I was reading the last 40 pages (i've been out a while) and I was wondering, why is there is so little info about power efficiency?.
There was such a discussion, was it really more than 40 pages ago? It came down to 750ti vs 970 with the 970 getting some credit for lower rig overhead, it needs fewer rigs to produce the same hash rate as 750ti's. The 750ti shines on lyra2v2 giving it a clear edge on that algo, IMO. Although the 750ti is generally thought to be a more efficient card it's edge isn't so clear at the system level with most algos. Your thoughts welcome. |
|
|
|
Several pages back i read that some of you where concern about using several PSU's in parallel.
Would a dummy plug (PSU tester) on the 24 pin solve the problem you describe? |
|
|
|
here are some timings from the x11 algo on a 750ti: cuda 7.5 is faster: blake, skein,shavite,simd,echo cuda 6.5 is faster: bmw,groestl,jhkeccak,luffacubehash release 74:
22.6765s 8.1170ms (19968 1 1) (64 1 1) 64 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_blake512_gpu_hash_80(unsigned int, unsigned int, uint2*) [3277]
22.6846s 8.8407ms* (39936 1 1) (32 1 1) 128 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_bmw512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, unsigned int const *) [3283]
22.6935s 83.971ms* (9984 1 1) (512 1 1) 64 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_groestl512_gpu_hash_64_quad(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int*, unsigned int const *) [3289]
22.7775s 10.594ms (9984 1 1) (128 1 1) 40 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_skein512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, unsigned int const *) [3295]
22.7881s 34.017ms* (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 80 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_jh512Keccak512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int*) [3300]
22.8221s 59.762ms* (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 71 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_luffaCubehash512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*) [3305]
22.8819s 57.118ms (3994 1 1) (320 1 1) 64 4.0000KB 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_shavite512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*) [3310]
22.9390s 55.778ms (319488 1 1) (32 1 1) 62 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_simd512_gpu_expand_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64 const *, uint4*) [3316]
22.9948s 29.153ms (39936 1 1) (32 1 1) 64 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_simd512_gpu_compress_64_maxwell(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, uint4*) [3322]
23.0239s 93.088ms (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 80 4.0000KB 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_echo512_gpu_hash_64_final(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64 const *, unsigned int*, unsigned int) [3330]
release 77:
3.83318s 7.1578ms* (19968 1 1) (64 1 1) 80 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_blake512_gpu_hash_80(unsigned int, unsigned int, uint2*) [736]
3.84034s 9.1572ms (39936 1 1) (32 1 1) 146 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_bmw512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, unsigned int const *) [742]
3.84951s 84.421ms (9984 1 1) (512 1 1) 64 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_groestl512_gpu_hash_64_quad(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int*, unsigned int const *) [748]
3.93394s 9.0119ms* (9984 1 1) (128 1 1) 40 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_skein512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, unsigned int const *) [754]
3.94295s 37.825ms (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 79 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 quark_jh512Keccak512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int*) [759]
3.98079s 64.982ms (2496 1 1) (512 1 1) 75 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_luffaCubehash512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*) [764]
4.04578s 56.054ms* (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 80 4.0000KB 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_shavite512_gpu_hash_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*) [769]
4.10184s 47.404ms* (319488 1 1) (32 1 1) 64 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_simd512_gpu_expand_64(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64 const *, uint4*) [775]
4.14925s 25.791ms* (39936 1 1) (32 1 1) 128 0B 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_simd512_gpu_compress_64_maxwell(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64*, uint4*) [781]
4.17506s 91.801ms* (4992 1 1) (256 1 1) 128 4.0000KB 0B - - GeForce GTX 750 2 14 x11_echo512_gpu_hash_64_final(unsigned int, unsigned int, __int64 const *, unsigned int*, unsigned int) [789]
I tried making a quick and dirty hybrid ccminer according to this table, to mine X11. Unfortunately it is slower. Maybe it's because I'm on Linux... I'm not a big fan of the hybrid option, seems simpler to manage multiple executables, but I'll throw in my 2 satoshis. I presume you compiled x11 sub-algos with the compiler that would provide the better performance. That should, theoretically, give the best of both worlds. I haven't seen any difference in performance between Linux & Windows so I don't suspect that is the problem. Did you compile in the same order? IIRC you initially compiled with 7.5 then recompiled with 6.5. This would effectively link mostly 7.5 object files with the 6.5 linker. Perhaps you used the 7.5 linker this time and some of the performance lost is due to it. The card might also have an impact, SP tested with a 750, a 9xx might perrform differently. It would be interesting to profile the hybrid performance compared to SP's data above. |
|
|
|
I've been having some problems that I started to encounter recently. I used to be able to run this for a day or so at a time; but recently the program will close itself after a few minutes of mining.
