Thanks for the info
Got the JCE miner configured now and getting 2500 to 2600 With 32 threads. Did lift higher
To 48 and 60 threads but same symptoms occured-hashes went down. Hopefully miners can
Get more efficient in time for this cpu?
Alls good now. Cheers
2500h-2600/s is already excellent and probably around the best you can achieve with cpu. If you want to try with more threads with JCE, you need to use special options for additional threads to avoid using cache, since you are fully using the cache with 32 threads: doing this will probably bring a small performance increase with a power consumption increase ... |
|
|
|
Hi ol92,
if you're around could you please run a quick test with the latest miner and let me know if the hashrates for the 2080 are better than the rates you got with the last miner?
Thx!
Hello, tested yesterday : the new miner has almost the same performance as the first one: around 23 Mh/s at 85% powerlimit. The first one was a little bit better (around 23.5). Others were worse (21-22). I will test more this afternoon. |
|
|
|
Hi ol92, I think/hope I fixed the bug. New release is available. Let me know if you find some time to run a quick test with your 2080.
Thx.
I will test it at this evening (UTC time). The last version still hash lower than the first one for RTX cards |
|
|
|
Could you try bitcoininterest ?
cu 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Using device: GeForce RTX 2080 (Compute 7.5) cu 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Set Device to current cu 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Resetting device cu 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Compile log: nvrtc: error: invalid value for --gpu-architecture (-arch) X 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Fatal GPU error: CUDA NVRTC error in func dev::eth::CUDAMiner::compileKernel at line 509 calling compileResult failed with error NVRTC_ERROR_INVALID_OPTION X 17:09:18|cuda-0 | Terminating. with tradetec miner, it works : around 25Mh/s with the first version of the miner, the last one hashes lower. |
|
|
|
Hi ol92, I think/hope I fixed the bug. New release is available. Let me know if you find some time to run a quick test with your 2080.
Thx.
I will test it at this evening (UTC time). |
|
|
|
New version available (18.9.39.11)
- Improved performance of the ProgPow Algo
- better handling of the pool/coin configuration. Miner will now extracvt information for server/port from a regula pool connection string is past into the server field 'stratum+tcp://solo-bci.altpool.pro:2242'
Performance on RTX 2080 is better on the previous miner: @gpu+120 and mem +800 26Mh/s against 24 |
|
|
|
Thanks ol92 for your work. I was afraid that the GUI is not too easy to use - I will try to make it more user friendly in the next releases. If you have anything you wish to see let me know.
Thx.
You could describe a complete example of configuration. For instance for suprnova, I had to guess not to use the usual prefix for the server : stratum+tcp. With this prefix, the miner seems to work but the gpu is not used and no hashrate. On the other side, you could add some console output in one window for error debugging... The gui is not bad at all, just somewhat difficult to use the first time. |
|
|
|
Hi ol92, thanks - let me know how it works. Do not forget to use the latest driver from Nvidia - it is required with Cuda 10. And: Don't be surprised that this is a miner that comes with an GUI  Hello, I have managed to make it work (not so easy to set up in spite of the gui: I am more at ease with CLI miner I suppose). RTX 2080: 24.5mh/s (gpu+100mhz, power =100%). I will compare with other miners. It seems good for me. |
|
|
|
New version available (18.9.39.11)
- Improved performance of the ProgPow Algo
- Improved performance of the Ethash Algo
- Less rejected Shares (fast solution reporting to the pool)
- Shows the count of GPU Stales (indication of too much OC!)
- Integration of Nvidias new Cuda 10 SDK
- Drag & Drop an coin configuration to a rig to let all gpus mine that news coin (Function in the MinerControl)
Coming next: Improved Algos & Trading App (TradeProject)
interesting: I will test with my RTX 2080 with cuda 10... |
|
|
|
But why comapre it against 1080 and not 1080ti? Your review sucks.
