1482
|
Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: AMD Stream SDK 2.6 (Catalyst 11.12/12.1) - Get your performance back! (Phoenix)
|
on: February 10, 2012, 01:29:54 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.
|
|
|
1483
|
Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [200GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
|
on: February 10, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
|
If you come from a pool (I'm mining since may last year), you're used to a pool page where you find mined blocks, your payout and so on. Here you need to grep logs and I was grepping them when I found that old blocks get re-logged as new, and as such my payouts were "wrong". This has been fixed yesterday. I'm not stating that p2pool is not correct, but that it is just "difficult" to prove it is And I'm here because I like p2pool and I've never mined on deepbit. spiccioli. Troll less kthx.
|
|
|
1484
|
Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [BITLC] Change of payment scheme for Bitlc.net (Previously bitcoins.lc)
|
on: February 10, 2012, 12:01:44 AM
|
Well since you find it appropriate to slander me with heresay, I will do the same. P4man is actively persuing underage boys in Pattaya, I found it on google. It must be true because I think it is. Get of your high horse, your fat ass is hurting its back. Angry neighborhood bastard mod here. Cut that out.
|
|
|
1486
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)
|
on: February 09, 2012, 02:50:59 AM
|
running in a freezer.
1 BTC to the first person to produce a FPGA farm running in a freezer. 1 BTC to the first person to produce pictures of their BFL Single with screenshots of it running. 1BTC to the mod that moved this thread to off-topic. Wait, thats me! Everyone give me 1BTC! If I recall correctly, you were going to ban me for 'trolling' a hundred and thirty pages into this thread. No dice. Diablo had to move this to off topic because he was going to get banned for trolling/being off topic. Many of his posts got deleted. :/ However since its a speculation thread being in off-topic is fine with me. Kept the BFL support trolls from bitching. Nope, I didn't post in this thread at all. I really don't give a damn about BFL either way. You must have some memory problems. You really don't recall threatening to ban me and goat telling you to suck his big black cock? No, I remember recommending goat for a ban, you, not so much.
|
|
|
1487
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)
|
on: February 09, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
|
running in a freezer.
1 BTC to the first person to produce a FPGA farm running in a freezer. 1 BTC to the first person to produce pictures of their BFL Single with screenshots of it running. 1BTC to the mod that moved this thread to off-topic. Wait, thats me! Everyone give me 1BTC! If I recall correctly, you were going to ban me for 'trolling' a hundred and thirty pages into this thread. No dice. Diablo had to move this to off topic because he was going to get banned for trolling/being off topic. Many of his posts got deleted. :/ However since its a speculation thread being in off-topic is fine with me. Kept the BFL support trolls from bitching. Nope, I didn't post in this thread at all. I really don't give a damn about BFL either way.
|
|
|
1491
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 08:45:50 PM
|
anyone having problems using diablo with gpumax.com ?
syptoms: start. works OK. hashrate good. during: start to get connection issues reported by diablo, but it reconnects and works. after a while: the connection issues increase to the point that no shares are accepted. but it reports a full hashrate.
fix: stop and start diablo
I thought gpumax was a scam? apparently it is the Long Polling that is causing it with gpumax.. can I turn off LP with diablo? No. Tell gpumax to fix their software, no other pool is having this issue. LOL, fix our software. hehehehe cause all the other mining clients have issues right? So other clients are having problems too? Nope, just your miner. In this case, I think you mean "Nope, just Java." I really doubt Java has a bug in it's http client implementation, but you're welcome to track it down.
|
|
|
1492
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 08:43:37 PM
|
anyone having problems using diablo with gpumax.com ?
syptoms: start. works OK. hashrate good. during: start to get connection issues reported by diablo, but it reconnects and works. after a while: the connection issues increase to the point that no shares are accepted. but it reports a full hashrate.
fix: stop and start diablo
I thought gpumax was a scam? apparently it is the Long Polling that is causing it with gpumax.. can I turn off LP with diablo? No. Tell gpumax to fix their software, no other pool is having this issue. LOL, fix our software. hehehehe cause all the other mining clients have issues right? So other clients are having problems too?
|
|
|
1493
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 08:42:46 PM
|
"-v 2 -w 128" results in the best performance, but also about 15% hw errors on my 6970.
