OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1

[gnar1ta$]

Must be something other than 5970+Linux:  I've been running 2.2.3 on a 3x5970 rig for several days without problems.  (Well, I did have one DEAD core but I had that occasionally with previous versions as well.)

With p2pool:

Code:

"intensity" : "9",
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "810-810",
"gpu-memclock" : "200",
"gpu-fan" : "85",
"temp-cutoff" : "80",
"temp-overheat" : "77",
"temp-target" : "70",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"auto-fan" : true,
"auto-gpu" : true,

Take this out and see what happens:

Code:

"gpu-fan" : "85",

[1714066882]

1714066882

[1714066882]

1714066882

[1714066882]

1714066882

[Proofer]

Must be something other than 5970+Linux:  I've been running 2.2.3 on a 3x5970 rig for several days without problems.  (Well, I did have one DEAD core but I had that occasionally with previous versions as well.)

With p2pool:

Code:

"intensity" : "9",
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "810-810",
"gpu-memclock" : "200",
"gpu-fan" : "85",
"temp-cutoff" : "80",
"temp-overheat" : "77",
"temp-target" : "70",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"auto-fan" : true,
"auto-gpu" : true,

Take this out and see what happens:

Code:

"gpu-fan" : "85",

I believe that will cause one unit's fan -- cores 0-1 -- to go to 100%, which I don't want to see; currently:

Code:

 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  72.5C 4593RPM | 364.7/363.8Mh/s | A:1559 R:45 HW:0 U: 1.89/m I: 9
 GPU 1:  76.0C 4593RPM | 365.1/364.2Mh/s | A:1562 R:48 HW:0 U: 1.89/m I: 9
 GPU 2:  68.0C 4438RPM | 365.1/364.2Mh/s | A:1614 R:44 HW:0 U: 1.95/m I: 9
 GPU 3:  63.0C 4438RPM | 365.1/364.2Mh/s | A:1568 R:45 HW:0 U: 1.90/m I: 9
 GPU 4:  65.5C 4493RPM | 365.0/364.1Mh/s | A:1580 R:56 HW:0 U: 1.91/m I: 9
 GPU 5:  68.5C 4493RPM | 365.2/364.1Mh/s | A:1493 R:45 HW:0 U: 1.81/m I: 9

However, if you really believe the experiment may be of use to the community, let me know and I'll do it.

[gnar1ta$]

Proofer it will only go to 100% at the temp-overheat value which you have set to 77.

[Proofer]

Proofer it will only go to 100% at the temp-overheat value which you have set to 77.

OK, I just removed the gpu-fan parameter and am leaving for the gym.  If I come back and my house is a pile of smoking rubble you will be in BIG TROUBLE!

[gnar1ta$]

Proofer it will only go to 100% at the temp-overheat value which you have set to 77.

OK, I just removed the gpu-fan parameter and am leaving for the gym.  If I come back and my house is a pile of smoking rubble you will be in BIG TROUBLE!

Ha, at least you will be to worn out to do much about it 

[Proofer]

Proofer it will only go to 100% at the temp-overheat value which you have set to 77.

OK, I just removed the gpu-fan parameter and am leaving for the gym.  If I come back and my house is a pile of smoking rubble you will be in BIG TROUBLE!

Ha, at least you will be to worn out to do much about it 

After about 1.5 hours I see no difference after removing gpu-fan.  I'll report back if I encounter any problems.

[os2sam]

OK, so I take it that I can no longer copy the .bin files from previous versions of CGMiner?
I can't get 2.2.3 to generate them.
Sam

[Eveofwar]

2.2.3 had strange behavior on my fixed-fan-rate rig, 10% lower hash rate on 5870s and crash on 5970

I think I had the same issue with my 5970.

Yesterday the rig sputtered while watching a video, mouse froze then screen went black.  Had to hard power off the rig and reset it, brought it back up and mining was fine.

This morning, shortly after a Longpoll -- 4-5 shares were submitted across my 4 GPUs, and then the stuttering starts again and my Kill-A-Watt shows my usage being near idle.  Mouse is basically unresponsive and doesn't do much.  Hard reset the machine again, 5970 wasn't being detected by Windows 7 or GPUz...powered off and back on, detected and mining under 2.2.1 until this can get resolved.

Both times, the 5970 fans would spin to 100%

[brox]

Maybe nobody cares, but I should notice anyway.
Version 2.0.8 (win32) is last that works fast and effective. My 5850 gives 350 MH/s and I'm happy with the speed. All later versions (I tried every one of them) under the same conditions (cmdline options are the same) give just 308 MH/s
Any ideas?

[P4man]

Maybe nobody cares, but I should notice anyway.
Version 2.0.8 (win32) is last that works fast and effective. My 5850 gives 350 MH/s and I'm happy with the speed. All later versions (I tried every one of them) under the same conditions (cmdline options are the same) give just 308 MH/s
Any ideas?

Yes, you upgraded your video drivers. Thats the root cause. The reason your old copy of cgminer still works faster, is because it contains a cached/compiled copy of the .BIN file generated with your old drivers and sdk. If you were to reinstall 2.0.8 you will likely get the same lousy hashrate.

