Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2017, 12:28:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NiceHash EQM Zcash NVIDIA optimized miner [Maxwell/Pascal] + CPU mining v1.0.4c  (Read 178253 times)
alrami
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 89


View Profile
November 25, 2016, 12:33:52 PM
 #261


You should be getting higher speed for 960 (probably around 90). That is way too low. eqm 1.0.2a used mode 2 for all cards. You can experiment with modes and see if that brings you higher speed.

mode 1 and 2 gives almost same
mode 3 decrease hash

what drivers you advise to use?

1498436922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436922
Reply with quote  #2

1498436922
Report to moderator
1498436922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436922
Reply with quote  #2

1498436922
Report to moderator
1498436922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436922
Reply with quote  #2

1498436922
Report to moderator
Join the Crowdfunding Revolution ►► FundYourselfNow.com ◄◄ Crowdsale with
attractive rewards
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
scryptr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 12:38:46 PM
 #262

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections


You should be getting higher speed for 960 (probably around 90). That is way too low. eqm 1.0.2a used mode 2 for all cards. You can experiment with modes and see if that brings you higher speed.

GTX 750ti AND GTX 960 PERFORM AT ABOUT THE SAME HASH RATE--

The GTX 750ti cards have 5 CUDA cores, the GTX 960 cards have 8 CUDA cores.  I have noticed that the GTX 960 does not perform much faster than the GTX 750ti on EquiHash.  Certainly not at a ratio of 8 to 5 (8/5x faster).

I am mining with EQM v1.0.2b.      --scryptr  

TIPS:  BTC - 1Fs4uZ6a9ABYBTaHGUfqcwCQmeBRxkKRQT
          DASH - XrK81tW31SLsVvZ2WX9VhTjpT6GXJPLdbQ
tbearhere
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 02:50:36 PM
 #263

My 750ti 6 card rig hangs too.

Due to sudden high inflow of new miners, we had some issues. But should be resolved now and working fine.
Ok Thank you.  Is there anyway of putting in an intensity setting so I can use the card my monitor is hooked up to and mine with it? Thx

It's all a question of balance.
NiceHashSupport
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 02:57:35 PM
 #264

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections


You should be getting higher speed for 960 (probably around 90). That is way too low. eqm 1.0.2a used mode 2 for all cards. You can experiment with modes and see if that brings you higher speed.

GTX 750ti AND GTX 960 PERFORM AT ABOUT THE SAME HASH RATE--

The GTX 750ti cards have 5 CUDA cores, the GTX 960 cards have 8 CUDA cores.  I have noticed that the GTX 960 does not perform much faster than the GTX 750ti on EquiHash.  Certainly not at a ratio of 8 to 5 (8/5x faster).

I am mining with EQM v1.0.2b.      --scryptr  

Yes, but GTX 960 also has 96KB of shared memory per SM (instead of 64KB). They do both have only 128 bit bus, which is a limiting factor. We will review settings when we get a hold of a GTX 960 and see what can be done regarding parameters. Does anyone have a GTX 950? How does that one perform?

NiceHash.com - Largest Crypto-Mining Marketplace
tbearhere
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
 #265

I'm mixing a 750ti a 970 gtx and a 980ti.  Smiley

It's all a question of balance.
tbearhere
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
 #266

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections

Mine doesn't display what cards are doing what hashrate. Only the total hashrate.  But I'm still using v1.0.2a.

It's all a question of balance.
tbearhere
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 03:19:49 PM
 #267

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections


You should be getting higher speed for 960 (probably around 90). That is way too low. eqm 1.0.2a used mode 2 for all cards. You can experiment with modes and see if that brings you higher speed.

GTX 750ti AND GTX 960 PERFORM AT ABOUT THE SAME HASH RATE--

The GTX 750ti cards have 5 CUDA cores, the GTX 960 cards have 8 CUDA cores.  I have noticed that the GTX 960 does not perform much faster than the GTX 750ti on EquiHash.  Certainly not at a ratio of 8 to 5 (8/5x faster).

