anyone can give more explanation About desciption this altcoin here, my bro?
this alternate coin very new for me
since today.. there are just few major coins projects: 1)bitcoin 2)litecoin 3)dogecoin 4)ethereum 5)bitshare IMAHO You forgot Siacoin.. people tend to miss that one.. |
|
|
|
|
Selling à batch of 20 or 10mil for a Nice price, contact me for more info :-)
|
|
|
|
Did some tests on Quark this time. hitting a stable 23.5 Mhz @ 820 Watt(3 fury's) Very sure they can still go higher. Big thx to Wolf0 for helping out  ! Screenshot  |
|
|
|
It is opensource now, you don't need to use the binary...
Oh lol, didn't know that will do some more testing later then |
|
|
|
>As i said before, with those low temps, i know this also could go a lot faster. Energy usage confirmed that.
The bottleneck of CryptoNight PoW algo is that it requires loading small data blocks from random memory addresses, a lot of times. Because addresses are random, memory cache is useless. You see low temps because GPU core does not work all the time, most time it waits data from GPU memory due its latency. And it cannot be optimized because the algo was designed to use memory latency to be asic-resistant. Fury X has 4096 bit memory bandwidth, but it is useless for this algo because big bandwidth is not related to memory latency.
same for lyra2re (it looks like fury x performance is worse than 280x), but they are changing the algo (at least for vertcoin) in order to be more gpu-friendly, so that might change. Did a quick Lyra2re test with stock settings and open source kernel. Dunno where that cryptoblog got their results.. but they're way off.. here are my results.  Almost 1mhz. That's a serious difference than the 430Kh Cryptoblog wrote... Energy usage  @Pallas, tried to run your binary but that froze up my rig each time. it doesn't freeze up when doing that for Quark or any other algo. Greetings |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting! This definitely helps inform my next purchase. I've been debating going the AMD route for a new monero rig. So at current release, it seems that for whatever reason the fury performs as well as the 290x.
You're very welcome! >As i said before, with those low temps, i know this also could go a lot faster. Energy usage confirmed that.
The bottleneck of CryptoNight PoW algo is that it requires loading small data blocks from random memory addresses, a lot of times. Because addresses are random, memory cache is useless. You see low temps because GPU core does not work all the time, most time it waits data from GPU memory due its latency. And it cannot be optimized because the algo was designed to use memory latency to be asic-resistant. Fury X has 4096 bit memory bandwidth, but it is useless for this algo because big bandwidth is not related to memory latency.
It's useless for most algo's.. But again, everything was at stock settings, i have been playing around with the core engine and was able to push it to 1190 without a problem. After that it started to fail, temperatures were still very low though, if i was on windows i could play with voltage as it's possible with Afterburner. I'm not experienced enough to optimize any algo to be Fury X friendly But i know someone who is and will be playing with it in the next weeks. I'm curious about the results! >As i said before, with those low temps, i know this also could go a lot faster. Energy usage confirmed that.
The bottleneck of CryptoNight PoW algo is that it requires loading small data blocks from random memory addresses, a lot of times. Because addresses are random, memory cache is useless. You see low temps because GPU core does not work all the time, most time it waits data from GPU memory due its latency. And it cannot be optimized because the algo was designed to use memory latency to be asic-resistant. Fury X has 4096 bit memory bandwidth, but it is useless for this algo because big bandwidth is not related to memory latency.
same for lyra2re (it looks like fury x performance is worse than 280x), but they are changing the algo (at least for vertcoin) in order to be more gpu-friendly, so that might change. Lyra2re performance is worse than a 280x you mean? i haven't tested that algo "yet".. so i don't know. I ignored Cryptomining blog results because most of them aren't correct compared to my results. Regarding Cryptonote, seeing the results with other cards (stock settings) the fury beats them all, not by much, but it's still the fastest it seems Greetings |
|
|
|
In "Fury X mining performance" thread on your screenshot I see "lowdifficult" error, so it is not real speed. For example, 290X shows 1400h/s if you use miner for Catalyst 13.12 on Catalyst 15.x, but you will get "lowdifficult" errors for all shares. So the only way to test Fury X right now is to use miner for Catalyst 15.x on Windows. Moreover, for Fury X it is necessary to change HashCnt parameter to find best speed.
