Isn't really 1790 with a rig.. On single cards, yeah, I can get above 1800kh/s with 90%tdp but in a group of cards my range is 1650-1750kh/s. I'd guess it was closer to 5-8% hashrate gains, no where near 20%. |
|
|
|
@Zorday , great job on the testing but yes, a much larger testing window would be better. If a baseball batter got up to bat 3times and got 2 hits you'd think he was the greatest baseball player in history by looking at his average. As the batter got more at bats the natural average would kick in and you'd see he's only batting .230 and now we're dumping him back into the minor leagues A slightly higher hashrate with higher shares submitted should produce better results over the long haul but because the increase is so minor, we're talking 5-8% at most, a much longer time period would be best to flesh out this very minor increase. Definitely on the right path though for testing the two and I appreciate the info. |
|
|
|
I use 3 x 1080 ti and I can't specify an intensity higher than 7, if i put more the program crash.
If I change the intensity (5, 6, 7 or nothing) the performance doesn't change and the memory usage as well (only 6700 Mb)
My perfs : 1600 per card at best.
I have the last drivers.
My cards are oc with +150 GPU, +800 RAM and 70 power limit, no problem with other miners...
Don't set anything for intensity, hsrminer does it itself.. Increase your virtual memory above 11gb per card. your overclock seems pretty high, I can't get anything above +100 core stable on HSRminer and +600 mem... I can go +150/+625 on my evga hybrids. my TDP is 90%.. I can get near 1800kh/s on some cards, 1700 on others.. hsrminer is not as stable as the other miners when you have higher overclock, so lower that plus increase the virtual memory by 35gb for those 3 cards and see how that works for you. |
|
|
|
Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..
Yeah, you keep talking about getting the *current* difficulty from whattomine while I keep saying I am using the *average difficulty for 24h* from minethecoin; very different, those two. Now, there is one potential problem with using the average difficulty from minethecoin and applying it to the pool: minethecoin is likely performing a moving average for all of the blocks found by all of the pools for the past 24 hours, whereas any given pool will only find a fraction of the total blocks found in a 24 hour period. But I anticipated this issue and it is one of the reasons why I chose the official Trezarcoin pool to do my test and ran the test for 24 hours - again, that allows me to use the average difficulty value from minethecoin and it helps reduce the effects of wild variations in pool luck and/or of the difficulty of the blocks the pool does find. I already agreed that running the test concurrently with identical hardware on the same pool, just different wallet addresses, would be a better test, but I don't think that automatically means my methodology is worthless. Bruh, you wanna pass along bad info, that's up to you.. concurrent on same pool+coin or hashrate/share rate is the only way to go. Let go of the coins/difficulty idea, it's not useful.. I'm not picking on you, you just won't let that bad measuring method die. Let me kill it for you. |
|
|
|
1080 are getting extra 200-300 kH/s on hsrminer. Even my 1070ti performs significantly better than on ccminer klaust, almost 1500 kH/s versus 1350 kH/s, despite the fact that I have to decrease an overclock for hsrminer a bit to make it stable. [/quote] OK cool, thanks for confirming.. I probably read some misinformation on the non Ti cards as well, like the coin misinformation I've been reading lately  My 1080 ti's get 200-300+ but I notice not all of them are able to reach those numbers. I tested at the pool and the numbers were consistent with what the miner was displaying on the command line with the pool. My 8 cards got an avg of 1.2mh/s more than the ccminer at the pool which was an 8% increase. One day I'll have time to fiddle with why some cards are hitting near 1800kh/s and some are near 1650kh/s. |
|
|
|
Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.
Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.
Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure. But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times). Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm.. |
|
|
|
MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..
Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..." I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins. If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless. EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far. Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates. Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
