I don't have the CPUs, that's why I'm here, as I said in my first post - I'm trying to choose processors for a few home servers, and current candidates are the 10-core 2680v2 and 12-core 2696v2. I do have a few E5 systems around, but none of them have 12-core CPUs, and the only 10-core models I've got are slow 2648Lv2 - so I can't really test anything comparable right now. I'll probably end up with 6 servers in total, so it's 12 CPUs, and the price difference adds up. One of the ways to get back at least some part of the money spent is to use them for mining while it's profitable, hence the question about the hashrates. The benchmarks on xmrig site show ~ the same hashrates between these 2, and I just don't understand why. Thought someone here might have an idea.

I'm still not sure what HT has to do with this. Whether it's on or off doesn't really matter since we're talking E5 CPUs and xmrig. Every E5 -EP CPU from v1 to v4 is the same in regards to cache sizes: 256KB L2 per every core, and 2+MB L3 per every core. It's like this for literally every single E5 Xeon: Sandy Bridge-EP (v1), Ivy Bridge-EP (v2), Haswell-EP (v3) and Broadwell-EP (v4) - only Skylake has brought change to this, but that's also when they dropped "E5" name. So when we're talking E5 Xeons, they're all the same and they're all limited by L2 cache. L3 cache is basically irrelevant, yet everyone and their mom keeps talking about 2MB of L3 cache like it matters - it doesn't.

But they don't. 99% of E5 CPUs have exactly 2.5MB of L3 cache per core, not 2MB, only a few oddballs like E5-1650 or E5-4607 have 2MB per core. Some have even 3+ MB of L3 per core, like E5-2667v2, 2673v2, 2687wv2 etc. It doesn't matter anyway, cause all of them are limited by L2 cache size: it's 256KB per physical core, and therefore number of threads for the miner is exactly the same as the number of physical cores.

The number of physical cores is not irrelevant, it's everything actually, cause each miner's thread needs 256KB of L2, and all E5 CPUs have only 256KB of L2 per physical core. Which means that if it's a 6-core CPU, then it's gonna be 6 threads in the miner, if it's a 10-core, then it's 10 miner threads etc. Even though almost all of them have 2.5MB of L3 per core, and some have even more (like those 8-cores with 3.125MB per core) - it doesn't matter cause they're all still limited by L2. A 10-core E5-2680v2 has 25MB of L3 cache, so if one would blindly follow the "2MB of L3 per thread" rule, and tried to run 12 threads - the hashrate would not be higher than with 10 threads. Same with something like E5-2667v2 - it also has 25MB of L3 cache, so up to 12 miner threads is ok then? No - like every other E5, it's limited by L2, and thus the highest hashrate is gonna be with 8 threads.

Number of miner threads = number of physical cores - that's the rule for every single E5 Xeon, cause they're all limited by those 256KB of L2, and not by L3 size (since none of them have less than 2MB of L3 per core). Hyper-Threading is something that is completely irrelevant here, it doesn't matter whether it's on or off, highest hashrate is achieved with number of miner threads = number of physical cores and mining software (at least xmrig) automatically detects it and sets the proper number of threads based on the cpu model, whether HT is on or off.

None of that is new, it's been said in this thread before. But my question has not been "answered early on in this thread", as you said. The question is - why the 10-core E5-2680v2 (3.1GHz all-core turbo) shows the same hashrate as the 12-core E5-2696v2 (3.1 GHz all-core turbo)? Why is there linear scaling from 4 cores to 10 cores, but not from 10 cores to 12 cores? Both E5-2696v2 and E5-2697v2 show about the same (or even lower) hashrates than E5-2680v2, so their single-thread performance is lower for some reason. I just thought maybe someone here have an idea why.

I'm not following. What does HT have to do with this? It's never used for mining with E5 v1/v2 - either it's disabled in BIOS, or the miner's threads are bound to the physical cores. Of course I'm "counting physical cores", cause that's what matters in RandomX mining with these Xeons. Every single E5 V2 CPU in existence has 256KB of L2 and 2M+ of L3 per physical core, so that's how they're used for mining - with the number of miner's threads equal to the number of cores. All the benchmarks out there are like that, number of threads = number of physical cores. I don't understand your post and my question was not answered in this thread, it has nothing to do with HT whatsoever.

What could it have to do with L3 cache? RandomX needs 256KB of L2 and 2MB of L3 for every thread. None of the Ivy Bridge EP CPUs are limited by L3 as far as I can see, every single E5 v2 CPU has more than 2MB of L3 per core, so should scale with increased core count just fine. I'm looking at 4-cores vs 6-cores v2, and the scale is pretty much linear.

Here's a quad 2637v2 (3.5GHz base, 3.6GHz turbo):
https://xmrig.com/benchmark?cpu=Intel%28R%29+Xeon%28R%29+CPU+E5-2637+v2+%40+3.50GHz
And here's a hexa 2643v2 (also 3.5GHz base, 3.6GHz turbo):
https://xmrig.com/benchmark?cpu=Intel%28R%29+Xeon%28R%29+CPU+E5-2643+v2+%40+3.50GHz

Each thread hashes at ~ 550-600 H/s, resulting in ~ 4.5Kh for a pair of quads and 6.8-7Kh for a pair of hexa CPUs. Compare these to the 8-core 2667V2, and it also does ~ 550H per thread, or 8.7-9KH for a pair:
https://xmrig.com/benchmark?cpu=Intel%28R%29+Xeon%28R%29+CPU+E5-2667+v2+%40+3.30GHz

