Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 02:30:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 »
1461  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 16, 2012, 12:09:02 AM
Okay, I figured out how to do this on Windows. In the .bat file or in cmd.exe or whatever you use, before running DiabloMiner, do SET GPU_DUMP_DEVICE_KERNEL=3. It should cause it to dump the .isa files.
1462  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 16, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Lets say you're getting similar numbers to mine. I get 393 or so on my 5850 at 960/320, 393/960*850 is 348. You have two of those, so 696. Now, your 5870, would be 393/960*950/1440*1600 = 432. You should be getting around 1128.
precisely... and that's about that what I got using SDK 2.5. Now with SDK 2.6 and using -v4 -w64 I get 1060 MH/s, which is a ~10% decrease as expected from the change SDK 2.5->2.6. Using layered vectors gives those ridiculous high number of 1370 MH/s, which just cannot be explained.

So if there is anything I can do/check, tell me... until then I can only ask you to double-check your meter code even if you are sure everything is correct - but something isn't  ;o

But you shouldn't be using -v 4 -w 64. That is not appropriate for the new kernel on vliw5. For me, -v 2 -w 256 is fastest, -v 2,1 -w 256 is slower, -v 2 -w 128 isn't faster (but -w is very sensitive to memory timings, so -w 128 being faster for others does not surprise me).
1463  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 11:28:36 PM
I'm on Windows 7 32-Bit... As you can read in post #1201 I also averaged over 3 hours (2500 shares) and I'm still getting the same results. And beside these "hard numbers"... don't you think it's very strange I can achieve 1370 MH/s with 2x5850@850/1000 + 1x5870@950/1200, SDK 2.6 and your old "SDK 2.1 miner"? It does not make any sense at all.

And again: If I'm not using layered vectors, miner mh/s and pool mh/s are matching very good. Also if I calculate the mh/s by hand using the submitted shares in a specific timeframe (like I did in post #1201), the numbers match. Only when using layered vectors the miner mh/s are WAY higher than everything else suggests (pool mh/s, hand-calculated mh/s, 24h earnings)

Lets say you're getting similar numbers to mine. I get 393 or so on my 5850 at 960/320, 393/960*850 is 348. You have two of those, so 696. Now, your 5870, would be 393/960*950/1440*1600 = 432. You should be getting around 1128.

So yeah, 1370 seems a smidgen high. But I don't believe its a fault of the meter, something else strange is going on.
1464  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 11:04:08 PM
Yes, I know the pool only "guesses" the hashrate, but btc guild is averaging over some time period (something like 10 minutes) and in the past miner mh/s and pool mh/s did not differ by more than 5%. While I was using -v2 the numbers where very close to each other, and now that I'm using -v2,1 (or -v1,2) the numbers differ by a large amount (1260 vs. 920 MH/s). I never saw such a big difference before... that's why I'm asking if you can say for sure (!) that the numbers displayed by your miner are 100% accurate.

I just checked... a 5850 with 850/1000 clocks, SDK 2.6 and the version of your miner linked in op gives 390 MH/s. Is that realistic given the fact you did not update the package in op and as such I'm using a miner not optimizied for SDK 2.6?! Using poclbm and SDK 2.5 I got something around 340 MH/s...

Using -w 256 is a bit slower than -w 128 (1230 vs. 1260 MH/s).

Edit: One more sign that something is wrong with the mh/s display: Let's say I have a nominal rate of 1000 mh/s. The pool sometimes shows less, sometimes more... like 950 mh/s and then 1050 mh/s - I saw that before (the 5% I was talking about). But now, using -v2,1, I *only* see less, but *never* more... And it's not "a bit less" but the pool always shows at least 20% less than the miner.

10 minutes isn't nearly enough to average that out unless you're producing 1000 shares in 10 minutes on average.

-v 2,1 and 1,2 are identical, the miner sorts them for size first. The numbers displayed by my miner are accurate, I just find it strange you're getting more on -v 2,1 and I'm not. Maybe there is a bug, but I'm not triggering it here.