Current snapshot: accept: 79 | reject: 2 | hw error: 11
Question: What exactly does this hw error mean?
It means your hardware or drivers may not be functioning correctly. Are you overclocking? Yes. Slightly. Strange ... I don't get this hw errors with cgminer (for the exact same Mh/s). Ive never verified if cgminer's hw error detection works.
|
|
|
1495
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 07:48:15 PM
|
anyone having problems using diablo with gpumax.com ?
syptoms: start. works OK. hashrate good. during: start to get connection issues reported by diablo, but it reconnects and works. after a while: the connection issues increase to the point that no shares are accepted. but it reports a full hashrate.
fix: stop and start diablo
I thought gpumax was a scam? apparently it is the Long Polling that is causing it with gpumax.. can I turn off LP with diablo? No. Tell gpumax to fix their software, no other pool is having this issue.
|
|
|
1496
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 03:33:00 PM
|
Looks like a new heatsink. If they have any sense, the board is now mounted sideways, with the top and bottom fan working to together to blow air over the heatsink in the direction of the grooves. If the bottom fan is mounted to blow against the underside of the PCB, then, well, I cant imagine anyone being that stupid.
|
|
|
1498
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 03:22:25 PM
|
anyone having problems using diablo with gpumax.com ?
syptoms: start. works OK. hashrate good. during: start to get connection issues reported by diablo, but it reconnects and works. after a while: the connection issues increase to the point that no shares are accepted. but it reports a full hashrate.
fix: stop and start diablo
I thought gpumax was a scam? Edit: Apparently its not, others on the forum are just morons
|
|
|
1499
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
|
Done stage 1:
Old kernel: -v 1 sdk 2.6 = 883 ops 13 registers, 2.1 = 803 ops 17 registers -v 2 sdk 2.6 = 1503 ops 21 registers, 2.1 = 1362 ops 21 registers
2.6 is 10% slower than 2.1.
New kernel: -v 1 sdk 2.6 = 886 ops 23 registers, 887 ops 21 registers -v 2 sdk 2.6 = 1395 39 registers, 2.1 = 1396 ops 36 registers
2.6 is tied with 2.1.
New vs old: -v 1 =~ 0% faster 2.6, 10% slower 2.1, 2.6 is 30% away from minimum target of 681 ops -v 2 =~ 8% faster 2.6, 2% slower 2.1, 2.6 is 2% away from minimum target of 1362 ops
If I committed this right now, 2.1 users could switch to 2.6 and not see a real difference in speed.
Now I begin stage 2: optimum ALU clause packing and register use reduction.
Edit: Somehow I got the new numbers wrong, lets try that again.
|
|
|
1500
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: February 08, 2012, 04:56:41 AM
|
After looking at the ops generated in the .isa output, I'm clearly starting to force 2.6 to act more like the 2.1 results, so I seem to be getting somewhere. The hard part is going to be ordering instructions to properly saturate ALU clauses on vliw5 and GCN both.
Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient just to have a separate kernel for GCN? It's a totally different architecture so it would make sense to, right? Nope, that makes no sense. Its still the same compiler, and OpenCL is a generic language meant for wildly different hardware. This kernel runs on everything from x86 to ARM to Sparc to POWER and PPC to Cell SPUs to Intel GPUs (if/when Intel actually fixes their drivers) to Nvidia to even certain DSPs. A compiler is free to completely ignore the specific ordering of instructions I am using in the kernel and optimize it correctly for it's target hardware. AMD's doesn't, and takes significant hinting from the code to allow developers to influence the output. This is arguably both right and wrong, given how much code effects/is effected by bandwidth usage and latency and other things. The difference between 2.6 and 2.1 is that 2.6 is tuned differently, and 2.6 allows much more hinting from the kernel layout. The compiler could freely reorder everything safely to give full performance, its just difficult on complex hardware like this; 2.1 went farther into this than 2.6 does. I'm slightly surprised I actually need to do this, however, because AMD uses LLVM in their compiler, which is very good at SSA tree optimizations. Arguably, its rather good at what I'm doing by hand.
|
|
|
|