See here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63383.0

[DeathAndTaxes]

Maybe nobody cares, but I should notice anyway.
Version 2.0.8 (win32) is last that works fast and effective. My 5850 gives 350 MH/s and I'm happy with the speed. All later versions (I tried every one of them) under the same conditions (cmdline options are the same) give just 308 MH/s
Any ideas?

Yes, you upgraded your video drivers. Thats the root cause. The reason your old copy of cgminer still works faster, is because it contains a cached/compiled copy of the .BIN file generated with your old drivers and sdk. If you were to reinstall 2.0.8 you will likely get the same lousy hashrate.

See here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63383.0

For the speptical. 

1) make a copy of the bin files in your old "fast" cgminer.
2) delete the bin files
3) run "old fast" cgminer.  You will notice it has similar performance to the new cgminer.
4) copy "fast bins" to new cgminer
5) you will notice it has fast performance just like "old" cgminer.

[-ck]

OK, so I take it that I can no longer copy the .bin files from previous versions of CGMiner?
I can't get 2.2.3 to generate them.
Sam

Change the datestamp on your old bins to the new dates. That will do it. One day, just one day, I'd like for that fucking failed to build bug to go away. Maybe next release! 

[sveetsnelda]

So what's the damage? Well on the 7970 at 1200/1050 clocks, which was getting 694MHash, it's now getting 711Mhash. The 7970 has this unusual behaviour where the hashrate slowly rises for the first 5-10 minutes.

Beautiful.  I'm running this on 2 of my boxes and seeing substantial increases.  I'm getting about a 3.3% increase on the overclocked box.  What's really weird is that I saw a 6.5% increase on the box that's only overclocked by 75 mhz.  Heh.  Weird.  I'll take it though.

[-ck]

So what's the damage? Well on the 7970 at 1200/1050 clocks, which was getting 694MHash, it's now getting 711Mhash. The 7970 has this unusual behaviour where the hashrate slowly rises for the first 5-10 minutes.

Beautiful.  I'm running this on 2 of my boxes and seeing substantial increases.  I'm getting about a 3.3% increase on the overclocked box.  What's really weird is that I saw a 6.5% increase on the box that's only overclocked by 75 mhz.  Heh.  Weird.  I'll take it though.

After an overnight run:
GPU 0:  73.0C 4743RPM | 708.1/706.7Mh/s | A:4454 R:7 HW:0 U: 9.83/m I:11
So I'll call the actual rate 707

Note that there are "sweet spots" in hash rate. After you've found the top speed, try going down by 5 at a time. Sometimes you'll find a magic Mhz where it suddenly jumps up. That happened at 920 on my 6970s for example. Maybe that's what you're experiencing.

[P4man]

Note that there are "sweet spots" in hash rate. After you've found the top speed, try going down by 5 at a time. Sometimes you'll find a magic Mhz where it suddenly jumps up.

If that came from anyone else I would have laughed at it. But since its you, Ill have to believe it, but is it not more likely the reason is not so much the clockspeed as such, as the ratio between GPU and memory clock? IOW, rather than reducing your GPU clock, perhaps try increasing the memory clock a little bit?

[-ck]

Note that there are "sweet spots" in hash rate. After you've found the top speed, try going down by 5 at a time. Sometimes you'll find a magic Mhz where it suddenly jumps up.

If that came from anyone else I would have laughed at it. But since its you, Ill have to believe it, but is it not more likely the reason is not so much the clockspeed as such, as the ratio between GPU and memory clock? IOW, rather than reducing your GPU clock, perhaps try increasing the memory clock a little bit?

Indeed, but there is a -125 or -150 difference limit and we're trying to run memory as low as possible. So the equation works out best in energy terms at the lower memory clock where you hit the right ratio difference between mem and engine, wherever that is.

[malevolent]

If that came from anyone else I would have laughed at it.

I heard people posting about it before and myself have found the same but the Mhash/s gains and temp drops are usually (at least to me) too negligible to pay too much attention to it.

[-ck]

If that came from anyone else I would have laughed at it.

I heard people posting about it before and myself have found the same but the Mhash/s gains and temp drops are usually (at least to me) too negligible to pay too much attention to it.

On a 6970 it was 20 Mhash.

[os2sam]

OK, so I take it that I can no longer copy the .bin files from previous versions of CGMiner?
I can't get 2.2.3 to generate them.
Sam

Change the datestamp on your old bins to the new dates. That will do it. One day, just one day, I'd like for that fucking failed to build bug to go away. Maybe next release! 

That worked.

I keep hoping it will go away sometime too.  While I was messing with this I found that the .bin files I've been using aren't from the 2.0.0 build but from 1.6.2.  Don't know if that matters or not at this point.
Thanks,
Sam

[malevolent]

If that came from anyone else I would have laughed at it.

I heard people posting about it before and myself have found the same but the Mhash/s gains and temp drops are usually (at least to me) too negligible to pay too much attention to it.

On a 6970 it was 20 Mhash.

20 MHash/s over worst possible ratio of mem:core or over settings of an overclocked and tweaked card?