 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3For 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 for Round 1 v1.0, 70 for Round 1 v2.0 and onward, reason: previous test showed pool diff settings impacting results and making them non linear. 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 1.09 BETA 5 - 1% dev fee Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee sp-mod git3 - no dev fee
Results:Round 1 v1.0 - Stopped after 110 minutes, with 30 blocks found. sp-mod was steadily 20-30% behind. I decided to re-run round 1 with SP-mod and 1.09 swapping instances, as well as increasing the stratum diff from 40 to 70. Link to graph of results: https://imgur.com/a/IPPkRYf- [Instance 1] 26.33 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] 24.19 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] 19.36 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
Round 1 v2.0 - Duration: 540 Minutes - 120 blocks found - No restarts - [Instance 1] Normalized: 94.31 RVN | Raw: 92.01 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 95.66 RVN | Raw: 93.33 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 102.39 RVN | Raw: 99.89 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
Round 2 - Duration: 524 Minutes - 124 blocks found - No restarts - [Instance 1] Normalized: 105.98 RVN | Raw: 106.84 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 91.19 RVN | Raw: 91.93 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 101.07 RVN | Raw: 101.89 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
Round 3 - Duration: around 9hrs. 125 blocks found - near the start of the test ravenminer.com was being DDOS'd so I had to pause the test for a few hours. - [Instance 1] Normalized: 99.51 RVN | Raw: 101.13 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 110.45 RVN | Raw: 112.24 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 105.89 RVN | Raw: 107.61 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
FINAL 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 |
Round 1 v2.0 Graph Round 2 Graph Round 3 Graph |
|
|
|
I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks
I've hit 100MHASH with the sp-mod private x16r, but the sequence in the picture is a x16s sequence. every hashing algo is executed once(permuted order, and not a random order): Sequence number B0126C3E789AF4D5 Well, I'd be happy to test the sp-mod private version.. I promise I'll return it when done  |
|
|
|
the french swiss dude..
Tanguy aka TPruvot |
|
|
|
I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks
I've hit 100MHASH with the sp-mod private x16r, but the sequence in the picture is a x16s sequence. every hashing algo is executed once(permuted order, and not a random order): Sequence number B0126C3E789AF4D5 You still haven't answered why you'd release an open source miner? |
|
|
|
You didn't answer my question.
You claim to have the fastest open source and fastest closed source x16r miners, without any proof whatsoever... at least you're consistent
Here is a snapshot of the sp-mod private. each kernel in the x16r is run once. (x16s permutation). The enemy miner should include a command line option that can force a given sequence. Then we can do a direct comparison. Only 2 of the 16 kernels are included in the spmod-git opensource. (the hamsi80 and the luffa final) gpu settings 100% tdp and +100 on the coreclock. (-i 24.4 in the batfile) The bigfarm sp-mod x16r private binary also include a fast x17 kernel, and the x17 is more profitable right now on the 1080ti  means very little. I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks |
|
|
|
if the sp-mod private one is 10% faster than enemy 1.09, why bother making an opensource version that is 25% slower than sp-mod private?
My mod is the fastest opensource, and the mod is not complete. In the opensource I haven't touched the important algos, where the most speed is gained. Most of the commits are the 80bit algos that are only used in 1/16 th of the time. These algos are not used in any other coins and can be spread without hurting my other mods. The sp-mod private is ccminer/spmod and you find it on some of the pools. You didn't answer my question. You claim to have the fastest open source and fastest closed source x16r miners, without any proof whatsoever... at least you're consistent |
|
|
|
The sp-mod private is around 10% faster than the enemy 1.09 miner. I will add some more opensource speed, and then add the more speed in the private bin.
Proof? if the sp-mod private one is 10% faster than enemy 1.09, why bother making an opensource version that is 25% slower than sp-mod private? |
|
|
|
JackIT, enemy can go up to I 21.5 and sp to 21 only, may be a comparison with these settings would be more interesting?
