Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2022, 11:11:51 PM *
News: Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts
 
   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] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 ... 1136 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX]  (Read 3426333 times)
Valnurat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 158
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:13:41 PM
 #1821

How do you use cudaminer through a proxy?

http://www.lpshowboat0099.com/Blog/how-to-mining-ltc-with-cudaminer-on-a-stratum-server/


this should help ya out


but with newest releases of cudaminer , you do not need a proxy to run.

Yes, I have tried that but it will not Work.



Anyone have an idea why it will not Work?
'

probably because the TCP server address is wrong or the server is down. Try connecting to another server or checking your syntax

I found out that port# was wrong, but it do not change that I still can not connect as you can see here:



I tried to use my home laptop with a bad nvidia videocard, but that is working as you can see here:



So I guess my syntax is ok.
1670541111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670541111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670541111
Reply with quote  #2

1670541111
Report to moderator
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1670541111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670541111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670541111
Reply with quote  #2

1670541111
Report to moderator
1670541111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670541111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670541111
Reply with quote  #2

1670541111
Report to moderator
1670541111
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670541111

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670541111
Reply with quote  #2

1670541111
Report to moderator
cbuchner1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Last edit: December 28, 2013, 09:34:07 PM by cbuchner1
 #1822

GTX 760 with some tweaks

Your card has a TDP of 170 Watts.

Can you crank up your TDP target some more? to say 115%? Does it further increase hash rates?

My (somewhat overclocked) 660Ti has a TDP of 150 Watts and is currently churning out 292 kHash/s (latest version from github, using a now working -C 1 switch and -l K7x32).

Mine has 7 SMX units, yours has 6 - that might explain my slight performance edge. But it doesn't explain why my card has less TDP... Lower default clock and voltage maybe?
Your card also has a 256 bit memory bus, mine only has 192 bit. Assuming that for mining these extra memory bus bits don't make a difference, they will surely draw some more power.

Kepler cards can reach about 2 kHash / Watt. Not bad. The 660Ti seem to offer the best value for scrypt mining from the nVidia lineup. Nearly 300 kHash/s and costing around 200 Euros, with a power consumption of 150 Watts. If were to build another CUDA based miner, I'd probably use four 660Ti cards on one mainboard. That's a 1.2 MHash/s system costing ~1000 Euros then.

Christian
_Wolverine_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:25:47 PM
 #1823

btw can you upload it to github (for example), every time I download I have to dos2unix all files Tongue

do a search for cudaminer on github and grab it from there. It even has a few (so far unreleased) improvements in it.

Maybe the source tarball in the 2013-12-18 version doesn't yet have the necessary compilation fixes for Linux,
so that's why your cuda compiler still crashes on the spinlock kernel.


Compiling from github worked!

Got almost 20% increase Grin thanks!
CaptainBeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:28:52 PM
 #1824

GTX 760 with some tweaks

Your card has a TDP of 170 Watts.

My (somewhat overclocked) 660Ti has a TDP of 150 Watts and is currently churning out 292 kHash/s (latest version from github, using a now working -C 1 switch and -l K7x32).

Mine has 7 SMX units, yours has 6 - that might explain my slight performance edge. But it doesn't explain why my card has less TDP... Lower default clock and voltage maybe?
Your card also has a 256 bit memory bus, mine only has 192 bit. Assuming that for mining these extra memory bus bits don't make a difference, they will surely draw some more power.

Kepler cards can reach about 2 kHash / Watt. Not bad.

Can you crank up your TDP target some more? to say 115%? Does it further increase hash rates?

Christian



Whats the complete config for your 660 TI??
I'm getting about 240kh from the new cudaminer.
cbuchner1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:31:51 PM
 #1825

Whats the complete config for your 660 TI??
I'm getting about 240kh from the new cudaminer.

-l K7x32 -C 1 -i 0 -m 0 -H 2 -o stratum+tcp://coinotron.com:3334 -O cbuchner1.2:y

I overclock to 115% TDP and +125 MHz core clock offset. Can't go much higher with the core clock or I get bluescreens and spontaneous reboots.

The -C 1 switch only works with the version on github. I got 283 kHash/s before, and 292 kHash after adding back the texture cache feature.
The github version also has a more efficient -H 2 (SHA256 hashing on the GPU) feature. That may also make a small difference.

