I know


Must be all that caffeine.  Total keyboard insanity.  sorry bros.  and its either wall of text, or spaced out repeatedly, making my posts take up half the page.  I'll try to keep it short.

I realize that I am asking a question here that is probably at the core of a lot of flame wars.  I promise I did not post it with that foreknowledge, although its pretty obvious given the fact that "fanboyism" is about as rampant as it gets with GPUs (probably only comparable to Ford vs Holden in Australia, where fist fights and stabbings are an occasional result).

I'm not a troll (lol how many times has that been said).  I do not disbelieve, discount, or ignore the statistitics.  They are there in black and white.  Its fact.  AMD cards are almost universally better (I say almost because there might have been maybe one single expensive nvidia card that was better than a super cheap AMD card, but I didn't pay too close attention).

I knew about that before I posted this thread, which is why I repeatedly referred to the "performance discrepancy."  that is why those posts that referred to them are kind of irrelevant.  I know.  those websites with reviews/benchmarks were the REASON why I am posting this thread.

shit.  I'm just asking WHY?

why?  why is it that 2 types of hardware, which are designed for essentially identical tasks:  namely CONSUMER ORIENTED graphics (like video games and movies and shit) produce such wildly different results?

AMD wants to make their shit work well with games.  So does Nvidia.  Everyone learns physics and electrical engineering from similar/same text books, and in many cases from the same PI or a PI who worked with his competitors PI because those PI's worked with the same PI (I cant remember the name of the statistic that measures the PhD "tree" back up to famous people like Einstein, laplace, debroglie, boltzmann, Bragg, feynman, etc. but that is what I am talking about here)

even taking into account the hurdles of patents and Intellectual property, how is it that 2 products, aimed at the same market and designed for IDENTICAL tasks produce such ABSOLUTELY WIDLY different results?  that is my question. 

the answers I have been given mostly sound like:  "because AMD is better, duh."
dark_st3alth  actually answered my question in a clear and cogent way and I do appreciate that.  Thank you. 

he also eluded to what I was implying with PhysX:


my point was "targeted" development.  I didnt mean to imply that the BTC mining programmers were like "fuck you nvidia we're only writing for AMD so all you NVidia fanboys can suck a dick."  I meant more along the lines of:  "some guys working in their spare time, who only had access to AMD gear and AMD SDKs developed with the tools they had, and the results are that the software works best with AMD."

maybe they tried to get Nvidia hardware donated and Nvidia said no!  who knows! But think it much more likely that the reason why the software works best on AMD is because it was designed with a focus on AMD hardware.
not maliciously, not angrily, not with some ill intent.  Just because that was the only option.

I would love to hear someone who actually knows about the development weigh in so that I can have that question answered.  Its just a question OIts posted in the noob section for gods sake.  I didnt pronounce it like a fact of god spoken from on high.  I am ruminating.  I am tossing around i

Ithought that was essentially the friggin purpose of a "forum":  a place to discuss things.  that is what I am trying to do.

instead i'm a troll, Im a fanboy, Im just here to start flamewars.
apparently that must be the case. 

didnt ask measurements.  I have google as well.  I can type in "which GPUs are best for BTC mining"


I asked a question that was clearly not relevant in the noob section.  I have no alternative. place to post it.



Perhaps the entire website is not the place to post such a question.



I am asking for a question that is based on genuine information, not speculation.   I highly doubt there are very many electrical engineers on this board who can explain why the simple integer math associated with bitcoin mining operates more efficiently (in terms of time, aka:  hashs/sec) than they do on Nvidia boards.


realistically I will almost certainly never get an answer here.



the answer that "simple math is done quicker because there are more cores, which were designed to supplement for the lack of complexity in those cores when dealing with more complex math associated with graphics" is nonsensical on a number of levels.


all math is simple at the base level.  The biggest determinant factor is how much memory is there, how quickly the memory communicates with the processor and how long the job is


short job, short overall calculation time pretty much eliminate most of the differences in hardware.

thus far the answer has been "because the charts say so"
remember:  all math, all simulatios are all the same.  computational fluid dynamics looks the same as quantum mechanics at the most base level of the code.


integrals, derivatives, exponentials.... they are all just represented as sums and differences of polynomials.

the math of bitcoin mining is identical between both platforms (crucially, however, the way in which the math is "sent" to and "read from" the GPU may not be the same, amongst a host of other potential differences, but I digress here).

a satisfactory logically reaoned answer, supported with proof from spec/tech sheets from reliable sources (eg:  corroborated by anandtech, THG and/or the manufacturers themselves, to ensure that "claims" are genuine, and not just fluff).

1) the AMD boards have more cores
2) those cores are individually clocked higher than the Nvidia boards (and perhaps they can be threaded)

3) thus, because the math is so simple, the AMD boards can compute more calculations per second AND there are more of those cores, so those numbers literally multiply to add up to much higher performance.
4) Memory and bus architecture are irrelevant because of the relatively small number involved, and the fact that the total data involved in a complete calclulation is miniscule in comparison to the memory avaialble.