I prefer a level playing field |
|
|
|
Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git1For 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 three 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 then normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round, so that each instance/round is represented equally. Miners tested:Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 - 1% dev fee Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee sp-mod git1 - no dev fee
Results:Round 1 - 143 Blocks Found - Duration: 705 minutes (e1.09 restarted, accepted not increased in 4 mins) - [Instance 1] Normalized: 140.60 RVN | Raw: 133.44 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 136.22 RVN | Raw: 129.28 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 121.73 RVN | Raw: 115.53 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
Round 2 - 148 Blocks Found - Duration: 660 minutes - [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.01 RVN | Raw: 113.19 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 139.88 RVN | Raw: 136.48 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 123.45 RVN | Raw: 120.45 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
Round 3 - 162 Blocks Found - Duration: 732 minutes - [Instance 1] Normalized: 130.23 RVN | Raw: 140.02 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] Normalized: 122.49 RVN | Raw: 131.70 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] Normalized: 131.67 RVN | Raw: 141.57 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
Normalized Average Results | #1 | * | | Enemy 1.09 | | 137.38 RVN | | #2 | -5.71% | | Enemy 1.08 | | 129.96 RVN | | #3 | -14.41% | | sp-mod | | 120.08 RVN |
Round 1 Graphed Progression: Round 2 Graphed Progression: Round 3 Graphed Progression: |
|
|
|
I decided to do pool testing using my three balanced instances. The pools I'm testing are: Suprnova, Ravenminer and CryptoPool.partyI'm sure everyone has heard, "earnings from various pools should more or less even out over the long term" and while that's mostly true, there are several things that can impact earnings on one pool versus the next. Here are some things that can comparatively impact pool earnings. - Pool fees, can range from 0%-2% (some even higher)
- Stratum Stability, from DDOSing to overcrowding stratums, if the pool is down or struggling to stay up, your earnings will take a hit.
- Orphaned/Stale blocks, pools with better connectivity and infrastructure will have an edge
- Payment calculation methods, PPLNS, PPS, Prop, Yiimp etc (search google for moe info)
Final Cumulative results after 5 days of testing:
Day 1 results:
Day 2 results:
Day 3 results:
Day 4 results: |
|
|
|
Those with 1080tis, are you using enemy 1.08 or what? have you tested different intesities?
It seems that between 20 and 21 nothing changed for me
on enemy 1.08 for a week now. i 20 and getting better results. 1080ti's and z-enemy 1.08 i 21 and i 20 -> can't really tell the difference (esp. with difficulty fluctuations lately) intensities were tested. |
|
|
|
After my most recent test run, the results were very lopsided. I started to question whether my instances were still well balanced. So I immediately fired up a test of the instances, using the same settings (no static diff), all three using Enemy 1.08. The results below. are validation of how balanced they really are, (kinda surprised myself) just 1.5% separates all three instances Results: 692 Minutes - No restarts I also found that the pool reported hash rates and avg hasrate line, for the three instances are all over the place, yet produce the same results... I really don't have much faith in Yiimp pool reported hash rates    |
|
|
|
What is the best miner for X16r so far, I use nevermore. Is there something better?