I'm running Windows Vista 32-bit with a Zotac GTX550Ti. I'm really happy with the numbers it's pulling out when it's running, but I hate that I have to babysit it and keep opening it when it closes.
I tried using CGWatcher, but it won't hook to the API. And I also tried using Awesomeminer but it wouldn't hook into the API either. My .conf file is set up like this:
{
"api-allow" : "W:127.0.0.1,W:192.168.1.x",
"api-listen" : true,
"api-mcast" : true,
"api-mcast-port" : "4068",
"api-network" : true,
"api-port" : "4068",
"pass" : "x",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://us-east.multipool.us:11111",
"user" : "Rodman101.1",
"auto-fan" : true,
"no-gbt" : true,
"algo" : "x11",
"api-bind" : "127.0.0.1:4068",
"statsavg" : "20",
"protocol" : false,
"cpu-priority" : "3"
}
As a workaround you could use a looping bat file to automatically restart ccminer if it exits. |
|
|
|
yeah.
I am using the CCMINER spmod for nvidia....
latest version..
using this string: ccminer.exe -r 0 -a myr-gr -i 17.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:5433 -u 1PHSDYvVp6HpqtuUPocK41DrdeHbbezaeP -p d=0.4,myr-gr=49.5
(cuts out confusion)
I don't see anyone mining myr-gr with the SP_MOD fork of ccminer so it's probably broken. You should probably report it in his thread. The TPruvot fork 1.7-dev seems to work. |
|
|
|
@Eliovp
I'm not meaning to come off as a troll but you admitted you're an AMD fan boy so it's fair game to challenge you.
"best card ever"?
The numbers you posted put it on par with the GTX980 but at a much higher price. Considering the 980 is 1 1/2 years old,
and second in line, that isn't much to brag about. Will you be testing with the new miner? That might look more impressive.
What is already impressive with the nano is the size reduction, packing 980 performance in a half length card is
an achievement. But that raises the issue of heat dissipation, always a concern with AMD. The improved power
efficiency is nice to see but AMD is still playing catch up.
With the expectations of pascal in the next few months nvidia will probably jump ahead again.
If AMD wants to really compete with Nvidia they either have to put out a better product, or a cheaper product.
An equal product at a higher price won't do it.
Okay, lets say it like this: True i'm in a way an AMD fanboy. I always support the smaller players. I still support Nokia :p (nah i'm joking..) Yes, for me, best card i ever had. Not only because it's so energy efficient, but also because it's so small, it stays cool, it wouldn't go higher than 65 degrees with fan speed at 25% or so when i was testing (must admit, it wasn't inside a case, still isn't and in an open warehouse), so the heat issue isn't even there. Plus it isn't "that" expensive. How much did the 980 cost when it came out? And how much does it still cost? I totally agree with you regarding the price, although that i made a few deals and it's a lot cheaper on my part. But in general, true, it isn't.. The "an equal product at a higher price" statement, that's something i surely don't agree on. It's in my eyes in no way equal to anything Nvidia offers. The size alone... Temperature you spoke about. I'm now running it at core clock 1100 and it's at 70 degrees (fan @ 40%). Performance wise, there isn't an asic resistant algo out there where it wouldn't end up in the top 3, speed wise.. So i stand by my words. It is the best card AMD has to offer at this moment. And again, those are my words and is my own opinion.  I agree it's the best since ATI was bought out by AMD. Now if they put out a 2xnano it would give nvidia a run for it's money at the top end. |
|
|
|
WINDOWS RELEASE VERSIONS--
If you use release dot 74, as compiled by sp_ , you will get optimal Neoscrypt rates. Release dot 74 was the last release compiled by sp_ that used CUDA 6.5.
