Show Posts
|
Pages: [1]
|
miner battle: z-enemy 1.16 vs t-rex 0.5.7 vs spmodgit-7 [x16r / ravencoin] I've been wanting to compare performance between miners on the X16R algorithm for some time. This will be a test done in the vein of JackIt's tests in the past, where I ask which miner puts more coins in my wallet?
Setup: For this first test, I'm using a 3 GPU rig with Zotac 1080 Ti Minis running Windows 10 x64. I started an instance of each miner at the same time (using 1 GPU each) running on the same pool (Ravenminer) and the same machine. The miners will run for ~6 hours, I'll stop them simultaneously, and we'll see how many coins are in the 2 wallets. I will likely run this test 2-3 times to ensure that the results are consistent.
Overclock: 100% TDP, +110 core clock, stock memory
Drivers: 398.82
Miners: Z-enemy 1.16 x64, CUDA 9.2, STOCK intensity (thread here) vs. T-rex 0.5.7 , CUDA 9.2 , STOCK intensity (thread here) vs. spmodgit7 (suprminer), STOCK intensity (github here) . z-enemy and t-rex have 1% dev fee, spmod has no dev fee. Running auto (server set) difficulty on both miners. I'll switch which of the 3 GPUs each miner uses for each round to account for any variations in hardware.
Results: Experiment #1: default intensities
ROUND #1: 660 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 25.63 RVN [+17.1%] t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 25.64 RVN [+17.2%] spmodgit7 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 21.88 RVN
ROUND #2: 610 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 32.48 RVN [+12.7%] t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : **HUNG CLIENT** spmodgit7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 28.83 RVN
ROUND #3: 650 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 25.51 RVN [+26.7%] t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 23.51 RVN [+16.7%] spmodgit7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 20.14 RVN
ROUND #4: 500 minutes (ended early b/c i clicked on z-enemy, trex/spmod kept running briefly)
z-enemy 1.16 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 25.79 RVN [+32.0%] t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 23.44 RVN [+20.0%] spmodgit7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 19.54 RVN
Conclusions: Experiment #1
The big takeaway from this experiment is that both z-enemy and trex are dramatically faster than spmod (suprminer) at the default intensities, even with the 1% developer fees. It sounds like spmod may be faster with OC'd memory and a static difficulty, so I may test that eventually. For now, I would reccomend both z-enemy and t-rex over spmod, unless you stand firm on only using open source software.
If we averaged the coin gains I would rank below, my estimation being that z-enemy is 3-5% faster than t-rex with the default settings:
#1: z-enemy 1.16 +22% #2: t-rex 0.5.7 +18% #3: spmodgit 7
Results: Experiment #2: comparing t-rex intensities Here, I plan on testing various t-rex intensities to find the optimal intensity for t-rex (and I will do the same for z-enemy) and then to eventually compare those optimal intensities head to head. ROUND #1: 840 minutes
t-rex 0.5.7 : default intensity [20] : pool wallet : 24.11 RVN t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 25.44 RVN [+5.5%] ** WINNER ** t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 23 : pool wallet : 24.90 RVN [+3.3%]
ROUND #2: 600 minutes
t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 16.19 RVN t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 22 : pool wallet : 16.39 RVN [+1.2%] t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 17.58 RVN [+7.3%] ** WINNER **
Conclusions: Experiment #2
I stopped the test a little early because a new version of t-rex was released (0.6.1). It seems higher than default intensities are fastest for t-rex. I will likely revisit this with the new version, but currently it seems 24 intensity is the fastest on my machine.
Results: Experiment #3: comparing z-enemy intensities ROUND #1: 720 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 23.21 RVN z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 23.27 RVN [+0.3%] z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 23 : pool wallet : 25.12 RVN [+8.2%] ** WINNER **
Results: Experiment #4: t-rex 0.6.1 vs z-enemy 1.16 [optimal intensities] ROUND #1: 1440 minutes
Going to let this one run 24 hours per round. From my previous tests intensity 24 is the fastest on my machine for t-rex and 23 intensity for z-enemy. the z-enemy internal tests show intensity 20 is the fastest, so i'll compare that as well
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 53.98 RVN [+6.8%] z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 23 : pool wallet 54.08 RVN [+6.9%] ** WINNER ** t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 50.56 RVN
z-enemy is clearly the winner here, the higher intensity doesn't seem to change much. going to run one final 24 hour run and then i'll finalize z-enemy as the winner.