I'm not sure if you said, but are you on Linux? If you do, do export GPU_DUMP_DEVICE_KERNEL=3 and then pastebin the .isa file that gets produced for -v 2, and then do it again for -v 2,1 (it overwrites it, so make sure you run, pastebin, run, and then pastebin). I can tell for sure if the numbers are legitimate from those.
1465  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 03:35:40 PM
So the linked zip-package is still the same? I thought it was updated because you said "you can now upgrade to 2.6"... and that's what I did Wink

But maybe there is no 16% increase at all - are you sure the MH/s display in your miner is always correct? Taking the numbers from the console I should be around 2,6 GH/s - but BTC Guild  says I just have about 2 GH/s.

In one PC I now have 2x5850 (@850/1000) and 1x5870 (@950/1200). The console says 1260 MH/s, BTC Guild says 920 MH/s... I have to say that 1260 GH/s is also somewhat unrealistic because that would be 420 MH/s per card... which looks ok for the 5870 but is too much for the 5850, isn't it?!

My commandline:
start "DiabloMiner" DiabloMiner-Windows.exe -u xxx -p bitcoin -o btcguild.com -r 8332 -f 2 -v 2,1 -w 128

Windows 7 32-bit, AMD driver 12.1

(when using -v2 the console says ~1000 MH/s and BTC Guild says ~950-1000 MH/s... so both numbers are almost matching)

Oh, and the SDK version is not displayed when starting your miner. Is this normal when 2.6 is installed? Before it showed "...using SDK 2.5", when 11.8 was installed.

Don't use pool hash meters, they're useless. They try to guess your hashrate by counting the number of shares you submit (which is a 100% random process) and multiplying by the average hashes it takes to make a share (2^32, or over 4 billion). I've had pools read as low as 200 some and as high as over 500, and I mine at what is now 393 mhash on my 5850.

It does still display SDK version, but 2.6 has a different version than the rest, it says 851.4 instead.

Also, try -w 256 instead. Its probably faster.
1466  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
Update: Committed the new kernel.

-v 1: 803/2.1 and 883/2.6 -> 738/2.6
-v 2: 1362/2.1 and 1503/2.6 -> 1380/2.6

398 peak hashrate on my 5850 drops to only 394, or 1%. I think I've won. BTW, 2.1 performance is now dead. Everyone, you can now upgrade to 2.6.

Using -v1,2 I get a 16% boost compared to -v2. -v3 and -v4 are even slower than -v2. (Driver 12.1, 5850/5870.)
Is this expected behaviour? In the first post you recommend -v4 and say "Layered vectors, probably not faster"... but my findings are just the opposite.

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding: I haven't updated the op for the new kernel. Also, no where in op do I recommend -v 4, I say "try the above and then try -v 4 -w 64", where the implication the above (-v 2 and -w 128 or 256) is still going to win.

-v 2,1 isn't unexpected. While developing the new kernel -v 2,1 was actually winning for awhile, and now its not for me. The interesting thing is -v 2,1 actually fits in all the registers now, something that has never been done before. So, on your cards, what clock rate are they at now and what mhash are you getting?
1467  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 08:19:04 AM
It seems the drivers currently have a nice wonderful bug. GCN results in about 30 mhash.

Thanks AMD.
1468  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 15, 2012, 04:53:03 AM
Update: Committed the new kernel.

-v 1: 803/2.1 and 883/2.6 -> 738/2.6
-v 2: 1362/2.1 and 1503/2.6 -> 1380/2.6

398 peak hashrate on my 5850 drops to only 394, or 1%. I think I've won. BTW, 2.1 performance is now dead. Everyone, you can now upgrade to 2.6.
1469  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 14, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
I like the fact that 2.6 is Diablo's bitch!  Grin Once I get to the computer with my wallet I am gonna throw you some BTC also. Least I can do. Also back when you were having exchanges with the GPUmax guy you said you found a bug in DM but I never saw an update?? Just wondering. Thanks for all you hard work.

The bug only effects multipool users. If you're only connected to one, it doesn't effect you, and its largely cosmetic anyhow. The entire write up is in the single open ticket at github. I'll fix the bug after I finally commit this new work.

Sent to 1DbeWKCxnVCt3sRaSAmZLoboqr8pVyFzP1

Thx
1470  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 13, 2012, 03:46:56 PM
Release it and I will start using -b... (just some motivation for you :p)

I think I'm actually going to take -b out. -b points at eligius, and eligius has been doing the up/down dance for awhile. I was going to switch it to ozcoin, and then then got their wallet stolen. I'm personally doing p2pool now, but that doesn't seem like a solution for -b.
1471  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: February 13, 2012, 03:26:43 PM
So, phase 2 is almost done.