Ok, installed Windows with Cat. 15.x and the results can be found in the fury X performance thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1116027.msg11975615#msg11975615I did play with the HashCnt parameter, best result is what you can see in the screenshot. Greetings! |
|
|
|
Ok i have some new tests regarding Cryptonote. As seen in the screenshot. 1 Fury at stock settings runs @ around 850+h/s Cards were almost at idle temperatures. So in other words, they were hardly doing their best Screenshot of hash rate  As i said before, with those low temps, i know this also could go a lot faster. Energy usage confirmed that. Not even 500 Watt with 3 Cards. Screenshot  I have only one algo that drives my fury's over 40 degrees. And that is Siacoin. This is because i'm pretty sure that they're almost working at full power on that algo. Also the power usage when running sia is more then double than what it was pulling on Cryptonote. Not only Cryptonote but also X11, Quark etc.. Again, if someone wants to test something, Just ask Greetings! |
|
|
|
anyone tried a fury card yet?
I would like to test on my Fury's, but as there is no recent Linux version, i'm unable to. older version doesn't work. Greetings Edit: tested on the latest Linux version. here are some results. 19:20:12:151 23fff700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 792 ms, hashrate = 1292 h/s 19:20:12:164 237fe700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 795 ms, hashrate = 1288 h/s 19:20:12:167 23fff700 Round 19:20:12:174 237fe700 Round 19:20:12:217 29ea5700 GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 815 ms, hashrate = 1256 h/s 19:20:12:235 29ea5700 Round 19:20:12:960 28ea3700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 791 ms, hashrate = 1294 h/s 19:20:12:978 22ffd700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 795 ms, hashrate = 1288 h/s 19:20:12:978 28ea3700 Round 19:20:12:990 22ffd700 Round 19:20:13:051 296a4700 GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 816 ms, hashrate = 1254 h/s 19:20:13:067 296a4700 Round 19:20:13:770 23fff700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 792 ms, hashrate = 1292 h/s 19:20:13:787 23fff700 Round 19:20:13:793 237fe700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 796 ms, hashrate = 1286 h/s 19:20:13:804 237fe700 round found 3 shares 19:20:13:804 237fe700 Round 19:20:13:804 227fc700 07/24/15-19:20:13 - SHARE FOUND (target 2500) - (GPU 2 of 3) 19:20:13:805 227fc700 07/24/15-19:20:13 - SHARE FOUND (target 2500) - (GPU 2 of 3) So i guess around 1300 h/s on 1 Fury, complete rig was doing around 490 Watt, That's nothing..  In "Fury X mining performance" thread on your screenshot I see "lowdifficult" error, so it is not real speed. For example, 290X shows 1400h/s if you use miner for Catalyst 13.12 on Catalyst 15.x, but you will get "lowdifficult" errors for all shares. So the only way to test Fury X right now is to use miner for Catalyst 15.x on Windows. Moreover, for Fury X it is necessary to change HashCnt parameter to find best speed. Ok, thank you for that information. I'm personally not a big fan of Windows, but i'll swap hard drives later this day and i'll test again. Greetings |
|
|
|
would be nice if the images was a tad smaller
Would be even nicer if your resolution was a tad bigger :-) I'll remove the image tags, specially for you :-) |
|
|
|
anyone tried a fury card yet?