Subscribe to this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.0I test miners and settings regularly. if you look at the test log, you'll see that the "best miner" changes over time as developers release updates and new miners |
|
|
|
Enemy 1.08 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0 Final Results and details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35754113#msg35754113
Results:Round 1 - 1658 Blocks Found - Duration: 731 minutes (a1min3r = 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins) - [Instance 1] 211.20 RVN - Enemy - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] 162.76 RVN - a1min3r - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] 183.68 RVN - Silent Miner - Pool Link
Average Results FINAL | #1 | * | | Enemy 1.08 | | 211.20 RVN | | #2 | -14.98% | | Silent Miner 1.1.0 | | 183.68 RVN | | #3 | -29.76% | | a1min3r 1.42 | | 162.76 RVN |
Notes: - a1min3r 1.42: is buggy. miner reported hash rate is way off on some algo(s), often reporting 5-10x expected hash. Looking forward to a revised version
- Silent Miner 1.1.0: I tested Enemy 1.08 Vs Silent Miner 1.0.9, on these same instances just four days ago. The difference in the test is that 4 days ago I used a static pool diff of 50, and TDP was set at 90% and the test ran about 80 minutes shorter. four days ago 1.0.9 lost by 7.27%, today 1.1.0 lost by 14.98% It could also be the case that Enemy 1.0.8 scales better with more power (90% vs 100%) than Silent Miner LINK TO PREVIOUS TEST
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35754113#msg35754113 |
|
|
|
Enemy 1.08 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0: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. Dynamic pool/stratum diff 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 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. Miners tested:Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee a1min3r 1.42 32bit - no dev fee Silent Miner 1.1.0 - 1% dev fee
Results:Round 1 - 1658 Blocks Found - Duration: 731 minutes (a1min3r = 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins) - [Instance 1] 211.20 RVN - Enemy - Pool Link
- [Instance 2] 162.76 RVN - a1min3r - Pool Link
- [Instance 3] 183.68 RVN - Silent Miner - Pool Link
Round 2 - not needed Round 3 - not needed
Average Results FINAL | #1 | * | | Enemy 1.08 | | 211.20 RVN | | #2 | -14.98% | | Silent Miner 1.1.0 | | 183.68 RVN | | #3 | -29.76% | | a1min3r 1.42 | | 162.76 RVN |
Notes: - a1min3r 1.42: is buggy. miner reported hash rate is way off on some algo(s), often reporting 5-10x expected hash. Looking forward to a revised version
- Silent Miner 1.1.0: I tested Enemy 1.08 Vs Silent Miner 1.0.9, on these same instances just four days ago. The difference in the test is that 4 days ago I used a static pool diff of 50, and TDP was set at 90% and the test ran about 80 minutes shorter. four days ago 1.0.9 lost by 7.27%, today 1.1.0 lost by 14.98% It could also be the case that Enemy 1.0.8 scales better with more power (90% vs 100%) than Silent Miner LINK TO PREVIOUS TEST
|
|
|
|
would running with -500 mem +150 core be detrimental to hashrate vs 0 mem +150 core ie. does OCing mem even do anything in the X16r?  look at the first post.. there's a mem overclocking test. unfortunately I can't overclock core on x16r, without periodically crashing, so I can't test that |
|
|
|
Even WITH variability is average.
It just takes time and a lot of patience.
This is why even if there is a huge variation in Algo pairing, over a finite period of time, mined many times over, a pattern and 'average' hashrate surfaces.
The amount of time is determined by the fluctuations of hashfunctions involved, and as such, can still be determined. As mentioned above though, time is the key factor here, regardless of what cards are being used. If there is a static source of testing, and a static method of testing, then comparisons can still be made over a static period of time.
#crysx
Agreed, but you need to determine the amount of time needed to establish an average with an acceptable level of confidence. is 12hrs enough? that will get you through about 720 permutations of x16r, out of 1.84e+19 possible combinations. |
|
|
|
in the branch on the ravens actively promote a certain Silent Miner v1.1.0. I would like to hear here the answers to the question - what are the speeds on it, if someone has already tested it. so already there is a certain instruction on the network to get rid of the dev fee in the Enemy Miner 1.08  I tested 1.0.9 here https://ravenforum.org/topic/33/enemy-1-08-vs-silent-miner-v1-0-9it lost by 8% to Enemy 1.0.8 Additional, Silent miner has the same 1% dev fee as Enemy I'm happy to pay a 1% fee to any developer that dedicates their time and effort to helping me make more $$. It's motivation for them to continue development and make better miners. |
|
|
|
|