I might release another cudaminer version early next year.

Christian
CaptainBeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:40:09 PM
 #1826

Whats the complete config for your 660 TI??
I'm getting about 240kh from the new cudaminer.

-l K7x32 -C 1 -i 0 -m 0 -H 2 -o stratum+tcp://coinotron.com:3334 -O cbuchner1.2:y

I overclock to 115% TDP and +125 MHz core clock offset. Can't go much higher with the core clock or I get bluescreens and spontaneous reboots.

The -C 1 switch only works with the version on github. I got 283 kHash/s before, and 292 kHash after adding back the texture cache feature.
The github version also has a more efficient -H 2 (SHA256 hashing on the GPU) feature. That may also make a small difference.

I might release another cudaminer version early next year.

Christian


Thanks, just with the config changes i;ve got it to around 280kh without the overclock.... I'm running the Asus GPU tweak, so i'll trying seeing what the offset will let me run on the GPU boost clock settings and memory clock. Currently they are running at 1096 gpu and 6008 memory clock
CaptainBeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
 #1827

Whats the complete config for your 660 TI??
I'm getting about 240kh from the new cudaminer.

-l K7x32 -C 1 -i 0 -m 0 -H 2 -o stratum+tcp://coinotron.com:3334 -O cbuchner1.2:y

I overclock to 115% TDP and +125 MHz core clock offset. Can't go much higher with the core clock or I get bluescreens and spontaneous reboots.

The -C 1 switch only works with the version on github. I got 283 kHash/s before, and 292 kHash after adding back the texture cache feature.
The github version also has a more efficient -H 2 (SHA256 hashing on the GPU) feature. That may also make a small difference.

I might release another cudaminer version early next year.

Christian


Thanks, just with the config changes i;ve got it to around 280kh without the overclock.... I'm running the Asus GPU tweak, so i'll trying seeing what the offset will let me run on the GPU boost clock settings and memory clock. Currently they are running at 1096 gpu and 6008 memory clock

Whats the GPU clock in MHz and Mem Clock in MHz are you running??
At 1126MHZ for GPU and 6038MHZ for the memory i get 288kh on average. And with Auto temp on i get around 72c stable.
cbuchner1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:08:27 PM
 #1828

Whats the GPU clock in MHz and Mem Clock in MHz are you running??
At 1126MHZ for GPU and 6038MHZ for the memory i get 288kh on average. And with Auto temp on i get around 72c stable.

My 660Ti has a default clock of 876 MHz and max. boost clock of 928 MHz.
Memory clock in GPU-Z says 1750 MHz.  Not sure what the multiplicator is for GDDR5. There is no point overclocking GDDR5
memory for cudaminer.

With overclocking it's running quite hot (around 92 deg C) and it's actually hitting a core clock of 1071 MHz mostly. 115 % TDP.
GPU-Z says "GPU Clock 1042 MHz, Memory 1750 MHz, Boost 1094 MHz"

I just allowed it 122% TDP and now it's hitting 1123 MHz sometimes, mostly hovering around 1097. Temps rising to 95 deg C.
I will revert to 115% TDP....

Christian
CaptainBeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:15:05 PM
 #1829

Whats the GPU clock in MHz and Mem Clock in MHz are you running??
At 1126MHZ for GPU and 6038MHZ for the memory i get 288kh on average. And with Auto temp on i get around 72c stable.

My 660Ti has a default clock of 980 MHz and boost clock of 1105 MHz.

While it's mining it's running quite hot (around 92 deg C) and it's actually hitting a core clock of 1071 MHz mostly. 115 % TDP.

I just allowed it 122% TDP and now itÄs hitting 1123 MHz sometimes, mostly hovering around 1097. Temps rising to 95 deg C.

Christian


95 deg c seems abit hot to me, is that an ok temp??

My fan is around 47% speed(auto setting) and around 72c.

Its in a case, with only normal case fans running on there.
cbuchner1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:16:10 PM
 #1830

95 deg c seems abit hot to me, is that an ok temp??

it is sandwiched inbetween a GTX 780Ti (also mining) and a GTX 560Ti 448 core edition (not currently mining). Airflow isn't the best.
_Wolverine_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:23:33 PM
 #1831

Can you give an example of how to use -c option?

