Unfortunately, there is no such thing as average hash rate for x16r.. you can quote a range of expected hash rate.. but average does not exists.

Why? because there are 16^16 different algo permutations. So x16r in reality is not one Algo, but rather it's 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 different algos

Additionally, there is a good amount of variability between brands and model of the same card family.. heck even identical GPUs have some level of variability.


That's really why I go through the steps I do, to take out as much variability as possible. running multiple rounds, using multiple wallet address, running at the same time/pool/rig etc

---

Since ravenforum.org keeps crapping out... I guess I'll just post the in progress test details here:

---

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 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.

Miner tested:
Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee

Testing:

• Variable Diff / pool set diff
• d=50 (2/3 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 1.5)
• d=36 (1/2 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 2)

Why?
I've seen people in various Discord channels recommend setting a static pool/stratum diff. Typical advice is to set it to your avg hash divided by either 1.5 or 2... So, I wanted to run a test to see if it really mattered.

---

Results:

Round 1 - 128 Blocks Found - Duration: 661 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 195.95 RVN / 177.88 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 188.81 RVN / 171.40 RVN - d=50 Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 193.05 RVN / 175.25 RVN - d=36 Pool Link

Round 2  - 135 Blocks Found - Duration: 696 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 191.57 RVN / 183.42 RVN - d=36 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 199.23 RVN / 190.75 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 194.54 RVN / 186.26 RVN - d=50 - Pool Link

Round 3 - 160 Blocks Found - Duration: 727 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 171.94 RVN / 195.11 RVN - d=50 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 165.06 RVN / 187.30 RVN - d=36 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 169.83 RVN / 192.72 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link

---

Normalized Average Results FINAL

#1	*	| Var Diff	| 188.34 RVN
#2	-1.55%	| d=50	| 185.10 RVN
#3	-2.82%	| d=36	| 183.23 RVN

---

New test result,  in 1st post

Enemy 1.08 @ 100% TDP [ no OC Vs. +250 mem ]

check out: https://ravenforum.org/topic/29/suprminer-1-6-i-19-vs-i-20-vs-i-21-test-results

I have a few Zotac Amp Extreme GPUs in this test rig, they're factory OC'd. With as little as +100 core, they'll crash. So, unfortunately I can't reliably test core OC

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.0

Comments, feedback, and ideas for additional tests are welcome

Over the past few weeks I've done a number of "head to head" miner tests running at the same time on the same rig on the same pool, with multiple rounds to allow each miner to run on each GPU grouping (with exception of some early tests).

I've posted these results on https://ravenforum.org and various Discord channels. Unfortunately, the formatting and site speed on ravenforum.org are less than optimal. So, I'm here, posting the results for posterity's sake?  

Here they are in reverse chronological order:

Instance Balance Test... are they really balanced? yes, yes they are.
April 28th, 2018 - 692 Minutes - No restarts

• [Instance 1] 205.21 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] 205.11 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] 202.17 RVN - Pool Link

---

Enemy 1.09a Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git4a static diff
May 10th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09a	| 122.80 RVN
#2	-2.68%	| Enemy 1.08	| 118.36 RVN
#3	-6.35%	| sp-mod git4a	| 113.80 RVN

---

Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing
May 9th, 2018 - Test Results.

#1	*	| Diff = Mh/s / 2	| 127.58 RVN
#2	-5.44%	| var diff	| 121.00 RVN

---

Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3
May 7th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 106.27 RVN
#2	-7.62%	| Enemy 1.08	| 98.75 RVN
#3	-9.41%	| sp-mod	| 97.13 RVN

---

Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git1
May 5th, 2018 - Full Test 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

---

Pool Testing: Suprnova Vs Ravenminer Vs CryptoPool.party
April 29th, 2018 - Test Results.

---

Enemy 1.08 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2
April 27th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#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

---

Variable Vs. Static Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing
April 25th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Var Diff	| 188.34 RVN
#2	-1.55%	| d=50	| 185.10 RVN
#3	-2.82%	| d=36	| 183.23 RVN

---

Enemy 1.08 @ 100% TDP [ no OC Vs. +250 mem ]
April 24th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy +250 mem	| 337.39 RVN
#2	-0.90%	| Enemy no OC	| 334.40 RVN

---

Enemy 1.08 Vs Silent Miner v1.0.9
April 24th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 134.07 RVN
#2	-8.13%	| Silent Miner v1.0.9	| 123.99 RVN

---

Enemy 1.08 - mem OC & power settings test
April 21st, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| (100% TDP / +250 mem)	| 150.92 RVN
#2	-5.90%	| (80% TDP / No overclock)	| 142.51 RVN
#3	-6.01%	| (80% TDP / +250 mem)	| 142.37 RVN

---

Enemy 1.08 Vs.Ravencoin Miner 2.5 Vs. Suprminer 1.6
April 20th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 116.17 RVN
#2	-8.16%	| Ravencoin Miner v2.5	| 107.41 RVN
#3	-8.60%	| Suprminer 1.6	| 106.97 RVN

---

Ravencoin Miner v2.5 Vs. Suprminer 1.6 Vs. PoolParty 1.3
April 11th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Ravencoin Miner v2.5	| 108.51 RVN
#2	-1.43%	| Suprminer 1.6	| 106.98 RVN
#3	-4.17%	| PoolParty 1.3	| 104.17 RVN

