 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
|
sp-mod git4a Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. Enemy 1.09aFor this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking. Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2) The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set. The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 8-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance. I'll then normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round, so that each instance/round is represented equally. Miners tested:Enemy 1.09a - 1% dev fee Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee sp-mod git4a - no dev fee
Results:Round 1 - Duration 710 minutes - 165 blocks found (no restarts) - [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.71 RVN | Raw: 117.90 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 123.48 RVN | Raw: 124.74 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 12917 RVN | Raw: 130.49 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
Round 2 - Duration 602 minutes - 147 blocks found (no restarts) - [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.43 RVN | Raw: 104.79 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 110.89 RVN | Raw: 99.28 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 113.23 RVN | Raw: 101.91 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
Round 3 - Duration 723 minutes - 178 blocks found (no restarts) - [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.56 RVN | Raw: 127.03 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 117.33 RVN | Raw: 127.87 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 113.58 RVN | Raw: 123.78 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
Normalized Average Results | #1 | * | | Enemy 1.09 | | 122.80 RVN | | #2 | -2.68% | | Enemy 1.08 | | 118.36 RVN | | #3 | -6.35% | | sp-mod git4a | | 113.80 RVN |
Graph of Round 1: Graph of Round 2: Graph of Round 3: |
|
|
|
Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing is complete:Test Results
|
|
|
|
Great overview, much appreciated.
As far as I can see nevermore miner was only used in one benchmark series and wasn't doing that bad. Do you keep an eye on it as future improvements could be promising?
Brian has been busy focusing on Team Red, with Avermore. If he decides to release a meaningful update to Nevermore, I'll definitely test it again. |
|
|
|
Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing:For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking. The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set. The plan is to do two rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance. I'll also normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round. Miner tested:Enemy 1.09a - 1% dev fee Testing: - Variable Diff / pool set diff
- d=40 (1/2 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 2)
Results:Round 1 - Duration: 645 minutes - 155 Blocks found - [Instance 1] Normalized: 120.73 RVN | Raw: 131.32 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 127.36 RVN | Raw: 138.53 RVN - d=40 Pool Link
Round 2 - Duration: 632 minutes - 130 Blocks found - [Instance 1] Normalized: 127.81 RVN | Raw: 116.60 RVN - d=40 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 121.28 RVN | Raw: 110.64 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
FINAL Normalized Average Results | #1 | * | | Diff = Mh/s % by 2 | | 127.58 RVN | | #2 | -5.44% | | var diff | | 121.00 RVN |
Graph of Round 1  Graph of Round 2 
|
|
|
|
I will upload a fixed version soon.
I am waiting a few days. So do you want me to wait on testing for a few days? |
|
|
|
You saying that it is, doesn't make it true
Only 1 way to find out right.  yep.. final version of 1.09 just dropped.. guess I'll set up testing.. any last requests before I start testing? static pool diff? I can either start the test in about 30 mins and let it run for 9hrs... or start the test in 4hours, and let it run for 12hours. (to accommodate my sleep schedule) |
|
|
|
You can't fucking run x16r for a hour and figure out what's the fastest. You better be doing roughly 24 hours of testing before doing that. I mention that because I've seen pretty big swings over the course of 24 hours, we're talking pool side, not client side. Client side testing is pointless. Don't be a dumbass and make three pages out of a half of one. No one wants to read your loud screams. Also take a dose of your own humility. You saying that it is, doesn't make it true
...period
I'd suggest you stay out of a discussion you know very little about. Reading comprehension, goes a long way. look into it. you can start by reading this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995and the first post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35471685#msg35471685 |
|
|
|
The fact is, that 1.08 is faster than spmod-git3, period
Why are you talking about spmod-git3. I was talking about spmod-git4 I mentioned spmod-git3 because that is the latest tested version. spmod-git4 might be faster than 1.08, but it also might not be faster than 1.08 You saying that it is, doesn't make it true |
|
|
|
1 week ago enemy v1.08 was the fastest downloadable x16r miner.
spmod-git #4 is faster, free and opensource
here is spmod-git #3 in a 9 hour comparison between the 3 mods.
