hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap

[MagicSmoker]

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

[1715211514]

1715211514

[1715211514]

1715211514

[1715211514]

1715211514

[zorday]

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

Yes I will try to do a test as well during the weekend to be able to get a personal verdict.
I have no access to several rigs, but I have several cards of the same type so I should be able to set it up as described fairly quickly.
What is promising?

[ManuBBXX]

You can only mine HSR with the neoscrypt miner ?

[MagicSmoker]

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

Yes I will try to do a test as well during the weekend to be able to get a personal verdict.
I have no access to several rigs, but I have several cards of the same type so I should be able to set it up as described fairly quickly.
What is promising?

Sounds good - the more comparisons the better.

I only have a single RX 570 mining neoscrypt on Zergpool (single algo, multiple coin, auto-convert to BTC) just to try it out - nothing formal or scientific about my testing here - but let's just say it is earning more per day doing that than it would any of the single coins I normally mine with it. Similar situation with hashrefinery in multi-neoscrypt-coin to BTC mode.

Others here suggested I try ahashpool but I passed on it (as well as Zpool) because of the high minimum payout, and now that I've read about the problems people have been having the last few days I'm even more happy with my decision.

[jugger1028]

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

[MagicSmoker]

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure.

But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times).

[oddity2505]

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

1080 are getting extra 200-300 kH/s on hsrminer. Even my 1070ti performs significantly better than on ccminer klaust, almost 1500 kH/s versus 1350 kH/s, despite the fact that I have to decrease an overclock for hsrminer a bit to make it stable.

[jugger1028]

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure.

But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times).

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

[jugger1028]

1080 are getting extra 200-300 kH/s on hsrminer. Even my 1070ti performs significantly better than on ccminer klaust, almost 1500 kH/s versus 1350 kH/s, despite the fact that I have to decrease an overclock for hsrminer a bit to make it stable.
[/quote]

OK cool, thanks for confirming.. I probably read some misinformation on the non Ti cards as well, like the coin misinformation I've been reading lately

My 1080 ti's get 200-300+ but I notice not all of them are able to reach those numbers. I tested at the pool and the numbers were consistent with what the miner was displaying on the command line with the pool. My 8 cards got an avg of 1.2mh/s more than the ccminer at the pool which was an 8% increase. One day I'll have time to fiddle with why some cards are hitting near 1800kh/s and some are near 1650kh/s.

[MagicSmoker]

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

Yeah, you keep talking about getting the *current* difficulty from whattomine while I keep saying I am using the *average difficulty for 24h* from minethecoin; very different, those two.

Now, there is one potential problem with using the average difficulty from minethecoin and applying it to the pool: minethecoin is likely performing a moving average for all of the blocks found by all of the pools for the past 24 hours, whereas any given pool will only find a fraction of the total blocks found in a 24 hour period. But I anticipated this issue and it is one of the reasons why I chose the official Trezarcoin pool to do my test and ran the test for 24 hours - again, that allows me to use the average difficulty value from minethecoin and it helps reduce the effects of wild variations in pool luck and/or of the difficulty of the blocks the pool does find.

I already agreed that running the test concurrently with identical hardware on the same pool, just different wallet addresses, would be a better test, but I don't think that automatically means my methodology is worthless.

[jugger1028]

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

Yeah, you keep talking about getting the *current* difficulty from whattomine while I keep saying I am using the *average difficulty for 24h* from minethecoin; very different, those two.

Now, there is one potential problem with using the average difficulty from minethecoin and applying it to the pool: minethecoin is likely performing a moving average for all of the blocks found by all of the pools for the past 24 hours, whereas any given pool will only find a fraction of the total blocks found in a 24 hour period. But I anticipated this issue and it is one of the reasons why I chose the official Trezarcoin pool to do my test and ran the test for 24 hours - again, that allows me to use the average difficulty value from minethecoin and it helps reduce the effects of wild variations in pool luck and/or of the difficulty of the blocks the pool does find.

I already agreed that running the test concurrently with identical hardware on the same pool, just different wallet addresses, would be a better test, but I don't think that automatically means my methodology is worthless.

Bruh, you wanna pass along bad info, that's up to you.. concurrent on same pool+coin or hashrate/share rate is the only way to go. Let go of the coins/difficulty idea, it's not useful.. I'm not picking on you, you just won't let that bad measuring method die. Let me kill it for you.

[Boba_Fett]

I use 3 x 1080 ti and I can't specify an intensity higher than 7, if i put more the program crash.

If I change the intensity (5, 6, 7 or nothing) the performance doesn't change and the memory usage as well (only 6700 Mb)

My perfs : 1600 per card at best.

I have the last drivers.

My cards are oc with +150 GPU, +800 RAM and 70 power limit, no problem with other miners...

[jugger1028]

I use 3 x 1080 ti and I can't specify an intensity higher than 7, if i put more the program crash.