Code:
  -c, --config=FILE     load a JSON-format configuration file
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:23:49 PM
 #1832

If I close Google Chrome my hashrate drops 50khash/s, why is that?
Also getting 295khash/s on my gpu, ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II... compared to your card the results seem low.
Launch config: -H 1 -l K7x32 -C 1 -m 1

BTC donations: 18fw6ZjYkN7xNxfVWbsRmBvD6jBAChRQVn (thanks!)
cbuchner1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
 #1833

Can you give an example of how to use -c option?

Code:
  -c, --config=FILE     load a JSON-format configuration file

refer to pooler's cpuminer documentation. However I am not sure if this will work with all the extra configuration features that were added for cudaminer because I haven't touched the JSON stuff ever...

blackraven1425
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:29:13 PM
 #1834

If I close Google Chrome my hashrate drops 50khash/s, why is that?
Also getting 295khash/s on my gpu, ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II... compared to your card the results seem low.
Launch config: -H 1 -l K7x32 -C 1 -m 1

I'm at ~235 stable on my GTX670 with stock clocks. I still don't understand why people think 290+ is low.

The Chrome issue was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't know if there was a solution, but have a search.
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 10:55:32 PM
 #1835

If I close Google Chrome my hashrate drops 50khash/s, why is that?
Also getting 295khash/s on my gpu, ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II... compared to your card the results seem low.
Launch config: -H 1 -l K7x32 -C 1 -m 1

I'm at ~235 stable on my GTX670 with stock clocks. I still don't understand why people think 290+ is low.

The Chrome issue was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't know if there was a solution, but have a search.

I found it and the fix is to disable interactive mode, I like interactive mode alot though...
Getting 300khash/s without interactive mode which is good to know in case I go afk for a while.
This pc is not just for mining, so I like interactive mode from time to time.
Weird that Chrome still boosts gpu usage by 25% in interactive mode though.

BTC donations: 18fw6ZjYkN7xNxfVWbsRmBvD6jBAChRQVn (thanks!)
blackraven1425
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 11:09:44 PM
 #1836

I found it and the fix is to disable interactive mode, I like interactive mode alot though...
Getting 300khash/s without interactive mode which is good to know in case I go afk for a while.
This pc is not just for mining, so I like interactive mode from time to time.
Weird that Chrome still boosts gpu usage by 25% in interactive mode though.

Disabling interactive mode gives me around 3 khash. Not worth it IMO since I work on this computer.

If your card isn't OC'd, I don't know how a <15% clock increase (that's if you have a TOP card) got you >20% khash over my card.
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 11:32:39 PM
 #1837

I found it and the fix is to disable interactive mode, I like interactive mode alot though...
Getting 300khash/s without interactive mode which is good to know in case I go afk for a while.
This pc is not just for mining, so I like interactive mode from time to time.
Weird that Chrome still boosts gpu usage by 25% in interactive mode though.

Disabling interactive mode gives me around 3 khash. Not worth it IMO since I work on this computer.

If your card isn't OC'd, I don't know how a <15% clock increase (that's if you have a TOP card) got you >20% khash over my card.
ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II is stock overclocked, I also use multithreaded CPU hashing.

BTC donations: 18fw6ZjYkN7xNxfVWbsRmBvD6jBAChRQVn (thanks!)
blackraven1425
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 11:45:37 PM
 #1838

ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II is stock overclocked, I also use multithreaded CPU hashing.

They sell 6 different parts called "ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II", and half of them aren't overclocked, including mine (the actual part number for my card, which is a better way to talk about graphics cards than the name they give it because of situations like the one happening here, is GTX670-DC2-4GD5). I'm running with -d 0 -l K7x32 -C 1 -H 1 right now. There's quite a few configurations for KXxX that run at approximately the same hashrate.
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 11:53:05 PM
 #1839

Asus GTX670-DC2T-2GD5 would be mine then... I really thought they would all be the same.

BTC donations: 18fw6ZjYkN7xNxfVWbsRmBvD6jBAChRQVn (thanks!)
blackraven1425
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 29, 2013, 12:05:05 AM
 #1840

Asus GTX670-DC2T-2GD5 would be mine then... I really thought they would all be the same.

You have one of the overclocked versions (there's 3, at different levels of overclock), specifically the one with the highest factory clock that I was comparing against when I did those percentages.
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] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 ... 1136 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!