THAT would be a sound justification of why the HARDWARE is the true source of the discrepancy, and not the software implementation.



is that the case?  I dont know.  I just made those up as possible solutions that did NOT include the software's particular development as a POSSIBILITY for the discrepancy,


despite what people say, hardware is often less of a tie breaker than you might think.

that IS why physX and other market SOFTWARE BASED norms have given nvidia the edge (and probably Intel for that matter, and probably also ARM in the field of mobile).  It is also a lot easier to FORCE software down the throats of an industry than it is to force a particular hardware architecture (I am referring to Nvidia here, not AMD.   I am referring to Nvidia forcing their software/SDK down the throats of the gaming developers, not the debate above about bitcoin mining software).

my point here is to simply say that the fundamental difference that lies at the heart of this discrepancy is more likely to be software based than hardware based, simply because there are more ways in which the software itself can cause differences in performance.

for fucks sake, most software developers don't have a fucking clue how the hardware really actually works anyway. Its a lot harder for a software developer to maximize their hardware by themselves through tintkering and testing than it is for the hardware developer to siimply give out tools to make it easier for the developers to max the hardware, which gives whichever company who offers the better deal the edge.


the addage "software lags behind hardware" comes from the fact that its actually a lot fucking hardware to write sophisticated software than it is to decrease the gate size on a silicon wafer (up to a point, of course; a point that we have obviously reached) A graduate student, working by himself, can pull it off with minial support from faculty, whereas it usually takes teams of seasoned veteran programers to churn out high quality software.

in terms of "fanboyism"

1) I don't play video games.   I would rather not expound upon my opinions of people who attempt to justify spending lots of money for the ability to play video games at higher frame rates and to be able to see the grass on the simulated ground appear more realistic

2) I have a 6 year old HP laptop with a single core, intel core duo (not even a core 2 duo) with 2 gb of memory and onboard video.  I use 2 of my 4 USB ports to juggle between external hard drive enclosures to utilize a stack of equally old 3.5" internal drives ranging between 250 to 500 gb.  Im not a gamer.  I also have a 1st generation (literally first generation of the first generation) xbox that I won from Taco Bell.  It has an Xecuter 3 mod chip and I use it as a media center with 1st generation 1080p Samsung DLP (as in:  the first 1080p DLP they ever sold) with audio piped through a 13 year old onkyo receiver.  Point is:  I don't pay attention to what is new.  I don't care either.  Everything I have is sufficient for my needs.  when 4k TVs and boxes start coming out, I will upgrade.

I dont give a flying fuck about fanboyism.   Except for my Car.  Fuck yeah Nissan.  Fuck all yall Euro, 'merikan, Australian, and other alterntive JDM shit.  Nissan reigns supreme.  fuck rotaries (mazda), fuck yamaha designed engine components (toyota), fuck lol-crank-walk (Mitsubishi), and fuck diesel-engine sounding broke-transmission bulbous monstrosities (Subaru).

haha Im joking.  but maybe Im not.

no I really am.  anyone who likes cars is a friend.  Even if you like to drive around with a live rear axle or pushrods.

I am not a programmer.


but I do know that such a massive, 100% consistent, discrepancy in performance between ATI and Nvidia hardware with the existing Mining software is not just:


"DURRR ATI IS BETTAR BUCUZ THEY HAZ BETTER DESIGN!"


thats bullshit.


what is it?  was the software developed FOR ATI hardware?  were the developers fed up with Nvidia's PhysX monopolistic microsoft-esque bullshit?  is Nvidia's SDK clunky and hard to work with?

what?

there must be a REAL REASON.  Because I can tell you right now, that even the best programmers and comptuer scientists will never be able to corroborate why a particular hardware design is better than any other with why their software works better on a particular hardware system.


especially when we are talking about what amounts to the absolute simplest mathematics on the planet.


it would take more than 1 "fresh," very intelligent Ph.D. in EE/solid sate physics to even begin to expound upon that subjet, and probably more than 1.


the discrepancies I havve seen between ATI and Nvidia with Mining look like the discrepancies I have seen between PhysX based benchmarks in the past.  I think that is the real situation.  I hope my implication there makes sense to everyone.

Pretty sure I started a standalone thread, but here goes:


I am just yet another tech guy.  Not a programmer or a cracker, hacker, or any kind of professional or hobbyists that delves into software.


I am a chemist by education (graduate student in materials science), but tech stuff is and always has been a relevant part of my life since I was maybe 11 years old



my main goal here is join one of the premiere "industry" standard communitities to give me an outlet for communications.


I hope to see bitcoins emerge from the predominantly "grey area payment system" that it seems to occupy now.


