Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2018, 08:56:15 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: [JCE] Ultrafast CN-Heavy/Tube/HVX miner, low power, Vega56 1750+h/s  (Read 44768 times)
pbfarmer
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 66
Merit: 2


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 12:27:50 AM
 #1821

Ok guys i have a solution to make it clear, let's talk about hashrates and power consumption.

My testing Rigs (2 rigs with exactly same config) :
  • 6*Rx580 Msi Armor 8Gb (Samsung memory) with celeron and other low pow shits.
With 33b2 here are my rates on heavy algos :
  • 6960 Kh/s for 750W at wall
Very stable, it can run days without crash or fluctuating hashrate. On pool side

What about you ?

I tried again and again with b5 and b6. Never got same exact hashrate for hours and thebest i obtained was 7200hs, so with the higher fee it is better to get the stable 6960hs. I hate those versions (too long time testing for nothing Smiley )

This is an 8x nitro 580 8gb rig - different mem mfgs - on 32q mining saber (TUBE). ~785W (98W/GPU):  

EDIT: power above is ex-idle.  Including idle, would be ~905W total, 113W/GPU

Code:
"hashrate":
  {
    "thread_0": 597.24,
    "thread_1": 594.45,
    "thread_2": 580.14,
    "thread_3": 580.14,
    "thread_4": 559.02,
    "thread_5": 553.82,
    "thread_6": 564.32,
    "thread_7": 564.32,
    "thread_8": 559.02,
    "thread_9": 564.32,
    "thread_10": 564.32,
    "thread_11": 563.99,
    "thread_12": 597.24,
    "thread_13": 597.24,
    "thread_14": 569.38,
    "thread_15": 554.14,
    "thread_all": [597.24, 594.45, 580.14, 580.14, 559.02, 553.82, 564.32, 564.32, 559.02, 564.32, 564.32, 563.99, 597.24, 597.24, 569.38, 554.14],
    "thread_gpu": [1191.69, 1160.27, 1112.83, 1128.64, 1123.33, 1128.30, 1194.48, 1123.52],
    "total": 9163.03,
    "max": 9403.14
  },

uptime 10 days currently - doesn't really ever go down except for power outages, updates, or major network issues.  heavy/haven do better on same settings, for the most part.

haven't tried 33b[anything] yet
1542358575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542358575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542358575
Reply with quote  #2

1542358575
Report to moderator
1542358575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542358575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542358575
Reply with quote  #2

1542358575
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542358575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542358575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542358575
Reply with quote  #2

1542358575
Report to moderator
1542358575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542358575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542358575
Reply with quote  #2

1542358575
Report to moderator
1542358575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542358575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542358575
Reply with quote  #2

1542358575
Report to moderator
Mashy81
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 122
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 01:27:34 AM
 #1822

4x rx570 4g  3400hs at 440w at the wall mining Tube
Stable as for a few days now on b5 version.
Took a bit of fiddling to get it stable but were else can you get 850-900hs on heavy with a 4g card
B5 version is great. Thanks
Also works great with my vegas hashing at 1800-1950hs on heavy.
Verified the same on the pool side too.
UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 04:28:48 PM
 #1823

Tested TeamRed cn8 miner... Speed is almost the same as JCE, only one GPU a bit faster... But his miner uses real lower power on cn8 than JCE... Interesting, how they can do that?
NecronomicoN
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 05:38:25 PM
 #1824

This is an 8x nitro 580 8gb rig - different mem mfgs - on 32q mining saber (TUBE). ~785W (98W/GPU):  

Hello, tell me where you can find the version 32q?
JCE-Miner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 21


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
 #1825

i'll put back the q version online, otherwise use a git client on github to get all historical versions.
version b-x to be released soon. it hashes solid on my RX, but i already said such for the b5...

i still use most of my dev time for the cpu version.
TeamRed are great, i think i know how i can achieve low power, but i need time to test. at least i somehow reached equivalent speed, and i've less fees on v8 (0.9 vs 2.5)
but counting the power saving, they're the best.
UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 07:25:46 PM
 #1826

i'll put back the q version online, otherwise use a git client on github to get all historical versions.
version b-x to be released soon. it hashes solid on my RX, but i already said such for the b5...

i still use most of my dev time for the cpu version.
TeamRed are great, i think i know how i can achieve low power, but i need time to test. at least i somehow reached equivalent speed, and i've less fees on v8 (0.9 vs 2.5)
but counting the power saving, they're the best.
It's great news! I'm waiting b-x version to test. And it's great that you have thoughts how to decrease power consumption on v8. I believe in you! I like your miner and use it.
BS0D
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 07:46:19 PM
 #1827

Had the stable heavy 1920h/s on V64 with the latest Vega driver. What is interesting that stable 1920 hashrate I could catch with several miner restarts when some first starts were unstable and lower. But when caught it was working stable till I manually stop it. 12H nonstop tested with 2 last gpu releases. But then I decided to test different drivers and now I cannot reproduce previous 1920. Only 1820 available. Could miner reserve some extra memory? Or maybe there's a way to forbid win10 using video memory for its needs.
I've noticed that teamred uses less mem with higher V8 hashes than SRB and JCE. Thats strange imo.
coke15
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 174
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 15, 2018, 09:22:45 PM
 #1828


TeamRed are great, i think i know how i can achieve low power, but i need time to test. at least i somehow reached equivalent speed, and i've less fees on v8 (0.9 vs 2.5)
but counting the power saving, they're the best.

competition is good Wink
heavyarms1912
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 106



View Profile
November 15, 2018, 11:45:33 PM
 #1829

Tested TeamRed cn8 miner... Speed is almost the same as JCE, only one GPU a bit faster... But his miner uses real lower power on cn8 than JCE... Interesting, how they can do that?

One theory is higher worksize.  Perform compute operations on a larger set of data.
You can achieve lower power consumption on xmr-stak or jce/srb too with higher worksize but your hashrate gets affected.  Possibly, it's combination of GCN assembly optimizations + larger worksize.
io8621
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 132
Merit: 10


View Profile
Today at 07:00:24 AM
 #1830

After other some days of test for me JCE is faster than any other miner on old cards like 370 with 2 gb.
Can get stable on v8 515 hs at 1150 gpu 1500 core. Also on lite, fast, v7 algo is ok.

But surprising for me is on my rx 470 gpu, first step sapphire reference can get with 0.35b stable 840 hs on heavy with 1250 gpu / 1950 mem.
Some time is stable at more than 900 hs but after drop at ~840.

If jce solved the problem with hashrate stability was great.

470 RIG



370 RIG

Pages: « 1 ... 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]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!