[ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX]

[cbuchner1]

Has cudaminer been updated? I noticed a lot of the git hub files have been updated in the last 3 or so days. So has it had an update and the zip file not been posted?

And what is all the talk with scrypt-jane? I know it seems much slower and is a harder working algorithm,  but are a lot of people jumping over to the coins using this?

Thanks for any explanation I get. Im still very new to mining so sorry if these questions seem daft.

there have been some updates, but  they don't warrant a new release yet. scrypt-jane isn't quite finished, but once it is it will give nVidia users an edge over AMD/ATI users.

Christian

[1713549866]

1713549866

[1713549866]

1713549866

[1713549866]

1713549866

[bigjme]

Will be great to see. My watercooled gtx 780 wont get past 90% usage if I let it overclock as it has no thernal limits only power. But at 250w I can give it a lot more power compared to the 300w of a 7950.

And with 3gb of memory, hardly any of it is used. Say 300mb and I can not figure out how to use the benchmark as it can give me hash rates of 900khash/s or even more. But I dont know how to set the options or where it gets such high values.

My cudaminer in auto tune has been freaking out lately. Giving rates as low as 6khash/s when normally it hits 500 khash/s on an auto. The 900khash/s rate is using the basic benchmark command on 64 bit.

32 bit gives me better hash rated though

[bathrobehero]

Scrypt-jane -i 1 had no effect at this stage so I switched to my onboard HD 4250 as primary and setup my GTX 660 purely to mine without a monitor attached. Using both nvidia and amd drivers together turned out to be easier than I though and I could even overclock the 660 and now I'm getting upto 2.18 Kh/s with scrypt-jane. 

cbuchner1, you are a beast!

[bigjme]

I didnt think you could run both atall. Or is that just that you can not run amd and nvidia dedicated gpus together?

[coercion]

EDIT: I was trying to use the tesla kernel. It doesn't appear to like Jane. I can squeeze out 2.3 KH/s on my gtx 780 using K9x2. Going to keep tinkering.

2.4 kHash with K4x4 on GTX 660Ti, I also use -C 1

Tesla, Fermi and Legacy Kernels don't do scrypt-jane yet.

"GPU #0: Given launch config 'K4x4' exceeds limits for 1D cache." No warnings about -C 2, but the results don't validate.

6x3 and 9x2 with -C 0 give me the best results at ~2.3 and ~2.35 kh/s. Unfortunately my machine becomes annoyingly slow with any scrypt-jane config as it stands. With K9x2 I have 40MB of free gpu memory, with K1x1 over 2GB are free, yet my computer still approaches unusable, and as bathrobehero said, -i 1 doesn't seem to help either.

I'm thinking of picking up a 4GB GT 630 for $30 to play around with. It seems to match your criteria for being efficient. 96 shaders, 128 bit bus, lots of ram. I'm curious what kind of hash rate it can pull, but mostly I want to play around with scrypt-jane without crippling my dev box.

On another note (regarding regular scrypt), I've just been using the 12-18-2013 commit from github until yesterday... but with the changes from the 20th (autotune up to 32 warps) I get another 20 kh/s with T15x32. I played around with the Kepler kernel and noticed -C 1 adds nearly 50 kh/s. Is the texture cache a possibility for Tesla kernels in the future?

cbuchner1, you are a beast!

I concur. I will have to find some LTC to send your way to show my appreciation.

[bathrobehero]

@bigjme I knew that my motherboard (M4A88T-M) doesn't support connecting monitors to the onboard and the dedicated graphics card at the same time, but since there are pcie raisers and converters and all that stuff, virtually all you need is to power your graphics card to mine with it.
I read somewhere that it's possible to mine using both NVIDIA and ATI/AMD cards on the same board.

I concur. I will have to find some LTC to send your way to show my appreciation.

Yep, in time when I'll have coins I'll thank this.

[bigjme]

Ahh ok. If I can figure out how to read the benchmarks and get my gpu crunching at the 880khash/s the benchmark says, I will gladly donate some litecoins

[cbuchner1]

EDIT: I was trying to use the tesla kernel. It doesn't appear to like Jane. I can squeeze out 2.3 KH/s on my gtx 780 using K9x2. Going to keep tinkering.