If you use release dot 77+, it is compiled with CUDA 7.5, and Neoscrypt rates are lower. Other algos have been improved.
In Linux, it is possible to compile a hybrid version if you use both CUDA 6.5 and 7.5, as described by Pallas a few pages back in the thread. At least, he describes the hybrid method. No programmer has released a hybrid pre-compiled version.
--scryptr
And just for completeness, if you have SM3.5 cards (ie 780ti) the old neoscrypt kernel in ccminer 1.5.58 is 15% faster. All this makes for a messy recipe but that's what you get with optimizing. One size does not fit all. |
|
|
|
|
@Eliovp
I'm not meaning to come off as a troll but you admitted you're an AMD fan boy so it's fair game to challenge you.
"best card ever"?
The numbers you posted put it on par with the GTX980 but at a much higher price. Considering the 980 is 1 1/2 years old,
and second in line, that isn't much to brag about. Will you be testing with the new miner? That might look more impressive.
What is already impressive with the nano is the size reduction, packing 980 performance in a half length card is
an achievement. But that raises the issue of heat dissipation, always a concern with AMD. The improved power
efficiency is nice to see but AMD is still playing catch up.
With the expectations of pascal in the next few months nvidia will probably jump ahead again.
If AMD wants to really compete with Nvidia they either have to put out a better product, or a cheaper product.
An equal product at a higher price won't do it.
|
|
|
|
So... Must I install CUDA 6.5 for faster NeoScrypt mining? And if so, would the other algorithms suffer as a result?
You must compile ccminer with cuda 6.5... Other algos will be affected but in unpredictable ways. |
|
|
|
Check your coin details to see what's not confirming. |
|
|
|
|
GPU: 980, +120 OC
OS: Win 8.1
Driver 359.06
r77-7.5 r74-6.5
x11 10.6 MH 10.8 MH
lyra2v2 11.8 MH 11.8 MH
Quark crashes the driver after a few minutes with r77 + 120 OC, stable with no OC. R74-6.5 with OC hashes
in excess of 21 MH while r77-7.5 without OC hashes below 20 MH.
|
|
|
|
Good cards. But they draw 200-250w. The x11 kernal is not optimal. You should mine something else.
4 750ti's draw 260 watts. 4 R9 Nano's draw 400 watt while doing 11Mhz per card!..  Is that at the wall? My fury draws more than 300 watt, the single card! And it's the same chipset. yup ... apparently the nano has mixed specs of the fury x and fury - but with a much lower power draw - and a much smaller size mate ... very impressive cards ... but very expensive cards ... #crysx 980 performance in a half length card with only one 8 pin power connector, it's only a matter of time for someone to build a 2x-nano. |
|
|
|
as the subject of my post implies, anyone here know where I can find a good pool that auto converts scrypt coins to BTC and payout to my BTC wallet? I have tried some others mentioned on this forum:
hashcows
hashbros
middlecoin
wafflecoin
clevermining
clevermining was the only one that is working for me-the others aren't, i think they're down. However, I have a pretty low hashrate of only 5-10 mhash/s or so, so is there a good auto converting pool out there for slower miners such as myself? I've tried a google search, but again, most of the pools that are listed are down.
Thanks, and will gladly tip any mined BTC to anyone who can help:)
Nicehash, zpool, hashpower, read the pools sub-forum. However, your miner will run equally slow on any pool. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to control a GPU mining rig using a laptop?
