[ANN] dstm's ZCash / Equihash Nvidia Miner v0.6.2 (Linux / Windows)

[induktor]

In %, how much is this miner better than EWBFs?

1080Ti is 3% better, but it has 2% devfee and i had EWBF in 1% devfee so, it is marginally better but not by much.

if fee where 1% it would be interesting.

in 1080 (non TI's )  it's the same as EWBF because it is a liiiiiiitle faster, but the 1%more fee kills that difference.

It uses a bit more CPU but not much, 6 x 1080s loads a G3250 Intel at 70% (EWBF is 30-40% CPU usage), so if you had a celeron (unless it is one of the new ones) you could be in trouble but on a dual core intel/amd, perfectly ok.

[1715199858]

1715199858

[1715199858]

1715199858

[papampi]

5.3 is much cpu friendly
I used to get 3200-3250 with 12x1060 and ewbf and getting around 3380-3440 with dstm

Is it possible to make output to sort by gpu instaed of random?

Code:

Nov 02 02:18:38 AM| GPU5 61C Sol/s: 285.1 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.7 I/s: 153.2 Sh: 2.45 0.97 1030 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:39 AM| GPU3 50C Sol/s: 287.5 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 286.4 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.17 0.99 1029 
Nov 02 02:18:49 AM|> GPU9 59C Sol/s: 273.6 Sol/W: 3.80 Avg: 282.4 I/s: 151.3 Sh: 2.23 0.99 1031 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:51 AM|> GPU6 61C Sol/s: 284.8 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.2 I/s: 152.6 Sh: 2.01 1.00 1029 +++ 
Nov 02 02:18:53 AM|> GPU8 54C Sol/s: 283.3 Sol/W: 3.82 Avg: 285.1 I/s: 152.6 Sh: 2.54 0.97 1031 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:54 AM|> GPU4 53C Sol/s: 267.3 Sol/W: 4.03 Avg: 267.0 I/s: 140.6 Sh: 2.09 1.00 1031 + 
Nov 02 02:18:55 AM|> GPU11 63C Sol/s: 280.3 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.2 I/s: 153.0 Sh: 2.21 1.00 1030 + 
Nov 02 02:18:55 AM| ========= Sol/s: 3378.6 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 3395.1 I/s: 1815.5 Sh: 26.62 0.99 1031 
Nov 02 02:18:56 AM|> GPU7 60C Sol/s: 284.0 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 284.3 I/s: 152.2 Sh: 1.84 1.00 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU1 54C Sol/s: 288.0 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 283.5 I/s: 151.7 Sh: 2.52 1.00 1050 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU2 54C Sol/s: 295.9 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 285.9 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.28 1.00 1032 + 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU10 62C Sol/s: 282.8 Sol/W: 3.77 Avg: 280.9 I/s: 150.6 Sh: 2.39 0.99 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 284.6 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 283.6 I/s: 151.7 Sh: 1.83 1.00 1029 
Nov 02 02:18:58 AM|> GPU5 61C Sol/s: 281.9 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.7 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.43 0.97 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:59 AM|> GPU3 49C Sol/s: 284.1 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 286.4 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.17 0.99 1032 + 

[Brzina]

In %, how much is this miner better than EWBFs?

1080Ti is 3% better, but it has 2% devfee and i had EWBF in 1% devfee so, it is marginally better but not by much.

if fee where 1% it would be interesting.

in 1080 (non TI's )  it's the same as EWBF because it is a liiiiiiitle faster, but the 1%more fee kills that difference.

It uses a bit more CPU but not much, 6 x 1080s loads a G3250 Intel at 70% (EWBF is 30-40% CPU usage), so if you had a celeron (unless it is one of the new ones) you could be in trouble but on a dual core intel/amd, perfectly ok.

Sorry, but you are wrong buddy. Fee is the same as ewbf

" EWBF Version 0.3.4b.

EWBF's Zcash cuda miner.
Expected speeds 500 sols/s gtx 1080, 444 sols/s gtx1070. 300 gtx1060 6G. Stock settings.
Writen for pascal gpus but works on cards with at least 1Gb memory, and Compute Capability 2 and higher.
Miner contain dev fee 2%.
Sorry for my bad english  Sad"

[induktor]

In %, how much is this miner better than EWBFs?

1080Ti is 3% better, but it has 2% devfee and i had EWBF in 1% devfee so, it is marginally better but not by much.

if fee where 1% it would be interesting.

in 1080 (non TI's )  it's the same as EWBF because it is a liiiiiiitle faster, but the 1%more fee kills that difference.