---

Suprminer 1.6 Vs A1min3r 0.1.2 Vs Nevermore 0.2.2 Vs Enemy 1.04
April 8th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Suprminer 1.6	| 67.98 RVN
#2	-0.06%	| A1min3r 0.1.2	| 67.94 RVN
#3	-6.43%	| Nevermore 0.2.2	| 63.87 RVN
#3	-7.70%	| Enemy 1.04	| 63.12 RVN

---

A1min3r 0.1.2 Vs. Enemy 1.04 Vs Enemy 1.03
April 8th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| a1_min3r	| 88.22 RVN
#2	-0.75%	| Enemy 1.04	| 87.56 RVN
#3	-4.92%	| Enemy 1.03	| 84.08 RVN

---

Suprminer 1.6 Vs. Enemy 1.03 Vs. Enemy 1.05
April 7th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Suprminer 1.6	| 108.53 RVN
#2	-1.41%	| Enemy 1.03	| 107.02 RVN
#3	-1.77%	| Enemy 1.05	| 106.64 RVN

Test in progress:

Enemy 1.08 Vs a1min3r Only human Vs Silent Miner v1.0.9

Follow Along: https://ravenforum.org/topic/33/enemy-1-08-vs-a1min3r-only-human-vs-silent-miner-v1-0-9

i have 10 $350 coupons i'd sell for $750

EDIT... turns out I was running 4.4.4 on the remote agents, which caused the issues below.. remote agent update to 4.5 fixed it

**************************************************

Can someone help, I'm on the Premium Edition of Awesome Miner 4.5, and I'm experiencing some strangeness that did not happen in prior versions.

On some of my managed GPU miners, I use command line arguments to split GPU's on a single rig... This has worked flawlessly in the past and still does. With one major exception!

if I change the command line args in a managed mner, they don't actually change when sent to my remote agents! (i.e. if I click view details on the miner, the args are the old ones. same when I run diagnostics.) however when I go to the miner's properties, and select Command Line, the command line changes are there.

I've even rebooted the machine running AM, but it made no difference.

Anyone experience something similar?

Thank you!
I just wanted to make sure it would work before moving it from cmnd line to AM.

it's a fork of Ccminer 2.2.4 so there shouldn't be any api differences

hello, I'm hoping someone can help me.

I have an interesting/unique situation (I think) where I need to run two instances of a customized ccminer at the same time on one rig. Reason being: the ccminer variant only supports a max of 8 GPUs (I have 12)

I'm able to run two instances of the miner in command prompt windows (specifying which GPUs to use).


The issue I have is that within Awesome Miner, when I created the managed software, I set it to full compatibility and compatible software: CcMiner.  However, I cannot change the API port, which results in one of the ccminer instances being detected as being offline.


How can I specify a custom API port to be used? I can do this on the command line, will Awesome Miner pick this up? it doesn't seem like it would.

Thanks in advance.

Not to mention he's quoting $$ figures instead of coin/btc. 

coin to $$ figures vary every minute of every day, and can swing 30% in a 24hr period.

look at the address you have set for MPH

us-east.us-east.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20594


guessing that us-east shouldn't be in there twice

Anyhow.... I found the correct solution.

The "User Defined command line argument" replaces the command line argument to the left of it.

In my case I was trying to modify the intensity for phi in CcMiner. the existing "default" command line argument was simply "phi"

to get "User Defined command line argument" to work, I first needed to include phi, such that the "User Defined command line argument"  became: "phi -i 20" without the quotes.

Hope this helps someone in the future.

I don't believe I called anyone lazy or said that AM was cheating me out of my right to make millions per day, mining.

 

your advice is a "work-around" that frankly, shouldn't have to be used.

First, I'm not eminer001. Second, I'm a paying customer. Third, the functionality is documented here https://www.awesomeminer.com/help/managedsoftware.aspx
in my case it does not work in a manner that would be expected.

I'm asking if this is a known bug? am I doing it incorrectly? Is intensity a command line argument that cannot be set in the algo section of the managed software? your work around does not address any of those.

but your solution/advice is not what I need or want.


Background: In Awesome Miner > Managed Software, there exists the ability to add a "User Defined command line argument"  for each supported Algo of the mining software. (in my case Ccminer/Phi)

Expectation:adding -i 20 or --intensity=20 to the "User Defined command line argument" results in CcMiner using an intensity of 20 for Phi algo

Result: CcMiner launches and closes within seconds, red error message shown too quickly to read. Log shows that the default -i 25 is included in the command line argument along with my user defined -i 20, causing CcMiner to crash

Resolution: user defined intensity should replace the default intensity

I haven't tried that, because that would apply it to any miner/algo. I just need it for one specific case

Can someone help with intensity changes for ccminer

What I've tried: Go to Managed Software > CcMiner 2.2.4 found the line for the algo I wish to modify (Phi) entered --intensity=20 in the User defined Command Line argument I've also tried -i 20

Result, miner starts up, and within seconds the window disappears...

when looking at the logs, I can see that the default i 25 is in the command line argument, along with the values I input into the Managed Software section.


Help? please.