Bitcoin Forum
February 16, 2019, 10:46:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 ... 1136 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX]  (Read 3402241 times)
Treggar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 06:10:47 PM
 #2541

I am confused by the cudaminer scrypt-jane hash rates as they seem quite low for certain coins. For example, in cache using cgminer with scrypt jane support I am getting in the mhps range compared to cudaminer, which gives me around 20 khps.

Is this simply a difference in how cgminer vs cudaminer are reporting the hash rate or something else?
Depends on the coin... the older a coin is the lower the hashrates you'll get
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
Your Bitcoin transactions
The Ultimate Bitcoin mixer
made truly anonymous.
with an advanced technology.
Mix coins
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
1550357179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550357179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550357179
Reply with quote  #2

1550357179
Report to moderator
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 06:10:51 PM
 #2542

I am confused by the cudaminer scrypt-jane hash rates as they seem quite low for certain coins. For example, in cache using cgminer with scrypt jane support I am getting in the mhps range compared to cudaminer, which gives me around 20 khps.

Is this simply a difference in how cgminer vs cudaminer are reporting the hash rate or something else?

cudaminer is not yet suitable for low Nfactor coins, as the Kekkac part is done on the CPU with unoptimized code

for such coins cgminer for scrypt-jane will beat cudaminer.
Snard
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 06:13:58 PM
 #2543

I see...I thought i had read that elsewhere, but couldn't find the post. Thanks for clarifying.
ozie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226
Merit: 103


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 06:14:45 PM
 #2544

This is due to the fact that with scrypt-jane you also need to calculate a KECCAK hash. This is done by the cpu singlethreaded atm.
I hope in the future there will be an option to offload it to the GPU like the SHA256 hash for scrypt.

But right now support for old deprecated Fermi Devices is more important  Grin

Maxwell btw. is looking very promising for mining. If the rumors are true even Mobile GPU gets 6 Gig RAM.
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 06:49:34 PM
 #2545

But right now support for old deprecated Fermi Devices is more important  Grin

My GTX 560 Ti 448 core edition is anything but deprecated. It does something in the region of 280 kHash/s for scrypt mining.
Before Dave Andersen came along, Fermis were hashing stronger than Keplers.

Christian
Lionel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 550
Merit: 270


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 07:37:38 PM
 #2546

Guys let's try playing games while mining with cuda!
Try adding this options and let me know if the game lags

-i 1 -l S2x1

If the game lags try with

-i 1 -l S1x1

Lemme know
Lol that hashrate... 3.8kh/s while my 670 does 240kh/s on my own settings

too low you're right

try with these ones
-i 1 -l S3x3
-i 1 -l S5x5
-i 1 -l S6x6

should give a decent Kh/s while gaming,
for me
20Kh/s
40Kh/s
50Kh/s

and you? I have to try more aggressive configs
Tweek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250

CoinTweak profitability charts


View Profile WWW
January 14, 2014, 09:03:44 PM
 #2547

Guys let's try playing games while mining with cuda!
Try adding this options and let me know if the game lags

-i 1 -l S2x1

If the game lags try with

-i 1 -l S1x1

Lemme know
Lol that hashrate... 3.8kh/s while my 670 does 240kh/s on my own settings

too low you're right

try with these ones
-i 1 -l S3x3
-i 1 -l S5x5
-i 1 -l S6x6

should give a decent Kh/s while gaming,
for me
20Kh/s
40Kh/s
50Kh/s

and you? I have to try more aggressive configs
For gaming I use
-i 1 -l K8x2 = 55kh/s and game (guild wars 2) feels a little laggy with ~15fps
-i 1 -l K6x2 = 40kh/s and game runs normal with ~20fps
Tested on GTX 670 btw Smiley

cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 14, 2014, 11:54:28 PM
Last edit: January 15, 2014, 12:47:20 AM by cbuchner1
 #2548

A bit of research on Fermi performance with the new X-perimental kernel (Dave Andersen's work ported over to Fermi)

GTX 560Ti 1280MB: 0.83 kHash/s with -X 8x1    <--- the low VRAM is really hurting
GT 630 4GB VRAM: 0.72 kHash/s                      <--- low cost, low performance. The RAM doesn't help Wink
GTX 660 OEM 4GB VRAM: 1.25 kHash/s             <--- that is one strange OEM part, I must say.