ROUND #2: 2000 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 71.83 RVN [+1.1%] t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22 : pool wallet : 75.09 RVN [+5.7%] ** WINNER ** t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 71.03 RVN
ROUND #3: 1200 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 44.73 RVN z-enemy 1.17 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 49.63 RVN [+11.0%] ** WINNER ** t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22 pool wallet : 45.10 RVN [+0.8%]
ROUND #4: 500 minutes
spmodgit 9 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 26.40 RVN z-enemy 1.17 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 36.86 RVN [+39.6%] ** WINNER ** t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22 pool wallet : 35.45 RVN [+34.3%]
Final Conclusions
1. z-enemy 1.17 is the fastest x16r miner in my tests. While a recent entrant into the x16r mining field, t-rex, was an impressive foe, z-enemy consistently won out. The latest version of z-enemy, 1.17, is faster than the previous version, 1.16, by a small amount. It's worth upgrading if you're running 1.16 or earlier.
2. intensity matter and is unique to each miner. While z-enemy appears to run fastest on the default intensity, 20, t-rex performance improves with raised intensity. In my tests, the optimal intensity for t-rex was ~22.
3. open source x16r miners have a ways to go. Even with the 1% dev fees, both z-enemy and t-rex were signifncantly faster (15%-30% faster) than spmodgit. Apparently spmodgit can improve in performance with increased memory speed, but I didnt get a chance to test performance under those conditions.
Winner: Faster X16R Miner: z-enemy 1.17 ( thread here)
|
|
|
Head to Head test of Z-enemy 1.16 Vs t-rex 0.5.7 (X16R Ravencoin) I've been wanting to compare performance between z-enemy and t-rex on the X16R algorithm for some time. This will be a test done in the vein of JackIt's tests in the past, where I ask which miner puts more coins in my wallet?
Setup: For this first test, I'm using a 4 GPU rig with Zotac 1080 Ti Minis running Windows 10 x64. I started an instance of each miner at the same time (using 2 GPUs each) running on the same pool (Ravenminer) and the same machine. The miners will run for ~12 hours (started around 8AM PST 8/15), I'll stop them simultaneously, and we'll see how many coins are in the 2 wallets. I will likely run this test 2-3 times to ensure that the results are consistent.
Overclock: 100% TDP, +110 core clock, stock memory
Drivers: 398.82
Miners: Z-enemy 1.16 x64, CUDA 9.2, intensity 22 (thread here) vs. T-rex 0.5.7 , CUDA 9.2 , intensity 22 (thread here) . Both miners have a 1% dev fee. Running auto (server set) difficulty on both miners, it appears to stabilize in the 60-75 range. For the first test Z-enemy will use GPU0&1 and t-rex will use GPU2&3. For the second round, I'll switch which GPUs each software uses to control for variations in hardware & PCIe slot.
Results:
ROUND #1: 650 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : 38.63 RVN: pool link t-rex 0.5.7 : 42.50 RVN (+10.0%) : pool link ***** WINNER ******* (GPU2&3)
ROUND #2: 750 minutes
z-enemy 1.16 : 109.63 RVN (+7.3%): pool link ***** WINNER ******* (GPU2&3) t-rex 0.5.7 : 102.16RVN : pool link
Round #3: 250 minutes z-enemy 1.16 : 39.79 RVN (+13.7%) : pool link ***** WINNER ******* (GPU2&3) t-rex 0.5.7 : 35.98 RVN : pool link
TEST FAILED!!! GPU2&3 are winning every test (rig unbalanced). I'm going to redo the test on another rig in hopes of conclusive results.
new test here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4907176
|
|
|
|