Bitcoin Forum
November 27, 2020, 12:12:21 PM *
News: Bitcointalk Community Awards
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 [133] 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 ... 366 »
  Print  
Author Topic: SRBMiner Cryptonight AMD GPU Miner V1.9.3 - native algo switching  (Read 234575 times)
dingdongtobias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 10:24:48 AM
 #2641

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"
1606479141
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606479141

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606479141
Reply with quote  #2

1606479141
Report to moderator
1606479141
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606479141

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606479141
Reply with quote  #2

1606479141
Report to moderator
1606479141
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606479141

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606479141
Reply with quote  #2

1606479141
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1606479141
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606479141

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606479141
Reply with quote  #2

1606479141
Report to moderator
1606479141
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606479141

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606479141
Reply with quote  #2

1606479141
Report to moderator
goodminer
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 120
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
 #2642

Is this possible to mine with cpu in this miner and if yes, how?
Sx5000
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 10:50:09 AM
Last edit: June 08, 2018, 11:07:58 AM by Sx5000
 #2643

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Sad Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about ....
abg00
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 259
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 11:00:54 AM
 #2644



Next version in a day or two


have a litle trouble

algo heavy

cards rx470-570 4gb
double treads work fine
in config "intensity" : 29, "double_threads" : true

single treads dont work with error
Error CL_INVALID_BUFFER_SIZE when creating scratchpad buffer for DeviceID 0 (Thread 0)
in config "intensity" : 57, "double_threads" : false

if set intensity 0 setting 44 and slow rate
same rig work fine with config "intensity" : 58, "double_threads" : false
same drivers version 18.2.1 same swap size 60gb for 12 card same windows version 1709
Vince34
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 11:21:38 AM
 #2645

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Sad Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about .... http://prntscr.com/jshefy https://prnt.sc/jsh8gp

Good point Sx5000 !
I'm waiting for Dok's reply..
doktor83
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 611


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2018, 12:17:19 PM
 #2646

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Sad Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about ....

Good point Sx5000 !
I'm waiting for Dok's reply..

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

SRBPolaris thread - HERE   |   SRBMiner-CN thread - HERE    |   SRBMiner-MULTI thread - HERE
http://www.srbminer.com
doktor83
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 611


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2018, 12:21:01 PM
 #2647

I used the proxy with SRBMiner with good results, and tested with XMR-stak also. However, I need to add TLS support and that means I have to learn more stuff. I could also employ the max allowed difficulty in the pool switch too, it may be another parameter in the coin-switch (auto coin switch is in the works, not working Smiley ). When thing get stable enough for SRB (it never does, it's a continuous fight against new drivers and windows updates and new algos) but if at all, coin switching through job json would be super awesome (without miner restart ;=) ), to overcome the namespace problems (everybody is calling some algo differently) since there's no set standard for algo names, you could go with e.g. "_SRB_powtype": "CryptonightV7" , so the proxy can add that to the job json..

But in future if the algo names follow standards, pools can send the "powtype" for any job, this way they can signal miners any algo change due to forks etc. with no problems, so hashrates are not lost with people trying to guess when the fork is going to happen, e.g. they could send "CryptonightHeavy" for block 30000, and "HavenAlgo" for block 30001 so the change would be seamless (even for miners that would need a restart, they would restart at the proper time!), this would be very good for a comfortable transition to new algos. A man can only dream Cheesy

Coin switching for the same algo shouldnt be hard, your proxy sends info in json which coin to mine, minert just switches to the pool/wallet for that coin, and continues to mine. Smiley

If you manage to make it stable enough ("it never does, it's a continuous fight against new drivers and windows updates" Smiley)) ), i can make SRBMiner compatible with it.

SRBPolaris thread - HERE   |   SRBMiner-CN thread - HERE    |   SRBMiner-MULTI thread - HERE
http://www.srbminer.com
sheepman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 12:26:43 PM
 #2648

Got something weird happening when mining IPBC, if I just use my Vega 56 on its own it gets 3800h/s but when I mine alongside my RX 550's it drops to 3000h/s even though intensity etc. is all the same.