The new code is about 50% faster then the existing Fermi kernel for scrypt-jane. But I do get occasional
validation errors on Fermi + Kepler when I enable -C 1 or -C 2. Strange. Hence avoid Fermi parts like the
plague if you intend to do scrypt-jane.

In comparison.

A GT 640 (GK107) 4GB at stock clocks will do something in the range of 1.65 kHash/s. This is somewhat less than I expected
because my GT750M laptop part (same chip) delivers 2.1 kHash/s.

A GT 640 (GK208) 1GB GDDR5 manages to do 1.25 kHash/s with mild overclock. Again the low VRAM is hurting.

I will be getting more Kepler parts for comparison. GTX 650, GTX 650Ti (not the Boost version) with 2GB each.

Christian
beachking2000
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 01:18:04 AM
 #2549

Hey Christian. Is there anyway to get the texture cache feature to work in the 12-18 build? I haven't had success compiling off the github with windows so cant get the extra hash rate.
Lionel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 550
Merit: 270


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 09:25:59 AM
 #2550

Guys let's try playing games while mining with cuda!
Try adding this options and let me know if the game lags

-i 1 -l S2x1

If the game lags try with

-i 1 -l S1x1

Lemme know
Lol that hashrate... 3.8kh/s while my 670 does 240kh/s on my own settings

too low you're right

try with these ones
-i 1 -l S3x3
-i 1 -l S5x5
-i 1 -l S6x6

should give a decent Kh/s while gaming,
for me
20Kh/s
40Kh/s
50Kh/s

and you? I have to try more aggressive configs
For gaming I use
-i 1 -l K8x2 = 55kh/s and game (guild wars 2) feels a little laggy with ~15fps
-i 1 -l K6x2 = 40kh/s and game runs normal with ~20fps
Tested on GTX 670 btw Smiley

20fps is not the best experience, try with -i 1 -l K4x2
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 10:08:07 AM
 #2551

Hi there! Can you please plug your figures into this table for nvidia performance? Smiley
http://yacoinwiki.tk/index.php/Mining_Hardware_Comparison

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
RbelMonstr
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 79
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 11:03:06 AM
Last edit: January 15, 2014, 12:12:16 PM by RbelMonstr
 #2552

Hi there! Can you please plug your figures into this table for nvidia performance? Smiley
http://yacoinwiki.tk/index.php/Mining_Hardware_Comparison

There is a survey/spreadsheet combo for Scrypt-Jane a few pages back, you could get your data from there.
And in the OP there are also 2 spreadsheets.
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1026


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 01:00:00 PM
 #2553

A GT 640 (GK107) 4GB at stock clocks will do something in the range of 1.65 kHash/s.

I wonder how this one performs with an N factor of 15.

RIP Bittrex
RIP Poloniex
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 01:05:47 PM
 #2554

Hi there! Can you please plug your figures into this table for nvidia performance? Smiley
http://yacoinwiki.tk/index.php/Mining_Hardware_Comparison

It's a little early for posting this data publicly, as the feature is still being developed and there are no official Windows binaries available yet.

I did however add the scrypt-jane related google docs spreadsheet into the first posting.
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 01:07:39 PM
 #2555

A GT 640 (GK107) 4GB at stock clocks will do something in the range of 1.65 kHash/s.

I wonder how this one performs with an N factor of 15.

The best case is that it achieves exactly half the hash rate as with N=14. Why? because for N=15 it's exactly twice the amount of work. This will affect CPUs likewise.

The usual case for most GPU models will be that the performance degrades by more than half, because the occupancy of the CUDA cores goes down (too many cores for fewer hashes to be computed simultaneously given the given available memory). Cards with 1GB and 2GB will be hit the hardest...