It uses a bit more CPU but not much, 6 x 1080s loads a G3250 Intel at 70% (EWBF is 30-40% CPU usage), so if you had a celeron (unless it is one of the new ones) you could be in trouble but on a dual core intel/amd, perfectly ok.

Sorry, but you are wrong buddy. Fee is the same as ewbf

" EWBF Version 0.3.4b.

EWBF's Zcash cuda miner.
Expected speeds 500 sols/s gtx 1080, 444 sols/s gtx1070. 300 gtx1060 6G. Stock settings.
Writen for pascal gpus but works on cards with at least 1Gb memory, and Compute Capability 2 and higher.
Miner contain dev fee 2%.
Sorry for my bad english  Sad"

you can use --fee 1 in EWBF for 1% fee, if no --fee is specified it mines with 2% fee, also can disable de fee --fee 0 but it will mine a bit slower.

[The_Immortal]

induktor ,

can disable de fee --fee 0 but it will mine a bit slower.

Nope, you're wrong. Even with no fee option EWBF miner will work on the same rate

[induktor]

induktor ,

can disable de fee --fee 0 but it will mine a bit slower.

Nope, you're wrong. Even with no fee option EWBF miner will work on the same rate

That's what i read about in the forums but then again when i tested it, if i put --fee 0 it lowers the hashrate like 1% odd..... anyway the guy's gotta eat, so 1% sounds fair enough 4 me 

but it is strange since EWBF himself said that there is no penalty for putting --fee 0, so, dunno

[The_Immortal]

induktor ,

can disable de fee --fee 0 but it will mine a bit slower.

Nope, you're wrong. Even with no fee option EWBF miner will work on the same rate

That's what i read about in the forums but then again when i tested it, if i put --fee 0 it lowers the hashrate like 1% odd..... anyway the guy's gotta eat, so 1% sounds fair enough 4 me 

but it is strange since EWBF himself said that there is no penalty for putting --fee 0, so, dunno

Well, as for me I saw no changes in hashrate with disabled fee. And I got the straight answer from EWBF that this is on our side to use fee option - its disabling doesn't affect at all.

Anyway, let's stop it coz we are going to offtopic

[phuocduong]

better than 0.5.2

[shibob]

For people that have asked for BTG.
ZM works fine on BTG pools.

Yeah I tested it. But I dont know which address I should use, until now official wallet has not released yet. I saw many miners use BTC address for mining BTG, even someone use Zcash address.

[VSVfreedom]

Hello!:)
You made an honest and good prodact! Thank you:) It works.
Could you tell us - is it possible to get yours miner for AMD cards? Have you got a plans for it?

[papampi]

It seems cpu is much better on 5.3 but still my load average goes very high
12x1060
cpu :   Intel Core i5-6400


EWBF load average :

Code:

$cat /proc/loadavg
0.85 0.93 0.99 2/617 25347

dstm 5.3 Load Average:

Code:

$ cat /proc/loadavg
3.83 3.44 3.33 1/547 23514

[Gongolo]

Any plan to support equihash-192,7? (ZER)

[dstm]

hey bro, thx for version 0.5.3 ! it's faster than 0.3.4b but i have a question : can i check somehow my gpu's power consumption? like in 0.3.4b miner with command "--pec".

I'm not familiar with the --pec option. ZM doesn't report power consumption on the terminal ui, however zm reports it on the web ui and via json-rpc. The values for power consumption on the web ui and the values for efficiency (Sol/W) are averages, since that's the most accurate way. Also Nvidia states that power usage readings have an accuracy to within +/- 5% of current power draw so be aware of this.

[dstm]

5.3 is much cpu friendly
I used to get 3200-3250 with 12x1060 and ewbf and getting around 3380-3440 with dstm

Is it possible to make output to sort by gpu instaed of random?

Code:

Nov 02 02:18:38 AM| GPU5 61C Sol/s: 285.1 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.7 I/s: 153.2 Sh: 2.45 0.97 1030 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:39 AM| GPU3 50C Sol/s: 287.5 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 286.4 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.17 0.99 1029 
Nov 02 02:18:49 AM|> GPU9 59C Sol/s: 273.6 Sol/W: 3.80 Avg: 282.4 I/s: 151.3 Sh: 2.23 0.99 1031 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:51 AM|> GPU6 61C Sol/s: 284.8 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.2 I/s: 152.6 Sh: 2.01 1.00 1029 +++ 
Nov 02 02:18:53 AM|> GPU8 54C Sol/s: 283.3 Sol/W: 3.82 Avg: 285.1 I/s: 152.6 Sh: 2.54 0.97 1031 ++ 
Nov 02 02:18:54 AM|> GPU4 53C Sol/s: 267.3 Sol/W: 4.03 Avg: 267.0 I/s: 140.6 Sh: 2.09 1.00 1031 + 
Nov 02 02:18:55 AM|> GPU11 63C Sol/s: 280.3 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.2 I/s: 153.0 Sh: 2.21 1.00 1030 + 
Nov 02 02:18:55 AM| ========= Sol/s: 3378.6 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 3395.1 I/s: 1815.5 Sh: 26.62 0.99 1031 
Nov 02 02:18:56 AM|> GPU7 60C Sol/s: 284.0 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 284.3 I/s: 152.2 Sh: 1.84 1.00 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU1 54C Sol/s: 288.0 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 283.5 I/s: 151.7 Sh: 2.52 1.00 1050 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU2 54C Sol/s: 295.9 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 285.9 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.28 1.00 1032 + 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU10 62C Sol/s: 282.8 Sol/W: 3.77 Avg: 280.9 I/s: 150.6 Sh: 2.39 0.99 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:57 AM|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 284.6 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 283.6 I/s: 151.7 Sh: 1.83 1.00 1029 
Nov 02 02:18:58 AM|> GPU5 61C Sol/s: 281.9 Sol/W: 3.83 Avg: 285.7 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.43 0.97 1030 
Nov 02 02:18:59 AM|> GPU3 49C Sol/s: 284.1 Sol/W: 3.84 Avg: 286.4 I/s: 153.1 Sh: 2.17 0.99 1032 + 

That's the order in which things actually happen on your system so the ordering might change over time.

[dstm]

Hello!:)
You made an honest and good prodact! Thank you:) It works.
Could you tell us - is it possible to get yours miner for AMD cards? Have you got a plans for it?

I don't have plans to work on AMD cards.

[dstm]

It seems cpu is much better on 5.3 but still my load average goes very high
12x1060
cpu :   Intel Core i5-6400


EWBF load average :

Code:

$cat /proc/loadavg
0.85 0.93 0.99 2/617 25347

dstm 5.3 Load Average:

Code:

$ cat /proc/loadavg
3.83 3.44 3.33 1/547 23514

CPU load looks high for an i5-6400. Could you pls paste the output of top sorted by cpu load?

[dstm]

Any plan to support equihash-192,7? (ZER)

I had some request to support different equihash variants. Currently I'm focusing on requests and general improvements (for 200,9) - so not sure about it.

[papampi]

It seems cpu is much better on 5.3 but still my load average goes very high
12x1060
cpu :   Intel Core i5-6400


EWBF load average :

Code:

$cat /proc/loadavg
0.85 0.93 0.99 2/617 25347

dstm 5.3 Load Average:

Code:

$ cat /proc/loadavg
3.83 3.44 3.33 1/547 23514

CPU load looks high for an i5-6400. Could you pls paste the output of top sorted by cpu load?

When I run dstm those kworkers cpu usage goes high, with other miners they r normal.

Code:

 

  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
 5084 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  37.5  0.0   2:00.81 kworker/3:9
20762 m1        20   0  0.150t 1.155g 0.985g S  37.5 14.9   4:27.04 zm_miner
 9376 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  12.5  0.0   3:46.70 kworker/3:15
16924 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  12.5  0.0   0:33.82 kworker/3:0
 1062 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   3:11.49 irq/138-nvidia
 1134 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   4:39.45 irq/140-nvidia
 1663 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   4:45.75 irq/141-nvidia
 1665 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   4:11.20 irq/142-nvidia
 1669 root     -51   0       0      0      0 R   6.2  0.0   3:54.98 irq/144-nvidia
 1678 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   3:23.35 irq/148-nvidia
 1680 root     -51   0       0      0      0 S   6.2  0.0   4:05.54 irq/149-nvidia

Edit:

Fixed load average by raising power limit.

[The_Immortal]

Any plan to support equihash-192,7? (ZER)

I had some request to support different equihash variants. Currently I'm focusing on requests and general improvements (for 200,9) - so not sure about it.

Guys, sorry for asking it, but could you tell me please what do those numbers mean: "192,7", "200,9"? Don't get it

[ZenFr]

Any plan to support equihash-192,7? (ZER)

I had some request to support different equihash variants. Currently I'm focusing on requests and general improvements (for 200,9) - so not sure about it.

Guys, sorry for asking it, but could you tell me please what do those numbers mean: "192,7", "200,9"? Don't get it

Not sure, but I think it the version numbers of some equihash variants.
All are variants of the same "father branch" from master equihash project and some coin is based on one of them and some other coins on some other of them.