If I change the intensity (5, 6, 7 or nothing) the performance doesn't change and the memory usage as well (only 6700 Mb)

My perfs : 1600 per card at best.

I have the last drivers.

My cards are oc with +150 GPU, +800 RAM and 70 power limit, no problem with other miners...

Don't set anything for intensity, hsrminer does it itself.. Increase your virtual memory above 11gb per card. your overclock seems pretty high, I can't get anything above +100 core stable on HSRminer and +600 mem... I can go +150/+625 on my evga hybrids. my TDP is 90%.. I can get near 1800kh/s on some cards, 1700 on others.. hsrminer is not as stable as the other miners when you have higher overclock, so lower that plus increase the virtual memory by 35gb for those 3 cards and see how that works for you.

[Boba_Fett]

I use 3 x 1080 ti and I can't specify an intensity higher than 7, if i put more the program crash.

If I change the intensity (5, 6, 7 or nothing) the performance doesn't change and the memory usage as well (only 6700 Mb)

My perfs : 1600 per card at best.

I have the last drivers.

My cards are oc with +150 GPU, +800 RAM and 70 power limit, no problem with other miners...

Don't set anything for intensity, hsrminer does it itself.. Increase your virtual memory above 11gb per card. your overclock seems pretty high, I can't get anything above +100 core stable on HSRminer and +600 mem... I can go +150/+625 on my evga hybrids. my TDP is 90%.. I can get near 1800kh/s on some cards, 1700 on others.. hsrminer is not as stable as the other miners when you have higher overclock, so lower that plus increase the virtual memory by 35gb for those 3 cards and see how that works for you.

Thank you for your answer, my cards are rock stable with this speeds (i'm quiet lucky)

So I've only changed the power limit from 70% to 90% and I can obtain 1800 khs...

Now I have to check the power consumption to find the best balance but i'm not at home.

[IncludeBeer]

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure.

But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times).

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

There's nothing more difficult in this world than convincing someone of an unfamiliar truth...

[Eneen]

Any news on linux version?

[Kolmodor]

Any news on linux version?

I want linux to ,but can add keyblind like h= show actual hashrate ?

[beursstarter]

I noticed that on the front page there are three different links to HSR miner (neoscrypy).

There's a link to the Win version, the ZIP and to the test version. Both the Win version and the test version link to a file last changed on 30 Dec and is stable for me on 1050Ti. The link to the ZIP file contains an older .EXE from Dec 25th and is not stable for me.

Maybe this helps other people having trouble with HSR miner. Check if your .exe is the most recent one with file size 7.065.600 bytes.

Further I found that there a speed differences between different GPU models. Therefore I think you can't easily say if a speed score is high or low, it depends also on your GPU model and OC settings.

Here are my scores:
- Gigabyte 1050Ti 4GB OC (490kH/s withour overclocking and 530 kH/s using +144 core clock +170 memory clock, power limit 100)
- MSI 1050Ti 4GB Gaming X (490kH/s withour overclocking and 566 kH/s using +144 core clock +170 memory clock, power limit 100)

I'm mining to Nicehash and with the default software I get around 380 kH/s. When mining with HSR miner I see much higher speed and also much higher earnings so I'm very happy with this miner.

[MagicSmoker]

There's nothing more difficult in this world than convincing someone of an unfamiliar truth...

I'm very easy to convince if your argument has substance and is based in fact, but so far the only arguments I've seen are merely statements that I am wrong or, even less persuasive, that I am an idiot. Since I've designed entire drive systems for locomotives for my day job I'm unlikely to be convinced I'm an idiot just because some random dude on the internet says so.

Again, I am more than happy to change my testing methodology if a reasonable explanation can be given as to how it could be so flawed it would result in a 30% difference in coins earned on two consecutive days based on reported hashrate and average difficulty on minethecoin.com (not a snapshot of earnings from whattomine.com).

That said, the official Trezarcoin pool does allow mining with a fixed difficulty but adding a second account from the same IP address appears to be blocked by default - I've already sent an email to the support address saying I want to add a second account so I can test miners concurrently but no response so far. Thus I can at least try jugger1028's suggestion to count the number of shares earned with a fixed difficulty for x period of time with hsrminer, then compare that by mining with ccminer for the same period of time/same difficulty; the length of time wasn't specified, but based on the average time to find a block on pool.trezarcoin.com it seems that 12 hours per miner should be sufficient.

So, if that is acceptable I will proceed with the test, and if the results contradict my earlier findings I will edit my previous posts to warn that I got different results with a different test methodology because I don't have a particular axe to grind here.

[zorday]

So, I did the test I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.

I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%

I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.

I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds

The reported hash rates from each miner were :

KlausT :       1480 kH/s
hsrminer:     1790 kH/s


During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:

KlausT:       0.07451398  QBIC
hsrminer:     0.07188344 QBIC


One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited ) and created the graph below.
The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.

https://ibb.co/cSv9im

While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.