We wanted to compare it to the same model of an earlier generation. 2080Ti has been delayed by a week. As soon as I get hold of one a full 1080Ti vs 2080Ti test will be performed.  pricewise, RTX 2080 is against GTX 1080 ti. It makes sense to compare it to both GTX 1080 and GTX 1080 ti. |
|
|
|
Easy guys! I forgot to add a link to an image with a table showing all hashrates. Post updated. Not need to get so excited  HashratesEthash NVidia GTX 1080 Founders OC: 20.2 Mh/s (28.7 with Ethpill) Gigabyte RTX 2080 OC: 35.3 Mh/s (+75%) Cryptonight Variant 1NVidia GTX 1080 Founders OC: 507 h/s Gigabyte RTX 2080 OC: 769 h/s (+50%) Lyra2REv2NVidia GTX 1080 Founders OC: 42.1 Mh/s Gigabyte RTX 2080 OC: 72.1 Mh/s (+70%) EquihashNVidia GTX 1080 Founders OC: 391 Sol/s Gigabyte RTX 2080 OC: 566 Sol/s (+45%) Thanks for your efforts and work. Could you precise the versions of the miners and the parameters please ? A GTX 1080 ti have better hashrate for most algos at a lesser price. Could you test lyra2z with CryptoDredge 0.9.1 please ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4807821.0 |
|
|
|
$4500 incoming now that the 3-descending triangle base is broken.
Probably bottom out around $3500 with a possible capitulative wick down to $1700.
How do you see the 3 descending triangle base broken? : the three lows are around the same levels for me (the second is a little bit higher than the first and third). |
|
|
|
There have been many requsets for algos lately, curiously none of them have any helpful info.
This makes it very difficult and time consuming for me to try to find the info needed to implement them.
I spent way too much time trying to figure out the cryptonightv7 implementation and I don't care to
do that for every new algo. I do not demand a fee but I expect those making requests to do their part to
make it as easy as possible for me.
Any request must be accompanied by either a cpuminer compatible example or a detailed
specification for the algo, preferably both.
Any request with insufficient information will be ignored.
Even with proper info I have no desire to just keep up with the competition. If I can't make it faster
I'm not really interested. I made an exception for cryptonightV7 because it restored functionality that was lost.
New algos usually have only one coin using it which also reduces my interest in supporting them. In other words
I need to be convinced.
As far as AVX512 goes, I need an AVX512 capable CPU and they aren't cheap. Mainstream AVX512 support
is supposed to be available with Cannonlake but it appears it will be delayed yet again. The next generation
of Intel CPUs is rumoured to be a Coffeelake refresh. So no reasonably priced AVX512 CPUs anytime soon.
It would be fair miners like us help you by funding buying a X299 platform... I am using your miner since 1 year, half time (half mining aeon with xmr-stack) with a xeon 2696V4 and I have just switch to an i9 7960x. I have just sent some mbtc. |
|
|
|
Reading through this thread for the first time, I only saw your announcement on the ZCoin subreddit earlier. A polite request though, with all due respect please stop the bs hints about ripping your kernels, I haven't even downloaded your miner, even less so tried to dump your kernels. I was just as surprised as you were about the weird coincidence that two very similar AMD lyra2z-related announcements were made within a friggin' day after months of silence. Furthermore, I don't know when you published on github, but otherwise all your announcements that I've seen were written after(!) my post here. It's a bit of a stretch that I somehow would have found your miner before your first announcement, ripped the kernels, massaged them into a Windows sgminer and made a wild announcement myself, like you wouldn't be able to release the same packaging yourself at some point  . As stated, my implementation was written bottom up in pure GCN ASM (well, not the Blake part) and has been running on Windows rigs for a number of months. No ROCm dependencies. We probably made the same analysis, that lyra2z was very far from well understood and a very good fit for what an AMD GCN CU can do with DPP ops. Your miner def has had me become less interested in releasing it public though, I'd rather keep the extra ~15% edge I seem to have for now. Cheers, K Hey kerney, thanks for clearing the air on this. I admittedly over-reacted a bit by insinuating that you may have taken the kernels from my miner. Right after my initial release on github I had ask a couple people if they could test it out, before my reddit announcement. One of them directly told me that he was trying to reverse engineer the kernels. When I saw that your post went up half a day after this interaction, I jumped to conclusions. My apologies. Also kudos to you for writing a lyra2 implementation entirely in assembly. I know how much of a pain it was for me to do it in opencl c with inline assembly, so I imagine it was doubly so doing it entirely in assembly. I don't understand why this release discouraged you from releasing your own miner. Wouldn't releasing a miner with a dev fee would be more profitable than having a 15% advantage just on your own rigs? In either case, I think the community would appreciate and benefit from having two competing AMD miners for lyra2z, and I personally welcome the competition. I agree: I appreciate what you are doing for the community. A competitive miner with a dev fee somewhat reasonable is a win win situation. Thanks for both of you. |
|
|
|
|
I vote for a fee. Fair because, the higher you use the miner, the higher your pay...