2.4 kHash with K4x4 on GTX 660Ti, I also use -C 1

Tesla, Fermi and Legacy Kernels don't do scrypt-jane yet.

"GPU #0: Given launch config 'K4x4' exceeds limits for 1D cache." No warnings about -C 2, but the results don't validate.

6x3 and 9x2 with -C 0 give me the best results at ~2.3 and ~2.35 kh/s. Unfortunately my machine becomes annoyingly slow with any scrypt-jane config as it stands. With K9x2 I have 40MB of free gpu memory, with K1x1 over 2GB are free, yet my computer still approaches unusable, and as bathrobehero said, -i 1 doesn't seem to help either.

I'm thinking of picking up a 4GB GT 630 for $30 to play around with. It seems to match your criteria for being efficient. 96 shaders, 128 bit bus, lots of ram. I'm curious what kind of hash rate it can pull, but mostly I want to play around with scrypt-jane without crippling my dev box.

On another note (regarding regular scrypt), I've just been using the 12-18-2013 commit from github until yesterday... but with the changes from the 20th (autotune up to 32 warps) I get another 20 kh/s with T15x32. I played around with the Kepler kernel and noticed -C 1 adds nearly 50 kh/s. Is the texture cache a possibility for Tesla kernels in the future?

cbuchner1, you are a beast!

I concur. I will have to find some LTC to send your way to show my appreciation.

4GB GT 630 for $30 : wow! good price. I have yet to enable the Fermi kernel for scrypt-jane though.

Tesla kernels don't need to explicitly enable a texture for cached reading, as they automatically pull their data through this cache (look up what the __ldg intrinsics do in the latest CUDA programming guide)

I might try to figure out a way to chop the scrypt-jane kernels into a series of smaller kernel launches, which may make make it less taxing on the display and also allowing the use of interactive mode again.

Titan kernels are now scrypt-jane enabled! I get 3.2 kHash/s on GTX 780Ti using -l T7x3 now. And power use is cut in half compared to LTC mining. What a pity the 780Ti doesn't have 6 Gigs of RAM, or I could use -l T14x3, doubling the speed. Someone should try this launch config with the 6 GB Geforce Titan models though. Could yield some 6 kHash/s.

I also have a crazy idea that would basically remove the memory limitations for scrypt-jane mining. It requires joining the A and B kernels into a single kernel again and re-using the scratchpad memory on the GPU. So instead of giving each thread a unique 4 MB scratchpad, we may be able to reuse the same scratchpad memory for all non-concurrently executed thread blocks. I think this is a similar concept that the "intensity" parameter on the ATI cards is controlling when running cgminer. Unfortunately this idea might be incompatible with the texture cache, as this cache does not guarantee read/write coherency within a single kernel invocation. But hey, it could get my 780Ti's to 6 kHash/s...maybe.
EDIT: okay, I made a mistake in my thoughts here. with so few thread blocks running on the GPU, ALL of them would be executing concurrently. And hence the memory reuse concept falls flat.

Christian

[cbuchner1]

Ahh ok. If I can figure out how to read the benchmarks and get my gpu crunching at the 880khash/s the benchmark says, I will gladly donate some litecoins

I also got a few suspicously high readings on autotune, but they never quite materialized in real world hashing. Autotune is a bitch.

[cdogster]

3.2 kHash/s on GTX 780Ti

3.2 kHash/s?  Is that a typo?  Or perhaps that's the increase you're seeing now?  Sorry, I'm confused.

[cbuchner1]

3.2 kHash/s on GTX 780Ti

3.2 kHash/s?  Is that a typo?  Or perhaps that's the increase you're seeing now?  Sorry, I'm confused.

scrypt-jane. that is a STELLAR value (considering the memory limitations of the card - it cannot run enough threads to fully occupy all the multiprocessors because each thread requires 4MB of RAM on the card).