I would like to test on my Fury's, but as there is no recent Linux version, i'm unable to. older version doesn't work. Greetings Edit: tested on the latest Linux version. here are some results. 19:20:12:151 23fff700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 792 ms, hashrate = 1292 h/s 19:20:12:164 237fe700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 795 ms, hashrate = 1288 h/s 19:20:12:167 23fff700 Round 19:20:12:174 237fe700 Round 19:20:12:217 29ea5700 GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 815 ms, hashrate = 1256 h/s 19:20:12:235 29ea5700 Round 19:20:12:960 28ea3700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 791 ms, hashrate = 1294 h/s 19:20:12:978 22ffd700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 795 ms, hashrate = 1288 h/s 19:20:12:978 28ea3700 Round 19:20:12:990 22ffd700 Round 19:20:13:051 296a4700 GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 816 ms, hashrate = 1254 h/s 19:20:13:067 296a4700 Round 19:20:13:770 23fff700 GPU 1: HashCnt = 1024, time = 792 ms, hashrate = 1292 h/s 19:20:13:787 23fff700 Round 19:20:13:793 237fe700 GPU 2: HashCnt = 1024, time = 796 ms, hashrate = 1286 h/s 19:20:13:804 237fe700 round found 3 shares 19:20:13:804 237fe700 Round 19:20:13:804 227fc700 07/24/15-19:20:13 - SHARE FOUND (target 2500) - (GPU 2 of 3) 19:20:13:805 227fc700 07/24/15-19:20:13 - SHARE FOUND (target 2500) - (GPU 2 of 3) So i guess around 1300 h/s on 1 Fury, complete rig was doing around 490 Watt, That's nothing.. |
|
|
|
thanks for the tests.
in the end the performance is 0-20% higher than a 290x depending on the algo:
sia - about the same
groestl - about 10% more
x11 and quark - about 20% more
let's hope they make a better opencl compiler to unleash its full power!
finally a curiosity: did you get valid blocks with that ultra fast sia miner?
No problem Mm, Sia about the same? on my 290x i hit around 1.25 Ghz (oc'ed), on my Fury's i hit 1.9 Ghz (stock clocks) That's a difference of 40%, non open source though.. As you said, a better opencl compiler and optimized kernels would be seriously interesting. Very curious what they are capable of. Yes i have found plenty of blocks with that miner Greets |
|
|
|
Siacoin hashrate is impressive! Are you using the public miner?
I'm interested in knowing hashrate and power usage for the groestlcoin/diamond algo.
Please use both the opensource v1 kernel and the experimental v2 binary in my thread.
Many thanks!
Hey Pallas. no i'm not using the public miner, hashrate on the public miner is just above 1Ghz As for your Groestl/diamond interest. I installed this version of sgminer https://github.com/prettyhatemachine/sph-sgminerwhen running Groestl/diamond on stock settings "1050 engine" i hit around @ 778 Watt  Watt http://postimg.org/image/v14qbrulp/When i use your Hawaii binary, rename it, run it, i run around 40Mhz+ but with HW errors  Hashrate was still rising and this is with stock clocks. So with 1100 (which those cards can easily handle it should go to 50Mhz) Oh and a screenshot of Siacoin speed  Greetings |
|
|
|
Ok, i finally did some power usage tests. All these tests are with 3x R9 XFX Fury X, Intel I5, 16GB Corsair Vengeance, 2 x Corsair AX 860i Test number 1: This is an X11 test, all 3 cards doing 11.5 Mhz @ around 35 degrees. Complete rig is pulling just over 680 Watt & 3.1 amps Picture http://s10.postimg.org/rjex7v0mh/IMG_7064.pngTest number 2: Quark @ 23 Mhz per card @ around 38 Degrees. Rig is pulling 776 Watt & 3.5 amps Picture http://s8.postimg.org/ingyj319h/IMG_7065.pngTest number 3: Siacoin @ 1.9 Ghz per card @ around 40 Degrees. Rig is pulling around 1006 Watt & 4.6 amps. Picture http://s13.postimg.org/uzpna2a5z/IMG_7066.pngKnowing all of this i can only conclude that there is much to do for X11 & Quark. I have a feeling X11 will definitely be able to go over 20Mhz and Quark should be able to go over 30Mhz with ease. Also it is clear and allready known that they love power, as do almost all of the AMD cards. in Case number 1, the complete rig is pulling almost 700 Watt, take 100 watt out (Processor, mobo and such) and a single card is @ around 200Watt, not bad though for doing 11+Mhz. However as you can see in case number 3, the complete rig is pulling over 1000 Watt with only 3 cards. So they're easily pulling 300Watt per card. And i'm sure i haven't hit the top speed on Siacoin. If there's anyone who wants to see a test on another algo. Just ask. No problem! Greetings! |
|
|
|
Just tested the kachur bins. I get an impressive 7.5 mhash on the gigabyte windforce r9 280x on factory clocks. This is around 1MHASH bether than the wolf0's bin. I also use his build of sgminer(exe) and the latest 15.6 beta driver.