The best I can get out of my new kernel on 2.6 is 392 mhash, the best I got out of the old kernel on 2.1 is 398. 6 mhash to go.

Now, you can ask, "But Diablo, thats 6 mhash slower!" Notice where I said 2.6 and 2.1? I was getting 360 or so on 2.6 on the old kernel. I have made 2.6 my bitch.
1472  Economy / Services / Re: GPUMAX | The Bitcoin Mining Marketplace on: February 12, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
I tried creating the pool for http://eclipsemc.com and it says error 302 : found.
I also use my current credentials for loggin into EMC in password and username...but it just doesnt work. I dont get it lol
You need to specify the port I think(anyone?). My URL is typed in like so "http://pool.abcpool.co:8332". You should use your miner credentials for EMC, not your account login info.

This +1 look very carefully at the example URL above.  If you have been mining then you should have something simliar to this in your miner setup.  When I first tried to use GPUMAX it did not make sense until I realized I could just copy/past the URLs I used in my miner setups, take out the username and password portions and that is the URL that GPUMAX is looking for, then take the username and passwords you have cut out of the miner setup URL and paste them into the username and password fields in the GPUMAX setup.

Basically the three fields in GPUMAX setup go back together to form the entire URL I had in my miner setup.

If you have never mined before this will not make any sense.

Or used the Internet, really.
1473  Economy / Services / Re: GPUMAX | The Bitcoin Mining Marketplace on: February 11, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
If you want to check a site for the correct A record for GPUMAX.com be my guest. We've not had that IP address for at least 4 days now.  Like I said, blame your ISP or router for stale DNS records.

Our correct IP address is 184.173.241.234

Or you for having not bothered to give out the correct IP to this point... For all the good it does miners still cannot connect with the IP, a web browser will showing no workers to connect to in the account.

I'm not here to train you on how to fix your networking issues.  Our system is load balanced and based on the hostname. So if you don't know how to find the correct IP after a ISP change (which we told everyone about and mentioned it's a stale DNS issue) and setup your hosts file to direct gpumax.com to the correct IP address you probably shouldn't be using our service.

We have a ton of people using the system perfectly fine from all over the world right now.  If it was a big issue with more that .5% of our users... sure i would spend a little more time trying to figure it out, but its not.  

It takes a lot to get on my nerves but you've seemed to find a way to do it.

Good enough stick it up your ass with your amateur hour pool..

Angry bastard neighborhood mod here, cut that out.
1474  Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) on: February 11, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
(with more side holes)
(yes that's a question Tongue)

Many years ago I designed a 1U rack-mount enclosure for six miniITX motherboards.
One of my business ideas that didn't pan out, but that's a different story.

The enclosures had vent holes in the front bezel and rear bezel, and, for good measure, lots of vent holes in the side panels also.

Guess what?

The holes in the side panels created an easier path for the air, so the cool air did not go all the way from the front to the rear (in a data center, the aisle where all the front panels are is the "cool aisle" and the aisle where all the rear panels are is the "hot aisle"), but instead the air took a shortcut. The motherboards got really hot. Not good.

So, I duct-taped the holes in the side panels shut.

Result: Much better cooling performance, as the air was now forced to go from the front to the very rear.

In a nutshell: More air holes do not necessarily translate to better cooling performance - sometimes the opposite is true.

WTF, why the hell would ANYONE put side holes on a rackmount box? Thats insane. Totally screws up DC airflow.
1475  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: AMD Stream SDK 2.6 (Catalyst 11.12/12.1) - Get your performance back! (Phoenix) on: February 10, 2012, 11:11:33 PM
Is there a good app that let's me see the SDK version installed? I installed 11.12 drivers on a new build (using hardware that I know hashes higher - ie my 6870s are only getting 270MH even with DiabloMiner) and then uninstalled everything and reinstalled 11.7 drivers but I don't think it cleaned out the 2.6 SDK properly.