I am mining with EQM v1.0.2b.      --scryptr  
Hi scryptr  The 750ti has 640 CUDA cores.

It's all a question of balance.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 03:49:58 PM
 #268

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections


Mine doesn't display what cards are doing what hashrate. Only the total hashrate.  But I'm still using v1.0.2a.

b version is the same it does not display single card just the total hash, i dunno if they fixed the crash and the other bug with it, but i see something strange when mining with this miner

my gpu fan spin faster for a short time than return to normal, really annoying...

NiceHashSupport
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 04:03:30 PM
 #269

You should not use ver a, it was only private alpha, never announced by us and is unstable, has memory leak and eventually crashes.

ver b has no issues, not a single crash report so far, it works superbly stable for everyone. There is no reason to use ver a.

NiceHash.com - Largest Crypto-Mining Marketplace
reb0rn21
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


View Profile
November 25, 2016, 04:43:17 PM
 #270

Agree ver A had few issues as crash after disconnect and also random crashes, B no issue so for

I hope there is more room for optimization, AMD miners is quite competitive on Equihash, 280x 200sol/s and 390x 300sol/s, would be nice if 1070 can at least match 390x with heavy memory OC

... PLAY SHARE EARN...
.LBRY...
                            __¦¦¦__
                        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
            __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                     ¯¯¦¦¦
__¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦
¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦__                               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦¦¦¦¦__                       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯  ________
¦¦¦       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       ¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯ ¦¦
      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
          ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
              ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                          ¯
NiceHashSupport
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 05:00:00 PM
 #271

Pascal cards I think still have better ratio performance/watt. GTX 1070 gives 200 Sol @ 130 W.

NiceHash.com - Largest Crypto-Mining Marketplace
reb0rn21
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


View Profile
November 25, 2016, 05:07:00 PM
 #272

they sure do, if you undervolt(with OC and heavy TDP limit voltage drop per clock on same cards as gainward, gigabyte etc..) and run 2x exe file you can get 220sol with 115-120w per card

... PLAY SHARE EARN...
.LBRY...
                            __¦¦¦__
                        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
            __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                     ¯¯¦¦¦
__¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦
¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦__                               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦¦¦¦¦__                       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯  ________
¦¦¦       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       ¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯ ¦¦
      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
          ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
              ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                          ¯
lucasan123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 220



View Profile
November 25, 2016, 05:24:38 PM
 #273

when will it be available to use on other pools?  Huh

scryptr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
 #274

Anyone mixing 970 + 1070's in 1 rig?

I'm mixing:

rig 2x970 + 2x1070 = 660-670 Sol
rig 4x970               = 635-661 Sol
rig 1x960 + 1x980   = 213-234 Sol

solo 960 = 59-61 Sol
solo 970 = 143-144 Sol
solo 980 = 159-166 Sol
solo 1070 = 188-189 Sol

all running under  eqm_v1.0.2b_Win64

P.S. i'm not 100% sure, but looks eqm_v1.0.2a SolRate was better, even eqm_v1.0.2a falls at a poor connections


You should be getting higher speed for 960 (probably around 90). That is way too low. eqm 1.0.2a used mode 2 for all cards. You can experiment with modes and see if that brings you higher speed.

GTX 750ti AND GTX 960 PERFORM AT ABOUT THE SAME HASH RATE--

The GTX 750ti cards have 5 CUDA cores, the GTX 960 cards have 8 CUDA cores.  I have noticed that the GTX 960 does not perform much faster than the GTX 750ti on EquiHash.  Certainly not at a ratio of 8 to 5 (8/5x faster).

I am mining with EQM v1.0.2b.      --scryptr  
Hi scryptr  The 750ti has 640 CUDA cores.

THE 750ti HAS 640 CUDA CORES--

YOU ARE RIGHT.  I was thinking of Thread Blocks (TB), and my post was incorrect.  The 750ti has 5  TB vs 8 TB for the GTX 960.  Here is a comparison chart:


GTX 750ti vs GTX 960 (taken from "www.hwcompare.com").