Where did you download his sgminer from? NM, saw your earlier post. Do you know if it works on the recently released AMD GPU drivers?(15.7) ok - so windows only ... just tried the bins in linux and it just doesnt work ... if someone would care to share HOW they got it to work in linux - and WHERE we can get the bins and miner for linux - that would be great ... and i would be very thankful  ... #crysx I tested the binary on a unix system with 3 Fury's. With my own mod i get around 11+ Mhz and a nice sharerate. With this binary i get a very nice hashrate but 0 shares. Picture Someone knows R9 390/390x 8gb hashrates?
should be the same as 290/290x, except for scrypt-(|n|jane) where the additional ram may come in handy. Correct, i have a 390x and it's doing exactly the same as my 290X's (also with 8GB mem) Greetings tanx for the figures ... so HOW did you do it? ... did you just copy the bins and rename them? ... did you have to rewrite certain parts of the code? ... did you do a jig ontop of a stadium for the gods to bestow special powers upon you? ... its the how that gets me mate ... not just the end result ... i do understand you stated 'with my own mod' - but what mod? ... unless you are not willing to share of course - then that just defuncts my statement - but not my question of HOW ... #crysx Crysx, I did in fact copy the Tahiti bin and rename it. I have done this for Quark and that worked fine. I didn't rewrite anything This is the mod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1116027.msg11880191#msg11880191But now knowing that i could easily manage to get over 14Mhz with my Fury's, than my mod isn't that special :p I also released a binary a few posts back in this thread for those with Fiji cards. Of course i'm willing to share, i don't mind The how isn't important here, it's more the "did it even work" part.. which it didn't really. As you can see in my previous post, no shares. A decent hashrate, but no shares. Same settings, but then with my own mod, 11Mhz+ and a very decent hashrate Greetings |
|
|
|
Just tested the kachur bins. I get an impressive 7.5 mhash on the gigabyte windforce r9 280x on factory clocks. This is around 1MHASH bether than the wolf0's bin. I also use his build of sgminer(exe) and the latest 15.6 beta driver.
Where did you download his sgminer from? NM, saw your earlier post. Do you know if it works on the recently released AMD GPU drivers?(15.7) ok - so windows only ... just tried the bins in linux and it just doesnt work ... if someone would care to share HOW they got it to work in linux - and WHERE we can get the bins and miner for linux - that would be great ... and i would be very thankful ... #crysx I tested the binary on a unix system with 3 Fury's. With my own mod i get around 11+ Mhz and a nice sharerate. With this binary i get a very nice hashrate but 0 shares. Picture  Someone knows R9 390/390x 8gb hashrates?
should be the same as 290/290x, except for scrypt-(|n|jane) where the additional ram may come in handy. Correct, i have a 390x and it's doing exactly the same as my 290X's (also with 8GB mem) Greetings |
|
|
|
Just tested the kachur bins. I get an impressive 7.5 mhash on the gigabyte windforce r9 280x on factory clocks. This is around 1MHASH bether than the wolf0's bin. I also use his build of sgminer(exe) and the latest 15.6 beta driver.
Where did you download his sgminer from? NM, saw your earlier post. Do you know if it works on the recently released AMD GPU drivers?(15.7) ok - so windows only ... just tried the bins in linux and it just doesnt work ... if someone would care to share HOW they got it to work in linux - and WHERE we can get the bins and miner for linux - that would be great ... and i would be very thankful ... #crysx Don't think anyone got them to work on a unix system. I could take a look but can't promise anything. |
|
|
|
Eliovp, Wolf0, why you share bins, but not share kernel?
I don`t understand. Please, explain.
To hide optimization tricks from competing mining kernel developers. Correct Or to compile with good driver version and allow users to run the kernel without worrying about it. Somehow also correct. Or to pack everything into single exe file. I don't compile for Windows. Wolf's an expert at that. + you can run the fiji binary i shared on a windows compiled sgminer without any issues. As long as there's nothing else modded than the .cl file everything will run smoothly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