DM says what your SDK is on startup. If it says AMD-APP (851.4), you're on SDK 2.6.
1476  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: 3x7970 Mining Results. on: February 10, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
Water Cooling:
Mining: 1200/150mhz,   1.17v, 251W - 700mh/s
Mining: 925/1375mhz,   1.17v, 190W - 550mh/s
Mining: 925/340mhz,    1.17v, 171W - 550mh/s
Mining: 925/340mhz,    880mv, 115W - 550mh/s
Mining: 925/340mhz,    865mv, 112W - 550mh/s
Mining: 925/150mhz,    865mv, 109W - 550mh/s

How did you manage to downclock your memory to 150MHz?

With Sapphire TriXX or MSI Afterburner I can only go down to as low as 685MHz.

The real question is how did he do it and not crash the card.
1477  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: AMD Stream SDK 2.6 (Catalyst 11.12/12.1) - Get your performance back! (Phoenix) on: February 10, 2012, 10:31:33 PM
I finally got a 5870 to mess around with, and, yeah, the "best" memory setting on that is diff than the 5830.  

At 1000/395, it gets 440mhash, at 1000/310, 448mhash, etc.

1/3rd core speed is considered the rule. So, in your case, 1000/333.

Not a good rule. I did a SI shit ton of benchmarking every 10MHz (and 5MHz around the peak) on SDK 2.5 (worksize 256). On a 5770 at 950MHz, the performance peak was at 295MHz RAM; at 800MHz it was around 260MHz. On a 5830 at 1050MHz peak performance was obtained at 375MHz-390MHz RAM; at 800MHz, it was still around 360MHz. There is probably a better formula that involves number of stream processors and memory bus width vs worksize and vector size, but benchmarking your particular configuration is ideal.

Of course this topic is about SDK 2.6, where any memory clock other than ~1000Mhz will hurt your hashrate.

Memory speed is largely voodoo magic. Every "best" speed I've seen that doesn't fit the 1/3rd rule (such as on 1200mhz mem) 57xx/58xx) seems to still be between 1/3rd /1200*1000 (1000mhz core == 278mhz) and 1/3rd /1000*1200 (== 400 mhz), your lower and higher settings seem to be within that margin.
1478  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: New Open CL 1.2 on: February 10, 2012, 10:23:40 PM
No, OpenCL is a specification from the Khronos Group, ...

Yes. But the IMPLEMENTATION itself is vendor specific. Unfortunately. Because it gives AMD the opportunity to f**k things up (hint: the 100% CPU load bug epic drama).


However, you said OpenCL 1.2 would cause this, not a future version of AMD APP. Also, the SDK does not currently have any CPU use bugs, it is inside the driver itself and it effects a minority of users.
1479  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: AMD Stream SDK 2.6 (Catalyst 11.12/12.1) - Get your performance back! (Phoenix) on: February 10, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
Will the CPU bug be gone with reversing to 2.1? How do I do that when I'm on 2.6 already? Heard all over the board going back isn't easy AT ALL.

Thx!

Actually Quite easy.. Let me know if you want help with it.

Except his problem isn't the SDK. There are two known CPU bugs, the first is SDK side and exists in 2.2 and 2.3 only. 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 do not exhibit it, and 2.2 and 2.3 exhibit it on any driver version; the other bug is in driver and exists in 11.7 through 11.11* and exhibit it with any SDK including both 2.1 and 2.6.

* Depends on the user, some had it fixed in 11.9 and 11.10. There are no known instances of this bug in 12.1 and up.
1480  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: New Open CL 1.2 on: February 10, 2012, 02:11:17 PM
I am by no means a programmer so I ask this what does the new openCL 1.2 mean for mining? Are we going to notice improvements?

It's from AMD after all. So most probably 100% CPU load and 10% less mining performance  Wink

No, OpenCL is a specification from the Khronos Group, a non-profit industry consortium whos members include Apple, AMD, Nvidia, SGI, Oracle, id Software, Google, Intel, Mozilla, ARM, a couple major ARM fabs, and a few other companies. Khronos grew out of the old OpenGL working group when it became clear OpenGL was the first of a family of API specifications.

OpenCL was first submitted to Khronos by Apple, with help from AMD, IBM, Intel, and Nvidia. 1.2 contains new features based on work by both AMD and Nvidia. Major 1.2 features include partitioning devices into sub-devices (on applicable hardware), D3D11 state support (to complement the existing GL and D3D9 state bridges), and built-in kernel support to allow calling fixed function hardware from existing kernels and to call specialized hardware optimized kernels provided by the driver.
Pages: « 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!