Bitcoin Forum
February 26, 2018, 12:35:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 1147 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX]  (Read 3393033 times)
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
 #2601

Anybody with a GT 640 (4GB) willing to do an N 15 performance benchmark please?

cudaminer.exe -a scrypt-jane:15 --benchmark...

Edit:
The 4GB GT 640 models have GDDR3 on them with compute capability 2.1, while the compute capability 3.5 models have GDDR5, in which case those only have 1 (maybe 2?) GB memory. So 640's are not that great after all?

RIP Bittrex
1519605325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519605325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1519605325
Reply with quote  #2

1519605325
Report to moderator
1519605325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519605325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1519605325
Reply with quote  #2

1519605325
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
RbelMonstr
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 79
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 04:25:14 PM
 #2602

No you use normal risers. Powerd risers are used when you have so many cards because power is also deliverd to the gpu through the pci-express lanes. Only so much can be sent through them without destroying your motherboard as the power to it is supplied through 1 connector. This uses molex sockets on the motherboard to supply the extra pci express power needed to run so many gpus.

That way normal risers can be used. As powerd risers are more expensive

Any of you guys seen these motherboards?http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/h81%20pro%20btc/

Dedicated mining motherboards lmao. Designed for extra pci express power so you dont need powerd risers

Cant help but question, if you dont need powered risers the why is there a 4 pin connector for powered risers? just to be safe?

I think you might be looking at it backwards - that plug is there to add extra current into the motherboard, not to get current out..

Ah now i get it, thanks.

Edit-: this will on the top of my purchase list for a mining rig. as it is only 53 euro's
manofcolombia
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10

SizzleBits


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2014, 05:19:45 PM
 #2603

I was just looking on amazon to buy another matching 660 ti PE so that I can run one constant and have the existing one for normal use and I saw this card that just looks a bit weird to me..Sparkle PC GeForce GTX 660Ti 2 GB 256-Bit ATX Graphics Card SX660TI2048MHI by Sparkle PC http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ABGU3M8/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_Bnb2sb1GT5RNH


Its a 2 gig card which is fine but it has a 256 bit memory bus which is not like any other 660 ti because the highest I've ever heard for a 660 ti is the PE cards that have 192 bit and the reference ti has less if I remember correctly and then finally in the description it says its Fermi based...but 660 ti are all Kepler gpus....?

Thirtybird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 693
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 16, 2014, 05:35:52 PM
 #2604

I was just looking on amazon to buy another matching 660 ti PE so that I can run one constant and have the existing one for normal use and I saw this card that just looks a bit weird to me..Sparkle PC GeForce GTX 660Ti 2 GB 256-Bit ATX Graphics Card SX660TI2048MHI by Sparkle PC http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ABGU3M8/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_Bnb2sb1GT5RNH


Its a 2 gig card which is fine but it has a 256 bit memory bus which is not like any other 660 ti because the highest I've ever heard for a 660 ti is the PE cards that have 192 bit and the reference ti has less if I remember correctly and then finally in the description it says its Fermi based...but 660 ti are all Kepler gpus....?

Check the manufacturer page : http://www.sparkle.com.tw/en/products_detail.asp?ID=63
192 bit memory
kepler architecture

YACMiner: https://github.com/Thirtybird/YACMiner  N-Factor information : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aj3vcsuY-JFNdC1ITWJrSG9VeWp6QXppbVgxcm0tbGc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
BTC: 183eSsaxG9y6m2ZhrDhHueoKnZWmbm6jfC  YAC: Y4FKiwKKYGQzcqn3M3u6mJoded6ri1UWHa
manofcolombia
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10

SizzleBits


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2014, 05:52:34 PM
 #2605

I was just looking on amazon to buy another matching 660 ti PE so that I can run one constant and have the existing one for normal use and I saw this card that just looks a bit weird to me..Sparkle PC GeForce GTX 660Ti 2 GB 256-Bit ATX Graphics Card SX660TI2048MHI by Sparkle PC http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ABGU3M8/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_Bnb2sb1GT5RNH


Its a 2 gig card which is fine but it has a 256 bit memory bus which is not like any other 660 ti because the highest I've ever heard for a 660 ti is the PE cards that have 192 bit and the reference ti has less if I remember correctly and then finally in the description it says its Fermi based...but 660 ti are all Kepler gpus....?