I'm trying to mine for Monero coin (XMR).
Sure. ssh, rdp, vnc, teamviewer, etc. |
|
|
|
Starting a couple of weeks ago one of my computers that I use for mining while it's otherwise idle suddenly started giving me an "out of memory" error. I presume it came on the heels of a CUDA update for the Xubuntu 15.04 that I run on that machine. The only way I can get it to start mining is from a cold boot with sudo. Any subsequent restarts of the miner without a cold boot generate the out of memory error. The other machine I use is fat, dumb and happy. Both have EVGA GTX 750's, non-super clocked. The machine that works is running Xubuntu 14.04, CUDA 7.5-18 and ccminer 1.5.74 The machine giving me grief runs Xubuntu 15.04, CUDA 6.5.14-1 and ccminer 1.5.74 I may try pushing the 2nd machine to CUDA 7.5 like the first but it seems to me, based on the releases I see and recommended pairings, that it should be the other way around! Pokeytex, I'm accepting donations!  I get that on a couple of my cards (970, 750ti) but not on others of the same type. One is in a Windows system the other Linux. Both systems running ccminer 1.5.74 compiled with cuda 6.5 but has been happening with previous releases. I have not tested with cuda 7.5. The problem only manifests itself on startup, the more I switch algos, the more likely to occur up to several times per day. Another symptom is low hashrate due to degraded GPU state. Out of memory error occurs mostly wth neoscrypt. Some algos seem less affected, ie neoscrypt may crash but quark might run. Everything back to normal after a reboot. Updated drivers many times with no effect. I concluded it's a card problem. In your case try swapping the 750s to confirm. |
|
|
|
Offtopic: I picked up few mini 970s which only have one 8 pin connector and got surprised by how loud these are.
These are about 10% slower and about 10-15 °C hotter (at 90% fan speed mind you) than the 3 fan Windforce edition cards (at 70% fan speed). And collectively, they sound like a blowdryer.
I knew these would be louder and slower but not this much. Thought it could be useful info for others.
Thanks for that. I had been eying this card as well but was concerned about heat given the compact size. The EVGA 960 shorty looks interesting though for smaller enclosures. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry I linked my post to zpool. It was not my intention to imply the problem was with your pool.
FTC seems to be behaving properly on zpool now. I've got 13 confs and counting.
When the profitability crashed on hashpower it also crashed on zpool, perhaps that's when you disabled it.
I think I misspoke a little earlier, my confirmed balance on HP never went down. However the immature coins dropped in
value without dropping in number and without orphaning. They all eventually matured but paid just peanuts.
Everything is looking normal on zpool since you reactivated FTC, except it isn't listed in the upper left of the pool page.
20 confs now, thanks.
Ahh ok no prob. It will start out fine and find block... confirm them... then it'll do a string of orphans for no reason... then back to finding blocks again. Block confirmed, no other blocks found yet, keeping my fingers crossed. |
|
|
|
Hi, We've added FTC to the miners multipool: www.zpool.caCheers! Thank you! What has happened to FTC? I was mining it yesterday on a multipool when the bottom fell out. Even my confirmed coins lost most of their value. But on the exchanges everything is normal. I've dealt with scams, hard forks, excessive orphans etc but I've never seen confirmed coins lose nearly all their value while the trading price on the exchanges remained stable (rising actually). Not sure why confirmed balance would get changed... that's odd. Perhaps since we disabled it? We'll enable it in the backend again, just not for mining. We can't seem to keep FTC from generating orphans more than it's confirming. We've tried rebuilding/optimizing and also de-optimizing our stratum server as well as feathercoind. We'll look into some more but don't really see any reason why it orphans to begin with. Thanks but it wasn't on your pool, but another one of the clones (HP). It was strange, the profitability of FTC dove as well as my unconfirmed and confirmed balance, but the blocks didn't orphan. This usually indicates a price crash on the exchange, but as mentioned the price has been stable. This doesn't make sense. The difficulty didn't change, the block reward didn't change, the exchange price didn't change but the mining profit dropped 80%. FTC has since been removed from that pool also. It's probably