I have a few ideas on that note that are probably just one of a few million that people have come up with as a mens of making bitcoins relevant inernationally and to take the pressure off it due to certain unnamed services giving it a bad image from the national LE level.


I hope to start a fruitful blogging/posting career here, and I offer good luck and greetings to all else who wish for a similar future.

I am focused on anonymity.


the subject is not new.


Bitcoin4cash is dead or no  longer responsive, not sure but I have tried.


bitcoin2cash seems to be the only true "cash in the mail" option other than random people in the community who offer it without a "store front."



I have tried Bitcoinfog but its:

1) horrendously slow
2) glitchy (in fact, I am currently concerned about 48 BTCs that have not shown within 24 hours, despite the trail being recorded by all the relrevant parties ivolved)



I am wondering what you guys recommend in terms of anonymity.



I am not trying to avoid detection for something heinous in which real life CSI people would be zooming in and enhancing the reflection off the quarter sitting next to my desk (that joke might be too complicated, lol)


I am just trying to break the 1:1 address to address chain.

In this case I am talking about the usual example of an IT guy who oversees a grouop of computers or servers, used for whatever purpose (academic, corporate, etc)....

this person installs the BTC client and runs it virtually or physically on the machines under his control.

perhaps he chooses to only run the mining software during zero traffic hours, or constantly at a low priority.



besides specifics in the contracts that these people sign with their employer, are there any regional or national laws that make this sort of use illegal?


I mean... its ot like an IT guy needs to check with the management every single time he backs up the business' hard drives using a proprietary piece of software.

and since BTCs are not genuinely recognized as currency (yet) there is no conflict of interest (eg; the hypothetical IT guy is not generatig "true" income through the use of other people's hardware)


I wonder because this seems to be the ideal setting for BTC mining, because such corporate or academic computer systems are built with the correct variables in mind:

electricity usage
cost per performance increment
usage loads are pretty predictable (nothing used between say 6:00PM and 8:00 AM)


I realize that plenty of graduate students in CS, physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. must be coopting their group's cluster, or whichever cluster they have access to....


but I am more thinking of the IT guy responsible for a school's computer lab.



I remember readig an article along these lines and the guy was saying he was managing to make a pretty good output just from low level, off-peak usage of these cheap ass desk tops.


my only concern is if this is suuuper illegal

I'm a noob of course and probably just as knowledgeable as any other non-professional programmer whose career revolves around the tech industry.


My main goal here is to develop a deeper understanding of how to FULLY anonymize the trail of bitcoins for the average user.

I think that the concept is marvelous, but we need more mainstream acceptance beyond, essentially, Silk Road and hackers who need money.

even still, there are people who value their privacy, and any google search will tell you that bitcoins are NOT private, so long as the investigating party is motivated enough.


an example of a bitcoin user, who is not a criminal of any kind (regardless of moral interperetation of the law(s)) would be a businessman or politician who has interests that lie outside of the cultural norms of a christian moral dominated society.

if that person, who has every right to his own privacy (so long as it is does not harm anyone) were to be detected because an extremely motivated journalist decided to follow the trail of his BTC transactions back to the source.... well thats bad.


I dont judge anyone.


I just want to develop a "noob guide"

that gives step by step instructions, and various EASY TO UNDERSTAND (with explicit, literally grade school level) explanations of what to do:  "click here, type number in this box, click again, wait 20 minutes, check email, etc.)


thus my main interest here is with regards to services like mixers/laundry, or any other anonymization algorithm that may be different from the generic concept of just "massive iteration" randomly valued BTC transfers over the course of random periods of time spread over hours or days.


I am also intersted in cash services, but I realize that their very nature is sketchy, so I'm not about to trumpet their existence to the whole world.


anyway, that is my reason for joining this forum.... its one of the mixing grounds for the BTC communitities, and a great place to start researchiing

I would be interested to know the particular source and details of this file:

torrents, private FTP, usenet, DDL, etc.


was its title name spoofed?


eg;  was it labeled with some well known release group's titleling format (like using Razor1911 in the filename to convince people its legit?)

or on usenet, using the poster handle yenc, posting a.b.mom, or a.b.worms or a.b.u4all



people who do this piss me off immensely.


I typically just use 3 virus scanners (I run windows, inb4 someone comes down on me for not using linux), followed by a supplement with Jotti, Virscan, and a few other muli-scanners based online.


typically the only things that come up dirty are keygens and that is mostly because security companies have usually just assigned ALL keygens to the category of "malware" even though they may be clean.


i assume a benign purpose behind this:  I seriously doubt there is collusion between the game/software developers and the security companies, but rather its just easier to say that ALL keygens are malware since its a good chance they are (given the fact that 99% of people are going to download it from a suspect source without good background checks anyway).

thanks.


Good to know people are actually reading these posts and they are not just there for fluff.