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

[-ck]

New version: Version 2.3.0 - February 23, 2012

Thanks for the update mate, but this version doesn't compile a bitalign kernel for my cards (5850's), it's the non-bitalign kernel which is much slower (~320MH/s vs ~400MH/s).

Copying over the bin from the previous version and renaming it from "phatk120213Cypressbitalignv2w256long4" to "phatk120222Cypressv2w256l4" doesn't work also (HW failures).

Woah now there is nothing that should stop it compiling a bitalign kernel. It just stops CALLING it bitalign. You're not doing the SDK 2.6 dance are you?

[1713309474]

1713309474

[1713309474]

1713309474

[1713309474]

1713309474

[1713309474]

1713309474

[Vbs]

New version: Version 2.3.0 - February 23, 2012

Thanks for the update mate, but this version doesn't compile a bitalign kernel for my cards (5850's), it's the non-bitalign kernel which is much slower (~320MH/s vs ~400MH/s).

Copying over the bin from the previous version and renaming it from "phatk120213Cypressbitalignv2w256long4" to "phatk120222Cypressv2w256l4" doesn't work also (HW failures).

Woah now there is nothing that should stop it compiling a bitalign kernel. It just stops CALLING it bitalign. You're not doing the SDK 2.6 dance are you?

Yeah, I just read the changelog carefully. Nope, no dance, jumping back to 2.2.7 immediately gets back to ~400MH/s (I always unpack each cgminer version to a fresh folder, no leftovers from prev vers). I'll try the other kernels to see how they go.

[-ck]

New version: Version 2.3.0 - February 23, 2012

Thanks for the update mate, but this version doesn't compile a bitalign kernel for my cards (5850's), it's the non-bitalign kernel which is much slower (~320MH/s vs ~400MH/s).

Copying over the bin from the previous version and renaming it from "phatk120213Cypressbitalignv2w256long4" to "phatk120222Cypressv2w256l4" doesn't work also (HW failures).

Woah now there is nothing that should stop it compiling a bitalign kernel. It just stops CALLING it bitalign. You're not doing the SDK 2.6 dance are you?

Yeah, I just read the changelog carefully. Nope, no dance, jumping back to 2.2.7 immediately gets back to ~400MH/s (I always unpack each cgminer version to a fresh folder, no leftovers from prev vers). I'll try the other kernels to see how they go.

What does:
cgminer -n
report? And what kernel .bin file is being generated for you by default?

[The00Dustin]

Nope, no dance, jumping back to 2.2.7 immediately gets back to ~400MH/s (I always unpack each cgminer version to a fresh folder, no leftovers from prev vers).

Unless you can say "Nope, no dance, I don't have SDK 2.6 installed" or "Nope, no dance, jumping back to a fresh install of 2.2.7 that compiles a fresh kernel immediately gets back to ~400MH/s" you are probably doing the dance.  Most people doing the dance don't know it.

[The00Dustin]

ck, if you can give me a hint as to how to compile a 32-bit version on a 64-bit linux machine, I can provide cypress kernels for l4 along with l8 from SDK 2.1.

[-ck]

ck, if you can give me a hint as to how to compile a 32-bit version on a 64-bit linux machine, I can provide cypress kernels for l4 along with l8 from SDK 2.1.

Cannot do. You can only make 32 bit kernels from running on 32 bit OS I'm afraid.

[Vbs]

The cgminer window closes really fast on Windows, you really need to put an #ifdef win getch() at the end of execution, since piping the output doesn't work either

Anyway, by a screen grab, it shows Platform version: OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1), with 1 platform device (GPU 0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series), and my settings for engine (970) and mem (150).

The default kernel is phatk120222Cypressv2w128l4.

[-ck]

The cgminer window closes really fast on Windows, you really need to put an #ifdef win getch() at the end of execution, since piping the output doesn't work either

Anyway, by a screen grab, it shows Platform version: OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1), with 1 platform device (GPU 0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series), and my settings for engine (970) and mem (150).

The default kernel is phatk120222Cypressv2w128l4.

Now that's a serious groaner since the phatk kernel is only trivially changed it should not perform any differently   Try -v 2 -w 256 since you're grossly underclocking memory.

If you start it from a dos prompt window the window won't close...

[Vbs]

The cgminer window closes really fast on Windows, you really need to put an #ifdef win getch() at the end of execution, since piping the output doesn't work either

Anyway, by a screen grab, it shows Platform version: OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1), with 1 platform device (GPU 0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series), and my settings for engine (970) and mem (150).