Check the manufacturer page : http://www.sparkle.com.tw/en/products_detail.asp?ID=63
192 bit memory
kepler architecture


I love that Amazon has it wrong because Im pretty sure the listing was amazon fulfilled. Yea I thought it was too good to be true.

bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 06:22:42 PM
 #2606

Please guys take a minute and add your Scrypt-jane results!

Scrypt-jane sheet

Scrypt-jane survey

RIP Bittrex
flysats
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 164
Merit: 100



View Profile
January 16, 2014, 06:40:52 PM
 #2607

Please guys take a minute and add your Scrypt-jane results!

Scrypt-jane sheet

Scrypt-jane survey


pls up link to first post !

Dig miсroСoin. MRC | LTC | BTC
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 06:41:50 PM
 #2608

It's there!

RIP Bittrex
Flo354
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 07:30:30 PM
 #2609

It's there!

I complete the survey but I made a mistake...
The result for GTX 770 4GO is with N = 14 and not 15
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
 #2610

I complete the survey but I made a mistake...
The result for GTX 770 4GO is with N = 14 and not 15

Thanks!
No worries, it's fixed. You can leave notes/comments on the cells for me to change values as you wish - without logging in.

RIP Bittrex
skyvahaerie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 07:50:01 PM
 #2611

Please guys take a minute and add your Scrypt-jane results!

Scrypt-jane sheet

Scrypt-jane survey


There is a GTX 760 in there and the user claims he cranked up the gpu core clock by +352. I have not seen any test/review that got past 190-200, depending on the manufacturer, before the cards more or less crashed instantly in the benchmarks. He either made a mistake or has some magical oc powers.
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 08:01:22 PM
 #2612

There is a GTX 760 in there and the user claims he cranked up the gpu core clock by +352. I have not seen any test/review that got past 190-200, depending on the manufacturer, before the cards more or less crashed instantly in the benchmarks. He either made a mistake or has some magical oc powers.

Scrypt-jane doesn't stresses the GPU like benchmarks and games. For example in my case, 1215 Mhz core clock OC (from 1136 stock) is pushing it in benchmarks/games/scrypt hashing, but for scrypt-jane I'm going stable for days at 1293 Mhz.

I'm not saying that makes that +352 Mhz core OC legit, but it is within the realm of possibility when the card is only being used for scrypt-jane.

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

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 08:28:34 PM
 #2613


I'm not saying that makes that +352 Mhz core OC legit, but it is within the realm of possibility when the card is only being used for scrypt-jane.

I think the card's (stock) BIOS would not push the past the reliability voltage anyway. So even if one sets the slider extremely high, the clocks you can actually reach will be much lower. So one needs to overvolt, or a install seriously modded BIOS to work around that restriction.
szczyglo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 16, 2014, 09:30:05 PM
 #2614

My gtx590 gain 0.68-0.7 kh/s for each GF110 (mem 2x1.5GB) with -l X5x2 -C 1, so total kh/s for gtx590 is about 1.38 kh/s. Low mem is pain :/
Thanks to all developers, donation sent. Patoberli - thanks for build!
bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 12:51:18 AM
 #2615

I think the card's (stock) BIOS would not push the past the reliability voltage anyway. So even if one sets the slider extremely high, the clocks you can actually reach will be much lower. So one needs to overvolt, or a install seriously modded BIOS to work around that restriction.

As far as I know the stock BIOS is not limiting you from increasing the core clock speed even after it hits the max stock voltage, and we would only require overvoltage during normal circumstances to get the clock stable, but for scrypt-jane it could be stable without massive overvoltage.

The poster (Acad) was kind enough to provide a screenshot and while it could be considered a 286 Mhz OC if we were to compare it to the boost clock, it's still quite amazing. He noted "Driver will crash if you do anything else that uses the GPU ex a website " which again means that it's only stable for scrypt-jane.


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

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 03:19:54 PM
 #2616

There was a breaking change today regarding the format of launch configs for David Andersen's kernels.

