[ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net

[Aalesund]

benchmark

I have not changed anything except that I added a little more threads with "-t" option, I use the original minerd from 1st post.
I'm surprised I did not expect such a result  

 

very nice what is the command you are using in console?

I use Windows 8 pro 64 bit.
I made ​​a start.bat file with this command
start minerd -o 127.0.0.1:8772 -O u:p -a blake -s 2 --no-longpoll --no-stratum -t 128
default is 8 threads for my CPU, but I increased (8, 16, 32 ...) to test how much I can load my CPU just for fun and unexpectedly I got very strange good results  
my CPU can handle up to 200 threads but after a few seconds everything freezes and I have to restart my computer.
I found that the best performance are between 100-150 threads for my CPU.
Yes, 128 threads are crazy but minerd works perfectly and I can use the rest part of the computer for surfing, watching movies, etc.

[maxsolnc]

benchmark

I have not changed anything except that I added a little more threads with "-t" option, I use the original minerd from 1st post.
I'm surprised I did not expect such a result  

 

very nice what is the command you are using in console?

I use Windows 8 pro 64 bit.
I made ​​a start.bat file with this command
start minerd -o 127.0.0.1:8772 -O u:p -a blake -s 2 --no-longpoll --no-stratum -t 128
default is 8 threads for my CPU, but I increased (8, 16, 32 ...) to test how much I can load my CPU just for fun and unexpectedly I got very strange good results  
my CPU can handle up to 200 threads but after a few seconds everything freezes and I have to restart my computer.
I found that the best performance are between 100-150 threads for my CPU.
Yes, 128 threads are crazy but minerd works perfectly and I can use the rest part of the computer for surfing, watching movies, etc.

I confirm that - increasing number of threads increases speed (is benchmark correct in such case? )
I set thread number to 256 (24-core processor), and got 66613 KH (comparing to 17000 KH with default numbers)

[BlueDragon747]

benchmark

I have not changed anything except that I added a little more threads with "-t" option, I use the original minerd from 1st post.
I'm surprised I did not expect such a result 

 

very nice what is the command you are using in console?

I use Windows 8 pro 64 bit.
I made ​​a start.bat file with this command
start minerd -o 127.0.0.1:8772 -O u:p -a blake -s 2 --no-longpoll --no-stratum -t 128
default is 8 threads for my CPU, but I increased (8, 16, 32 ...) to test how much I can load my CPU just for fun and unexpectedly I got very strange good results 
my CPU can handle up to 200 threads but after a few seconds everything freezes and I have to restart my computer.
I found that the best performance are between 100-150 threads for my CPU.
Yes, 128 threads are crazy but minerd works perfectly and I can use the rest part of the computer for surfing, watching movies, etc.

I confirm that - increasing number of threads increases speed (is benchmark correct in such case? )
I set thread number to 256 (24-core processor), and got 66613 KH (comparing to 17000 KH with default numbers)

I don't see why not try mining with it and if you get accepted blocks it works, tried on my Intel i7 2600k machine but not getting much speed increase are you both using Amd based hardware?

just tested on a old core2 e7300 and I can confirm speed increase with 256 threads

[tacotime]

You should be well into the triple or quadruple digit MH/s with a GPU

BLAKE has higher throughput than SHA256 if I'm remembering correctly

[BlueDragon747]

You should be well into the triple or quadruple digit MH/s with a GPU

BLAKE has higher throughput than SHA256 if I'm remembering correctly

yeah maybe even GH/s with GPU but I have not ported to opencl yet but plan is to get that done before xmas

throughput wise with the sphlib

sha256 ~ 277MB/s
blake256 ~ 400MB/s

[maxsolnc]

There is minerd thread limit 999  So I added 998 threads to my machines , I'll report if it gives real block generation speed increase

[BlueDragon747]

There is minerd thread limit 999  So I added 998 threads to my machines , I'll report if it gives real block generation speed increase

lol not sure if it is a bug but I did increase the i7 threads to 880 and getting about 298763 khash/s but machine is almost unusable 

[maxsolnc]

There is minerd thread limit 999  So I added 998 threads to my machines , I'll report if it gives real block generation speed increase

lol not sure if it is a bug but I did increase the i7 threads to 880 and getting about 298763 khash/s but machine is almost unusable 

I made 998 threads on several machines with Xeon processors (2 cpus), now waiting for block 512 threads gave me near 200.000KH performance, but I'm not sure that it is 'real' number showing in benchmark. Anyway, with such speed I should get blocks up to 10 times more often, if so - I'll confirm

[BlueDragon747]

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards 

[Adrenalin]

So anybody got a block with more threads than standart settings?