Anyone got any ideas?
Sx5000
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 12:44:15 PM
 #2649

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?
ripcurrent
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 160
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 12:53:21 PM
 #2650

Can anyone suggest the proper intensity setting for a vega 56 ... if I use the default it crashes...
UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 1302
Merit: 253


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:01:22 PM
 #2651

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?
I made calculations another way, but I'm agreed that there is something wrong...
You calculate what speed miner gives and must. I calculate how much shares miner must give with mining speed and how much it findes.
Miner gives less founded shares for speed that it indicates.
i calculate next way:

My speed is 2150 h/s. In hour - 2150 h/s * 3570 (-30 sec devfee) = 7675500 h. Now devide by difficulty - 7675500 h / 200007 = 38.38 shares. But real founded shares is about 33-34 in hour...
doktor83
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 611


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2018, 01:04:27 PM
 #2652

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?

too much theory guys.  Better take a 24,48h average from the pool, at the end that's what really matters.
If you get numbers you don't like, switch mining software Smiley

Don't get mad, but i really don't have time and nerves for these kind of things.

I mean if your point isn't that the miner/me is stealing from you, then what is it? What are you trying to say ?

SRBPolaris thread - HERE   |   SRBMiner-CN thread - HERE    |   SRBMiner-MULTI thread - HERE
http://www.srbminer.com
MaxMidnite
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:14:33 PM
 #2653

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]





UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 1302
Merit: 253


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
 #2654

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...
MaxMidnite
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:25:01 PM
 #2655

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?
dingdongtobias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:31:29 PM
 #2656

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

Try this :

{
"cryptonight_type" : "normalv7",
"intensity" : 54,
"double_threads" : true
}


DOKTOR, i am with you i know you are not stealing our hash. Just keep up the good work and ignore smartboys  Grin
heavyarms1912
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 745
Merit: 110



View Profile
June 08, 2018, 01:32:18 PM
 #2657

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

For RX570/RX580
If 4gb cards.  59 intensity, wksize 8, dual threads
If 8gb cards   114-120, wksize 8, dual threads
Sx5000
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 02:00:51 PM
 #2658


too much theory guys.  Better take a 24,48h average from the pool, at the end that's what really matters.
If you get numbers you don't like, switch mining software Smiley

Don't get mad, but i really don't have time and nerves for these kind of things.

I mean if your point isn't that the miner/me is stealing from you, then what is it? What are you trying to say ?


Yes, I will obey your advice about 24 hours and the change of the miner, thx. You do not steal a hash, since all the shares that the miner finds reach the pool. But the hasht at this point is actually lower than the miner draws. Why this happens, I do not know. I came here for help, because I did not have enough of my knowledge. But if you do not know, then I do not have anyone else to turn to ...
MaxMidnite
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 02:10:53 PM
 #2659

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

For RX570/RX580
If 4gb cards.  59 intensity, wksize 8, dual threads
If 8gb cards   114-120, wksize 8, dual threads

Hi man + others

Thanks for the info, these are my new set of results; (double threads = true)

I cannot push this over 86 with 80 being most stable (5200+ hash)

ALL CARDS ARE 8GB

"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU0:    896 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU1:    842 H/s [T: 72c, RPM: 2128, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU2:    848 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2031, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU3:    852 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2127, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU4:    893 H/s [T: 54c, RPM: 2918, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU5:    893 H/s [T: 44c, RPM: 3036, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] Total:   5224 H/s


If I do I get this error:
 Error CL_MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE when calling clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for kernel 0 for DeviceID 1 (Thread 3)
Sx5000
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 08, 2018, 02:17:18 PM
 #2660

Hi man + others

Thanks for the info, these are my new set of results; (double threads = true)

I cannot push this over 86 with 80 being most stable (5200+ hash)

ALL CARDS ARE 8GB

"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU0:    896 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU1:    842 H/s [T: 72c, RPM: 2128, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU2:    848 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2031, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU3:    852 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2127, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU4:    893 H/s [T: 54c, RPM: 2918, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU5:    893 H/s [T: 44c, RPM: 3036, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] Total:   5224 H/s


If I do I get this error:
 Error CL_MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE when calling clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for kernel 0 for DeviceID 1 (Thread 3)

Set the intensity 72, it is the best for v7 at 588, decreasing temporarily the memory frequency for the test.
588 with such settings should produce about 950-970 hashes v7
Pages: « 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 [133] 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 ... 366 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!