None of the 10-core Ivy EP CPUs are clocked as high as 3.6 GHz, so no direct comparison can be done here, the fastest 2690V2 is 3.0GHz base / 3.3GHz turbo, and it does 460H per thread, or 9.2KH for a pair:
https://xmrig.com/benchmark?cpu=Intel%28R%29+Xeon%28R%29+CPU+E5-2690+v2+%40+3.00GHz
So it also seems to scale, especially if the turbo wasn't working right on that one (and the memory was at 1066MHz). A slower 2680v2 10-core does up to 515H per thread, and it's only 2.8/3.1GHz cpu:
https://xmrig.com/benchmark?cpu=Intel%28R%29+Xeon%28R%29+CPU+E5-2680+v2+%40+2.80GHz

So at least up to 10 cores the scaling looks pretty much linear. It's the 12-core CPUs that aren't any faster for some reason, at least by looking at those benchmarks. 2696V2 is supposed to work at the same 3.1GHz turbo as 2680V2. If the latter does 10KH for a pair, then why wouldn't a pair of 2696V2 do 12KH? Do they throttle and not reach 3.1GHz all-core turbo? It's only 5W difference in TDP on paper between 2696v2 and 2680v2, but most likely a bit more in real power draw. Too bad xmrig benchmarks don't show the actual clocks.

Could someone explain why 10-core Ivy Bridge CPUs seem to show the same hashrates as the 12-core CPUs? I'm trying to pick processors for a couple of simple home servers (dual 2011), that I'd also use for mining while it's profitable, and looking at the benchmarks on the xmrig website - I'm confused. E5-2680V2 is a 115W TDP 10-core 2.8 GHz base that's supposed to hit 3.1 GHz all-core turbo, and E5-2696V2 is a 120W TDP 12-core 2.5 GHz that is also supposed to hit 3.1 GHz all-core turbo. So they look identical other than 10 threads vs 12 threads, but xmrig benchmarks suggest that they both only hash at ~ 5k each. I figured if the 10-core does 5k, then the 12-core should be about 6k?

Am I missing something here? I thought maybe 2696V2 doesn't reach the 3.1 GHz turbo during mining for some reason, and that's why it shows ~ the same hashrate as 2680V2 - cause the latter has higher base clock. But then I looked at the benchmarks of 2697V2 (which has higher than 2696V2 base of 2.7 GHz, but lower turbo of 3.0 GHz), and it's the same thing - also hovers around 5k per CPU. They're all 256KB L2 cache, 25/30MB L3 cache, yet extra 2 cores don't seem to bring any hashrate improvements? Is this a RandomX thing, or something with XMRig miner or benchmarks?

There's a good chance that tradeogre people don't read this thread at all. At least I haven't seen them here, not in official capacity anyway. So any problems you've got with the exchange are only likely to be solved via twitter direct messages.

A couple of days ago? And you're thinking about scammer lists and websites? Has it occurred to you that your issue might still be under investigation? And what "email"? They've never had an e-mail, the only way to contact them is via twitter. 

Mobile mining is a joke no matter what coin one's trying to mine. Earning less than $0.005 a day by slowly destroying the phone, and that's not even accounting for electricity costs. So in reality it's probably close to 1 cent per 4 days of mining. Lol. Stress your phone for 4 days and earn $0.01 - sounds like a good plan!

Is this ever gonna get fulfilled? It's been 2 weeks, I've found 27 blocks already, including the first 3, but there's still no reward. 

Does anyone know what's going on with zpools? They've had payouts and stats disabled for the whole week now. It's a tiny pool with one and a half miner there, what the hell are they "investigating" that's taking a week already? Mining is working, new blocks are being found - they're just not paying for any of those.. 

Is it possible to mine Stellite with this miner? Their instructions suggest that it is, but I can't find the "V5" option anywhere.

How to mine it now? Is it "v9" or what? The first post and even official website say the algo is "CryptoNote v7", pools reject all shares with all the algos I've tried so far.

Not sure what coins I was mining back then, probably scrypt (vtc and doges mostly, iirc) and other algos that made sense at that time, but never mined with stock voltage on any gpu and definitely not 290s - always undervolting. Maybe just got unlucky.

I've also had mostly bad experience with 290s. Had only 5 or 6 of them in total, and 2 or 3 went bad within a few months (all bought new). Haven't ever had such high failure rates with any other GPU series.

There are basically 2 ways one could approach the mining game — efficient and adventurous.

The efficient way is to mine whatever is most profitable at the moment, and then buy whatever it is you think is worth having. So, for example, let's say you think that monero is worth keeping in the long run. But with the current difficulties and exchange rates, mining some other coin is giving you more in terms of BTC value (let's say it's Alloy vs XMR). So you're mining Alloy then, and exchanging the coins you're getting to XMR: this way you're getting more XMR than you'd get by mining it directly with the same hardware.

The other approach, the adventurous one, is to mine coins that you can't buy anywhere. That's usually new coins that haven not been traded on any exchanges yet. This is a lot riskier since the coin doesn't have an actual market "value", but might also be more "fun" (and more profitable in the long run). So, try both approaches and see what makes more sense to you.

Trying random addresses found on the internet is how most people get scammed in the first place.

Tradeogre doesn't have an e-mail address for support. The only way to contact them is via twitter. Whoever you're talking to via e-mail is not tradeogre. You're being scammed by someone else.

Because they have nothing to do with the LTHN network. Herominers pool forked to their own blockchain and mined on that chain alone for hours. Still mining apparently.

Of course, they're 100% yours, do with them as you please, no one's taking them away from you. I wouldn't expect any exchange to accept them from you though.

What makes you think so? How do you know which fork is the "right channel" when even the devs haven't seemed to decide what to do with this forking madness yet?

Because none of those were real. That was a split chain and that pool was the only one mining on that chain - for 3+ hours it was "finding" blocks on its own private network. It's strange how it kept finding them though, mine just stopped finding any (cause the network has basically halted).