[maxsolnc]

So anybody got a block with more threads than standart settings?

30 minutes, no blocks (even with dropped difficulty), though I was getting near block per hour before this change. So I think that these numbers doesn't show anything real.

[BlueDragon747]

So anybody got a block with more threads than standart settings?

30 minutes, no blocks (even with dropped difficulty), though I was getting near block per hour before this change. So I think that these numbers doesn't show anything real.

yeah I think it might just be the way the hash rate is calculated still best bug I have seen for awhile and a good find by Aalesund 

[ciklop1974]

Core i7 3820
I do not know it's real speed or not.

[dr_chen]

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards 

Difficulty dropped. Happy mining. Does the difficulty relate to the network speed

[maxsolnc]

Core i7 3820
I do not know it's real speed or not.

anyway, you can leave your machine for several hours (not for 30 minutes like me  ) and try to see if something really changes

[BlueDragon747]

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards 

Difficulty dropped. Happy mining. Does the difficulty relate to the network speed

yes but the large jumps are down to how it was being calculated from block 3500 this should be much slower to jump up in difficulty but still jump down quite quick when network hash rate drops

and don't forget that block reward is 25 + (square root of (difficulty + block height)) so when we get to the situation Bitcoin is in e.g high block and high difficulty the miner should be rewarded appropriately and none of the block halfing nonsense

I picked blake for the high throughput, its parallelism and its works well on all platforms CPU/GPU/FPGA this way we can have a fast network with high tps e.g if you have more hashes you have more chances to be lucky    

[dr_chen]

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards 

Difficulty dropped. Happy mining. Does the difficulty relate to the network speed

yes but the large jumps are down to how it was being calculated from block 3500 this should be much slower to jump up in difficulty but still jump down quite quick when network hash rate drops

and don't forget that block reward is 25 + (square root of (difficulty + block height)) so when we get to the situation Bitcoin is in e.g high block and high difficulty the miner should be rewarded appropriately and none of the block halfing nonsense

I picked blake for the high throughput, its parallelism and its works well on all platforms CPU/GPU/FPGA this way we can have a fast network with high tps e.g if you have more hashes you have more chances to be lucky    

The new wallet is also Blakecoin-0.8.5-WIN.zip. is it the same with the old one. I found that blakecoind.exe has increased from 5480k to 5481k. is the zip file with 5481k the new wallet.

[Spayse]

been solo mining for almost 2 days  @ 1.7 mhs no coins any donations to continue my efforts would be appreciated

Bk1SGXCtyrHkVEJ8EDmAzkxtH78m3PuhTp  

please share the wealth  

[BlueDragon747]

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards 

Difficulty dropped. Happy mining. Does the difficulty relate to the network speed

yes but the large jumps are down to how it was being calculated from block 3500 this should be much slower to jump up in difficulty but still jump down quite quick when network hash rate drops

and don't forget that block reward is 25 + (square root of (difficulty + block height)) so when we get to the situation Bitcoin is in e.g high block and high difficulty the miner should be rewarded appropriately and none of the block halfing nonsense

I picked blake for the high throughput, its parallelism and its works well on all platforms CPU/GPU/FPGA this way we can have a fast network with high tps e.g if you have more hashes you have more chances to be lucky    

The new wallet is also Blakecoin-0.8.5-WIN.zip. is it the same with the old one. I found that blakecoind.exe has increased from 5480k to 5481k. is the zip file with 5481k the new wallet.

yes I replaced the .7z file so its the latest

5481k for blakecoind.exe is correct and latest

[dr_chen]

been solo mining for almost 2 days  @ 1.7 mhs no coins any donations to continue my efforts would be appreciated

Bk1SGXCtyrHkVEJ8EDmAzkxtH78m3PuhTp  

please share the wealth  

have sent you 10 BLC