The default kernel is phatk120222Cypressv2w128l4.

Now that's a serious groaner since the phatk kernel is only trivially changed it should not perform any differently   Try -v 2 -w 256 since you're grossly underclocking memory.

If you start it from a dos prompt window the window won't close...

V2w256 is what I always use to get the ~400MH/s, but it seems to hover around ~320MH/s now. Gonna let it run more time and see if the stats change.

I did start it from a dos prompt, but it creates a new (console) window and closes it after it's done. Piping the output like "cgminer -n > report.txt" doesn't work either. Windows really sucks on these small things :S

[Vbs]

I now have one 5850 running cgminer 2.2.7 and another on 2.3.0, on the same engine/mem clocks. I'll be counting the accepted shares on the pool they are connected to and see if there is a significant difference. Cgminer 2.2.7 is reporting ~400MH/s and 2.3.0 is reporting ~320MH/s atm. At first glance, it seems they are submitting the same amount of shares (39 vs 40), so this could just be a "cosmetic" change in cgminer 2.3.0. 

[-ck]

I now have one 5850 running cgminer 2.2.7 and another on 2.3.0, on the same engine/mem clocks. I'll be counting the accepted shares on the pool they are connected to and see if there is a significant difference. Cgminer 2.2.7 is reporting ~400MH/s and 2.3.0 is reporting ~320MH/s atm. At first glance, it seems they are submitting the same amount of shares (39 vs 40), so this could just be a "cosmetic" change in cgminer 2.3.0.  

That, unfortunately, does not make sense... and this hashrate drop is more than a little disturbing since there is no real valid explanation for it.

edit: it's so big it's like one has an intensity set and the other is running dynamic.

[Vbs]

I now have one 5850 running cgminer 2.2.7 and another on 2.3.0, on the same engine/mem clocks. I'll be counting the accepted shares on the pool they are connected to and see if there is a significant difference. Cgminer 2.2.7 is reporting ~400MH/s and 2.3.0 is reporting ~320MH/s atm. At first glance, it seems they are submitting the same amount of shares (39 vs 40), so this could just be a "cosmetic" change in cgminer 2.3.0.  

That, unfortunately, does not make sense... and this hashrate drop is more than a little disturbing since there is no real valid explanation for it.

edit: it's so big it's like one has an intensity set and the other is running dynamic.

Yeah, you're right, it was just wishful thinking... The one on 2.3.0 has a U:4.22 vs 2.2.7 with U:5.35. Both are running at I:9.

[stevegee58]

My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.

I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm and phatk.  Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo.  Really noice!

I did notice that suddenly my poclbm performance dropped from around 185 to like 165 with this new release.  But I'm not complaining because of the pleasant diablo surprise.

[-ck]

My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.

I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm.  Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo.  Really noice!

Excellent, that's more the sort of news I was hoping for 

[tenzor]

My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.

I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm.  Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo.  Really noice!

Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256

[stevegee58]

My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.

I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm.  Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo.  Really noice!

Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256

I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.

[tenzor]

I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.

Ok. @960/300 I have 220-225
cgminer 2.2.6

Edit:
Summary:
@960/300 = 220-225
@1000/300 = around 230

cgminer 2.2.6
-I 9 -v 2 -w 256 -k phatk
SDK 2.4, ubuntu, catalyst 11.6

[-ck]

My 6770 runs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster with the diablo kernel.

I was reliably getting around 185-190 Mhash/sec with poclbm.  Now it's reliably around 202 with diablo.  Really noice!

Hmm. my 6770 runs around 230 Nhash/sec with phatk at 1030/300 clocks. -v2 -w256

I haven't been able to reliably run my 6770 above 960.

That doesn't mean you can't try -k phatk -v 2 -w 256
Based on what tenzor says, 960/1030 * 230 means you should be able to get 214

edit: He changed that to 220-225?  * 960/103 is 205 which is not far off what you're getting... Try it anyway  

edit2: DONT FORGET SDK MATTERS!

[cablepair]

thank you ckvolias for this big release on my Birthday!

[Vbs]

Ok, my findings so far:
5850 on SDK 2.5

2.2.7 ~400MH/s with phatk120213

2.3.0 ~320MH/s with phatk120222
2.3.0 ~400MH/s with phatk120213 *but* lots of HW errors!

So it seems the hashrate drop is in the kernel changes?