This has advantages because of more fine grained control and memory allocation. It is however a nightmare
for maintainers of the Google spreadsheets Wink

Code:
for scrypt-jane the equivalent config to B x W is B x 4*W and for scrypt it is 4*B x W
so e.g for Yacoin replace -l K2x8 with -l K2x32
and for Litecoin -l K2x32 becomes -l K8x32.

this affects K,T,X kernel configs only (these are derived from David's code) - and only when you run a
github version from today or later.

or you can simply autotune again to find a good config, saving you the hassle of converting...

The main advantage to this is that users of 1GB cards can now use up to 10% more memory
than before (memory is now allocated in increments of 32MB for Yacoin - previously it was 128MB).

bathrobehero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1025


ICO? Not even once.


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 03:46:15 PM
 #2617

It is however a nightmare for maintainers of the Google spreadsheets Wink

That would be only me, at least for the two combo sheets, but for the greater good I'll think of something!

This is great news though, and I was just thinking about this yesterday while toying around with N14+ benchmarks it if were possible to increase the resolution of the kernel configs so we might be able to squeeze out more VRAM usage, and here it is Smiley

RIP Bittrex
ManIkWeet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
 #2618

There was a breaking change today regarding the format of launch configs for David Andersen's kernels.

This has advantages because of more fine grained control and memory allocation. It is however a nightmare
for maintainers of the Google spreadsheets Wink

Code:
for scrypt-jane the equivalent config to B x W is B x 4*W and for scrypt it is 4*B x W
so e.g for Yacoin replace -l K2x8 with -l K2x32
and for Litecoin -l K2x32 becomes -l K8x32.

this affects K,T,X kernel configs only (these are derived from David's code) - and only when you run a
github version from today or later.

or you can simply autotune again to find a good config, saving you the hassle of converting...

The main advantage to this is that users of 1GB cards can now use up to 10% more memory
than before (memory is now allocated in increments of 32MB for Yacoin - previously it was 128MB).


So I assume if I run autotune with this build it'll use more memory than it does currently?
Currently my build uses 2619MB/3GB with T9x2.

Also after 2 days mining with no block found, I quickly found a YACoin block today Smiley

BTC donations: 18fw6ZjYkN7xNxfVWbsRmBvD6jBAChRQVn (thanks!)
ktf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 05:00:03 PM
 #2619

Hi guys. Thank you all for your work on cudaminer , helping us with Nvidia cards a bit Smiley I've read quite a bit of the thread and I feel I am doing something  wrong here. I am using cudaminer like this :

cudaminer.exe  -i 0 -H 1 -l K5x32,K5x32 -o stratum+tcp://europe.mine-litecoin.com:80 -u user

on two GTX 660 cards :

[2014-01-17 18:38:01] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 40960 hashes, 2.88 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:38:02] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 51200 hashes, 3.16 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:39:05] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 174080 hashes, 2.84 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:39:15] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 194560 hashes, 2.75 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:39:51] Stratum detected new block
[2014-01-17 18:39:55] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 102400 hashes, 2.71 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:39:55] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 133120 hashes, 2.71 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:40:56] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 163840 hashes, 2.80 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:40:56] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 163840 hashes, 2.75 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:41:45] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 138240 hashes, 2.82 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:41:48] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 5.58 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-01-17 18:41:59] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 168960 hashes, 2.84 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:42:49] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 660, 174080 hashes, 2.89 khash/s
[2014-01-17 18:43:00] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 660, 174080 hashes, 2.92 khash/s

 I've seen people getting 70khash/s on those and others reaching 500+ on 780. Am I missing something obvious here ? At this rate I doubt I even recover electricity costs .
cbuchner1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 17, 2014, 05:07:08 PM
 #2620

Hi guys. Thank you all for your work on cudaminer , helping us with Nvidia cards a bit Smiley I've read quite a bit of the thread and I feel I am doing something  wrong here. I am using cudaminer like this :

cudaminer.exe  -i 0 -H 1 -l K5x32,K5x32 -o stratum+tcp://europe.mine-litecoin.com:80 -u user

on two GTX 660 cards :

[2014-01-17 18:41:48] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 5.58 khash/s (yay!!!)

yeah, that looks like decent hash rates for scrypt-jane. But I don't see you enabling scrypt-jane support at all.

What version are you running and on what OS?

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 1147 »
  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!