For the fee amount: you may adopt a progressive approach: 25% at the begining (first week: this level is too high to last more than a week), then a regular decrease toward 2% a few months later...
Or choose a more reasonable fee: 10%
|
|
|
|
What a farce! I put the AVX512 code in avxdefs in early preparation for when I start converting the existing AVX2 code to AVX512. It's expemimental and ISN'T USED ANYWHERE. So beastpool forks my code, assumes the AVX512 is active and claims it in his release. That's either pretty stupid or deliberately deceptive. Or they didn't release the sources for their avx512 code... Now I have some doubts. The miner included in the wallet pretend to have avx 512 code too: https://github.com/duality-solutions/DynamicIt appears the AVX512 in the wallet is legitimate but if you look at the beastpool miners page there's no evidence of any supercharged stratum miners. I have just checked more carefully on beastpool github: they have added avx512 code (I didn't check if there are some difference with the in wallet miner code for the same opt.c file): https://github.com/BeastPool/cpuminer-argon2d/blob/master/algo/argon2d/argon2d/opt.c. Regards, |
|
|
|
What a farce! I put the AVX512 code in avxdefs in early preparation for when I start converting the existing AVX2 code to AVX512. It's expemimental and ISN'T USED ANYWHERE. So beastpool forks my code, assumes the AVX512 is active and claims it in his release. That's either pretty stupid or deliberately deceptive. Or they didn't release the sources for their avx512 code... Now I have some doubts. The miner included in the wallet pretend to have avx 512 code too: https://github.com/duality-solutions/DynamicIn the wallet miner code (not beastpool miner but the dyn wallet miner): file opt.c, I find this code: #if defined(__AVX512F__) static void fill_block(__m512i *state, const block *ref_block, block *next_block, int with_xor) { __m512i block_XY[ARGON2_512BIT_WORDS_IN_BLOCK]; unsigned int i; if (with_xor) { for (i = 0; i < ARGON2_512BIT_WORDS_IN_BLOCK; i++) { state = _mm512_xor_si512(
state, _mm512_loadu_si512((const __m512i *)ref_block->v + i));
block_XY = _mm512_xor_si512(
state, _mm512_loadu_si512((const __m512i *)next_block->v + i));
}
} else {
for (i = 0; i < ARGON2_512BIT_WORDS_IN_BLOCK; i++) {
block_XY = state = _mm512_xor_si512(
state, _mm512_loadu_si512((const __m512i *)ref_block->v + i));
}
}
for (i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
BLAKE2_ROUND_1(
state[8 * i + 0], state[8 * i + 1], state[8 * i + 2], state[8 * i + 3],
state[8 * i + 4], state[8 * i + 5], state[8 * i + 6], state[8 * i + 7]);
}
for (i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
BLAKE2_ROUND_2(
state[2 * 0 + i], state[2 * 1 + i], state[2 * 2 + i], state[2 * 3 + i],
state[2 * 4 + i], state[2 * 5 + i], state[2 * 6 + i], state[2 * 7 + i]);
}
for (i = 0; i < ARGON2_512BIT_WORDS_IN_BLOCK; i++) {
state = _mm512_xor_si512(state, block_XY);
_mm512_storeu_si512((__m512i *)next_block->v + i, state);
}
}
And there is some avx512 code in blamka-round-opt.h too.
|
|
|
|
What a farce! I put the AVX512 code in avxdefs in early preparation for when I start converting the existing AVX2 code to AVX512. It's expemimental and ISN'T USED ANYWHERE. So beastpool forks my code, assumes the AVX512 is active and claims it in his release. That's either pretty stupid or deliberately deceptive. Or they didn't release the sources for their avx512 code... Now I have some doubts. The miner included in the wallet pretend to have avx 512 code too: https://github.com/duality-solutions/Dynamic |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