I somehow confused CUDA cores with TB, because TB are used to set up the launch parameters for mining CryptoNight.  CryptoNight is another slow-hashing algorithm, and I have noticed that the GTX 960 is similar in performance to the GTX 750ti with CryptoNight algorithm, also.  The GTX 960 should be significantly better performer based on hardware comparison.

Apologies for the error!         --scryptr

TIPS:  BTC - 1Fs4uZ6a9ABYBTaHGUfqcwCQmeBRxkKRQT
          DASH - XrK81tW31SLsVvZ2WX9VhTjpT6GXJPLdbQ
blissz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
November 25, 2016, 07:10:03 PM
 #275

weird stuff, trying to mine with a gtx 760, but it's complaining about the lack of sm5.x support.

The gtx 760 is supported right? Could it be a driver issue or am I missing something else (i5, 8gb ram, windows 10 x64, latest nvidia driver)
scryptr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2016, 08:00:06 PM
 #276

weird stuff, trying to mine with a gtx 760, but it's complaining about the lack of sm5.x support.

The gtx 760 is supported right? Could it be a driver issue or am I missing something else (i5, 8gb ram, windows 10 x64, latest nvidia driver)

THE GTX 760 IS NOT SM5.X--

The GTX 750ti was the first Maxwell (SM5.0) card.  None of the other 700 series cards were Maxwell cards, they were Kepler chip cards.  The Maxwell chips were introduced on the GTX 750 and 750ti cards, and the 900 series lineup introduced SM5.2 (Maxwell) throughout. 

--scryptr

TIPS:  BTC - 1Fs4uZ6a9ABYBTaHGUfqcwCQmeBRxkKRQT
          DASH - XrK81tW31SLsVvZ2WX9VhTjpT6GXJPLdbQ
bensam1231
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 01:56:12 AM
 #277

Any guidelines for the CM parameter? Generations of cards they're good on?

I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 03:36:08 AM
 #278

when will it be available to use on other pools?  Huh

 When someone from another pool reverse engineers it again - like nanopool did with an earlier version.

 Or just run Claymore direcly.


 NiceHash has ZERO incentive to make a version that supports other pools, and would be cutting their own income to do so, asking them to create such a version is just DUMB.

bensam1231
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 04:34:26 AM
 #279

when will it be available to use on other pools?  Huh

 When someone from another pool reverse engineers it again - like nanopool did with an earlier version.

 Or just run Claymore direcly.


 NiceHash has ZERO incentive to make a version that supports other pools, and would be cutting their own income to do so, asking them to create such a version is just DUMB.



So lets imagine there are some miners that don't use their miner because they'd rather mine on other pools because it makes them more money, they want to support ZEC, they don't want to support bot traders siphoning money off of miners, or they just don't like Nicehash.

Does Nicehash make money off those people? No. Could they charge a fee to use their miner, like 2.5%? Yes. Would they then make money off those people that otherwise wouldn't use their services? Yes.

Ur dumb.

I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
mo35
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 04:40:49 AM
 #280

when will it be available to use on other pools?  Huh

 When someone from another pool reverse engineers it again - like nanopool did with an earlier version.

 Or just run Claymore direcly.


 NiceHash has ZERO incentive to make a version that supports other pools, and would be cutting their own income to do so, asking them to create such a version is just DUMB.



So lets imagine there are some miners that don't use their miner because they'd rather mine on other pools because it makes them more money, they want to support ZEC, they don't want to support bot traders siphoning money off of miners, or they just don't like Nicehash.

Does Nicehash make money off those people? No. Could they charge a fee to use their miner, like 2.5%? Yes. Would they then make money off those people that otherwise wouldn't use their services? Yes.

Ur dumb.
Agreed, if they so protective about their investment in this piece of code , why not release open pool version with fee , i`d say win win solution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 »
  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!