As I just said in my last post, your model was the card I was comparing against when I did the percentages. You get ~23% higher khash rates with ~15% higher of a clock speed, which I just don't understand.

You have one of the overclocked versions (there's 3, at different levels of overclock), specifically the one with the highest factory clock that I was comparing against when I did those percentages.

They sell 6 different parts called "ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II", and half of them aren't overclocked, including mine (the actual part number for my card, which is a better way to talk about graphics cards than the name they give it because of situations like the one happening here, is GTX670-DC2-4GD5). I'm running with -d 0 -l K7x32 -C 1 -H 1 right now. There's quite a few configurations for KXxX that run at approximately the same hashrate.

Disabling interactive mode gives me around 3 khash. Not worth it IMO since I work on this computer.

If your card isn't OC'd, I don't know how a <15% clock increase (that's if you have a TOP card) got you >20% khash over my card.

I'm at ~235 stable on my GTX670 with stock clocks. I still don't understand why people think 290+ is low.

The Chrome issue was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't know if there was a solution, but have a search.

Do you have any predictions for Maxwell?

Also, cbuchner, I tried asking earlier but I didn't see a response. Do you have a BTC address?

Pretty much. Newer implementations of CUDA have various improvements to the architecture underlying it, which gives you different/better optimizations. That's why there's 4 different kernels packaged into cudaminer (legacy, Fermi, Kepler and Titan).

Change -l 32x4 to -l auto, remove -C (it's ignored now).

I wouldn't even bother trying to figure it out, to be honest. What is an 8400M going to get you in an ideal scenario, like 15 khash? It won't even come close to paying for the power, and to make it worse you're probably reducing the lifetime of a part that's already old and well used by now because it's in a laptop.

If we're talking about this as an isolated factor, no but maybe. In the short term, you'd expect a large number of legitimate people to dump their holdings and tank the price. In the long run, the price may be driven up by demand, but only if it's substantially harder to get them into the country than "install Bitcoin client". If it's just as easy to use and trade them in the future as it is right now, they don't have the low supply & high demand situation necessary to artificially inflate prices.

Any more details on this? I have the 14x14 config running on my 670, and am only at ~244, even with interactive mode disabled.

I'm noticing this too. There's slightly less stutter on video (had Pawn Stars on this whole time while testing configs). Not the very slight nearly constant stutter I've always seen, but the larger occasional stutters seem to be gone.

Yeah, it was just a quick check before I went into a repeated autotune frenzy.

Speaking of which, there's some really good news on that front. With K42x5, I'm now at a whopping 230khash, still on interactive mode! Incredible job here!

Side question, do you have a Bitcoin addy? I don't mine LTC.

EDIT: 28x8 is at 235khash. Still have a few more to check out, but this is probably where I'm going to top out.

EDIT2: The oddball 14x24 is just a hair faster at 236.

Any advice on x64 vs x86 with the new version?

EDIT: With a 670 GTX and the same settings as before, I bumped from 160ish khash to 190 khash. Awesome work, cbuchner! Also, thanks to David Anderson!

Settings: -i 1 -l K90x2 -C 1 -H 1 -m 1

On a 9600GT, I would doubt you can get 200+ khash. Some of the newer, high end cards don't even break that, and yours is a very old, mid range card.

Also, someone completely wrecked the spreadsheet. I restored it to an old version (only a couple hours ago). Can you modify permissions so people can only add and update things they have added themselves?

I'd double down on power saving settings, since IIRC, Chrome is hardware accelerated by default on most machines.

Using the new -H 2 option, with either x64 or x86, I'm sitting a few (3-4) khash lower than using -H 1. Obviously it's likely to have a much different effect on a lower end system like an Atom.

Seems like using just a K for me shows "Given launch config 'K' does not validate".

Interesting aside, it seems the 98x2 I've been using doesn't show up in the debug for autotune, despite being the best config I've found so far. This debug panel gives a few more leads to check out, though.

EDIT: Looking through the results of a couple tries, it seems the results of autotune are pretty inconsistent. Is each configuration being tested only once? Maybe an average more tests per config would work better as an option for people who are going to use the results to find an ideal configuration to set themselves instead of as a final configuration.