Enemy 1.09 beta 5 was compiled just after I released #3. (He use my github code and add the speedups to his private fee miner)
dude, what is wrong with you? I realize this is the internet... but please don't take the work I do and spin it into a narrative for your own benefit. I spend a lot of time setting up and running these tests. And I run the tests as equally and fairly as possible. I don't care who wins or loses. You can't cherry pick a round and declare victory. The fact is, that 1.08 is faster than spmod-git3, periodThe reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that my test rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected. Analyzing the weighted and normalized performance of the three instances in this test, Instance 1 and 2 performed within 1% of each other, Instance 3 performed 3-4% better than the other two. If I had some sort of agenda and didn't care about actual valid results.. then I would have just continued Round 1 v1.0 and called it a day. Instead, I recognized that there was an issue and stopped the test. A graph like this: wouldn't be too appealing.  |
|
|
|
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.
1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus. Your first commit was May 3rd, the beta of enemy 1.09 was released May 5th. Did he steal your code, I have no clue. Did you steal code to make your "private" miner? absolutely. is enemy 1.09 the fastest miner that doesn't cost 0.5BTC? sure seems like it. and stop spreading FUD.. you know as well as anyone, that most mining software can trigger anti virus warnings |
|
|
|
but you need to run each round for 12 hours, if not the comparison is not fair. You run 2 rounds 9 hours and 1 round 12 hours. 12 hours is not enough to make a good prediction.
why is 12hrs the magical number? why not 24 or 48, when is enough enough to see a pattern? look at the posted graphs, the outcome is generally decided after as little as 4-6 hours.
Instead of X16r, you shoudl compare the x16s algo.
I'm not an altruistic miner, I mine to make a profit. There's nothing nearly as profitable as RVN [x16r] on [x16s], with the exception of PGN for a few hours every ~5 days when their difficulty nose dives. If you want to sponsor a test on x16s, I'll take your BTC and run it for how ever long you'd like.
sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not
Because they where busy mining the devfee. (switching pools, missing profits)
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing. |
|
|
|
You can't cherry pick a round and declare victory. The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected. Analyzing the weighted and normalized performance of the three instances, Instance 1 and 2 performed within 1% of each other, Instance 3 performed 3-4% better than the other two. Also, towards the beginning of round three, ravenminer experienced a DDOS attack. This resulted in two things. testing was paused for approximately 2 hours, and sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not. (a total of 0.243 RVN)
Full Test ResultsFINAL Normalized Average Results | #1 | * | | Enemy 1.09 Beta5 | | 106.27 RVN | | #2 | -7.62% | | Enemy 1.08 | | 98.75 RVN | | #3 | -9.41% | | sp-mod git3 | | 97.13 RVN |
|
|
|
|
can you put a comparison including suprminer ? Suprminer was previously tested. Check the first post of this thread, Suprminer performed about 8.6% worse than Enemy 1.08 |
|
|
|
Well, I don't think you'll be able to run more than -i 19 or 20 without stability issues. Test and find out which one works best for you |
|
|
|
but I swapped instances sp-mod and enemy 1.09, and increased the polls diff from 40 to 70
In this round, the free and opensource spmod-git3 seems to be doing abit faster than enemy 1.08 (50 blocks) I'm curious what your thoughts are on setting stratum difficulty. should it be set by the pool? static? if so, what's optimal |
|
|
|
Why do you restart the miner? Every restart will reduce the payouts. You should run for 12 hours without any restarts.
I do not manually restart the miner. Awesome miner has rules I've set up to restart the miner under certain conditions. No accepted shares in the last 4 mins. No API communication in last 4 mins. Device temp over 82 degrees Device failure etc. It's pretty rare that the miner is restarted, and I do note when it does. |
|
|
|
I restarted the test, with new wallet addresses. I'm not sure if there's a bug in sp-mod git3, or the static pool diff is too low, or that set of GPU's decided to slack off... but I swapped instances sp-mod and enemy 1.09, and increased the polls diff from 40 to 70 |
|
|
|
|
1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer 