Cards with 4GB should barely see an impact for N = 14 --> 15

For cards with lots spare GPU cores (say, a GTX 780 or better) we can cut memory requirements in half and increase compute requirements instead (LOOKUP_GAP). It's on my TODO list.
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
 #2556

A GT 640 (GK107) 4GB at stock clocks will do something in the range of 1.65 kHash/s.

I wonder how this one performs with an N factor of 15.

The best case is that it achieves exactly half the hash rate as with N=14. Why? because for N=15 it's exactly twice the amount of work. This will affect CPUs likewise.

The usual case for most GPU models will be that the performance degrades by more than half, because the occupancy of the CUDA cores goes down (too many cores for fewer hashes to be computed simultaneously given the given available memory). Cards with 1GB and 2GB will be hit the hardest...

Cards with 4GB should barely see an impact for N = 14 --> 15

For cards with lots spare GPU cores (say, a GTX 780 or better) we can cut memory requirements in half and increase compute requirements instead (LOOKUP_GAP). It's on my TODO list.
Nice, I have exactly that card... :3

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

Activity: 133
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 07:45:02 PM
 #2557

HI everyone im new to mining with cudaminer. I currently am mining scrypt based coins with an MSI gtx 660 ti power edition and
an older gtx 460. I'm using some OC with afterburner and currently these are my stats.

http://gyazo.com/730066456565bff6c382f23168451bef
http://gyazo.com/3997db1d7d191733e257301057376da1
http://gyazo.com/4c187b5f53c44c9cb9876eb1786d654e

First of al can i get more hashspeed ? and is there an other kind of mining more profitable than scrypt mining for my nvidia cards ?

my flags -d 0,1 -C 1,2 -l K112x2,F52x2 -i 0,0

thanks for your time.
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 08:10:10 PM
 #2558

and is there an other kind of mining more profitable than scrypt mining for my nvidia cards ?

well yes, scrypt-jane is currently about twice as profitable. It requires a binary built from the current cudaminer github repository.

Expect 3.2-3.5 kHash/s from your GTX 660 Ti. No idea about your GTX 460. Maybe the total is around 5 kHash? Look up on  the yac.coinmine.pl stats pages how much BTC per day that yields at current YAC->BTC exchange rates

Christian
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 08:14:59 PM
Last edit: January 15, 2014, 08:37:24 PM by cbuchner1
 #2559

Some new card stats:

MSI GTX 650 OC (2 SMX, 2 GB GDDR5 RAM):            1.95 kHash/s at -l K15x1 -C 1
Gigabyte GTX 650 Ti OC (4 SMX, 2 GB GDDR5 RAM)   2.20 kHash/s at -l K15x1 -C 1

the latter card costs marginally more and would have reserves for some LOOKUP_GAP fun (making this card last through NFactor 15 I hope).

Both cards were tested on Linux and have a factory overclock. Temperatures stay reasonable at 68C, unlike some low profile GT 640 (GK107) or single slot GT 630 cards (Fermi) I have tested (->99 deg C!)

The main drawback is that these are double slot cards. So you need risers to run 5 cards on a mobo. If you care more about densely packed hashing power, then get GTX 660 Ti or GTX 760 cards instead. These will cost twice as much however.

Today's improvements:

I fixed a serious problem causing validation errors in Kepler and Test (X-) kernels with -C 1 just now. I also redesigned some of the timer code for interactive mode. It will take less CPU now.

It may still make sense to increase the default batch size -b 1024 to something like -b 4096 or -b 8192 when running interactive mode with scrypt-jane. This costs a bit of display smoothness, but adds more hash/s.

Christian


psc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 15, 2014, 08:42:37 PM
 #2560


It may still make sense to increase the default batch size -b 1024 to something like -b 4096 or -b 8192 when running interactive mode with scrypt-jane. This costs a bit of display smoothness, but adds more hash/s.


Thanks for the tip ! - increased my 770M hashrate from 1.1 to 1.33 on windoze (-b 4096)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 ... 1136 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!