best to leave it disabled for now. ohh ok, you quoted my pool so thought it was there. The other clone looks to run pretty much unattended so if something goes wrong, its not usually noticed and can snowball from there. I posted here because I thought it was a coin issue rather than a pool issue since you were also having problems with FTC. Since you disabled the coin also I don't know what profitibility you are reporting for comparison. Before HP removed it it was around 0.8 mBTC/MH/day... FLASH: I just got s decent block on your pool. I'm sorry I linked my post to zpool. It was not my intention to imply the problem was with your pool. FTC seems to be behaving properly on zpool now. I've got 13 confs and counting. When the profitability crashed on hashpower it also crashed on zpool, perhaps that's when you disabled it. I think I misspoke a little earlier, my confirmed balance on HP never went down. However the immature coins dropped in value without dropping in number and without orphaning. They all eventually matured but paid just peanuts. Everything is looking normal on zpool since you reactivated FTC, except it isn't listed in the upper left of the pool page. 20 confs now, thanks. |
|
|
|
Hi, We've added FTC to the miners multipool: www.zpool.caCheers! Thank you! What has happened to FTC? I was mining it yesterday on a multipool when the bottom fell out. Even my confirmed coins lost most of their value. But on the exchanges everything is normal. I've dealt with scams, hard forks, excessive orphans etc but I've never seen confirmed coins lose nearly all their value while the trading price on the exchanges remained stable (rising actually). Not sure why confirmed balance would get changed... that's odd. Perhaps since we disabled it? We'll enable it in the backend again, just not for mining. We can't seem to keep FTC from generating orphans more than it's confirming. We've tried rebuilding/optimizing and also de-optimizing our stratum server as well as feathercoind. We'll look into some more but don't really see any reason why it orphans to begin with. Thanks but it wasn't on your pool, but another one of the clones (HP). It was strange, the profitability of FTC dove as well as my unconfirmed and confirmed balance, but the blocks didn't orphan. This usually indicates a price crash on the exchange, but as mentioned the price has been stable. This doesn't make sense. The difficulty didn't change, the block reward didn't change, the exchange price didn't change but the mining profit dropped 80%. FTC has since been removed from that pool also. It's probably best to leave it disabled for now. ohh ok, you quoted my pool so thought it was there. The other clone looks to run pretty much unattended so if something goes wrong, its not usually noticed and can snowball from there. I posted here because I thought it was a coin issue rather than a pool issue since you were also having problems with FTC. Since you disabled the coin also I don't know what profitibility you are reporting for comparison. Before HP removed it it was around 0.8 mBTC/MH/day... FLASH: I just got s decent block on your pool. |
|
|
|
Hi, We've added FTC to the miners multipool: www.zpool.caCheers! Thank you! What has happened to FTC? I was mining it yesterday on a multipool when the bottom fell out. Even my confirmed coins lost most of their value. But on the exchanges everything is normal. I've dealt with scams, hard forks, excessive orphans etc but I've never seen confirmed coins lose nearly all their value while the trading price on the exchanges remained stable (rising actually). Not sure why confirmed balance would get changed... that's odd. Perhaps since we disabled it? We'll enable it in the backend again, just not for mining. We can't seem to keep FTC from generating orphans more than it's confirming. We've tried rebuilding/optimizing and also de-optimizing our stratum server as well as feathercoind. We'll look into some more but don't really see any reason why it orphans to begin with. Thanks but it wasn't on your pool, but another one of the clones (HP). It was strange, the profitability of FTC dove as well as my unconfirmed and confirmed balance, but the blocks didn't orphan. This usually indicates a price crash on the exchange, but as mentioned the price has been stable. This doesn't make sense. The difficulty didn't change, the block reward didn't change, the exchange price didn't change but the mining profit dropped 80%. FTC has since been removed from that pool also. It's probably best to leave it disabled for now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