With the Kepler kernel I was getting only 2.5 kHash/s at -l K7x3. By the way, my GTX 660Ti got 2.5 kHash/s too.  High end cards have too many shaders and not enough RAM for scrypt-jane.

[bigjme]

So im best to ignore the high hash rate benchmarks?
For now I have a random value set because of auto tune messing up so badly.

I tried T11x13 on my 780. This is said to give 880. Gives around 440, yet I am able to get 503 from another config but I can not figure out which to use as the benchmark values are so off

[cbuchner1]

So im best to ignore the high hash rate benchmarks?
For now I have a random value set because of auto tune messing up so badly.

I tried T11x13 on my 780. This is said to give 880. Gives around 440, yet I am able to get 503 from another config but I can not figure out which to use as the benchmark values are so off

-l T12x32 should be best on a 780

Christian

[bathrobehero]

So im best to ignore the high hash rate benchmarks?
For now I have a random value set because of auto tune messing up so badly.

I tried T11x13 on my 780. This is said to give 880. Gives around 440, yet I am able to get 503 from another config but I can not figure out which to use as the benchmark values are so off

I guess you have overclocks. Autotune doesn't seem to like that.
Anyway, cudaminer by default uses scrypt, that's what you're using, scrypt-jane is something else.

I just mined my first Yacoin block SOLO. One 660Ti plus 2 GT 640 cards add up to 4.5 kHash/s, which is significant hashing power for Yacoin (the whole Yacoin network is around 1000-1500 kHash/s only, with blocks being generated once per minute.)

Some scrypt-jane hashrates for comparison:
i5 3570k - 0.41 kH/s
i7-3930K - 1.20 kH/s
FX-8350 - 0.57 kH/s

5770 - 1.0 kH/s
7950 - 1.3-1.5 kH/s
R7 250 - 1.44 kH/s

[see360]

So eager to try the latest additions that I'm almost ready to learn how to compile code from git, but alas the last compiler I used was java 10 years ago. I volunteer to be a beta tester if you want to build what you have now :-)

[bigjme]

I was just thinking, for the scrypt-jane. Would there be a way to force some system memory to be used? Yes it is much slower then gpu memory, but if you can give it 16gb, it can do over 5 times that of 3gb gpu at around a 3rd of the speed. So in theory doing more for the time

[cbuchner1]

5770 - 1.0 kH/s
7950 - 1.3-1.5 kH/s
R7 250 - 1.44 kH/s

Watch my taillights, puny Radeons! ;-)

I already have 1% of the entire Yacoin network's hashing power with my few nVidia GPUs. Granted, it is not the most popular coin around.

[cbuchner1]

So eager to try the latest additions that I'm almost ready to learn how to compile code from git, but alas the last compiler I used was java 10 years ago. I volunteer to be a beta tester if you want to build what you have now :-)

Compilation from git is relatively painless on Linux. There should be some guides around on the Internet, because some people have been doing this on rented amazon EC2 instances previously.

[see360]

So eager to try the latest additions that I'm almost ready to learn how to compile code from git, but alas the last compiler I used was java 10 years ago. I volunteer to be a beta tester if you want to build what you have now :-)

Compilation from git is relatively painless on Linux. There should be some guides around on the Internet, because some people have been doing this on rented amazon EC2 instances previously.

Thanks for the suggestion, and I do run Mint from time to time, but I'll patiently wait for your next creation. It looked like there is even a way https://github.com/blog/1127-github-for-windows in Windows without VS, but I better stick to my day job.

[bigjme]

I just had a quick look and gddr5 is twice as fast as system ddr3.

But ddr3 is better for smaller files. 64mb or smaller. With jane being 8mb ddr3 system memory would be ideal. Then a memory war would start. If 3gb of gpu memory can do 3.2kh, 12gb of system should do double.

3gb gpu is rougly 6gb system.
Those systems with 32gb should be able to pass 26gb of system memory over. That should be the same speed as 13gb of gpu memory. Might be worth a look if it can be done. Im no software developer so sorry if this is all waffle