[JCE]Fast & stable CN/v8/Heavy/Tube/XHV miner, CPU+GPU, Vega56 1800+ RX580 1200+

[N0pr3s3n7]

Hey guys i got i7-8700 water cooled. What performance should I expect and how should I run the bat file ? I quite dont understand how to manage in order to get FULL hashing performance , while I am not using the computer. Thanks in advance !!!

[gsrcrxsi314]

managed to get my VM setup with 16 threads (host has 40, dual E5-2680v2 10c/20t).

but when i started the bat file with the defaults, it only started 12 threads. i didnt see any setting in the bat file to make it limit to 12, even though the script sees all 16 threads of the processor.

is there a limit of only 12 threads per instance?

got ~560 H/s though. is that good? seems to be on par with a single mid range GPU?

[JCE-Miner]

Jce by default limits itself to 1 thread per 2M of cache (4M for cryptonight heavy). You can force more with parameter -t but it tends to flood the cache and lower performance. But not always, pentium4 and atom are better with all cores enabled, regardless of the cache. To be tested per cpu.

Good news the k10 bug is consistent, it will be easier to debug. Maybe try force another assembly with --archi pentium4 for example, to see if its an hardware oddity or asm big bug.
I've a k8 somewhere, will try on it. Remote debug would be complicated, i'd have to setup a whole dev environement. At last i'd buy a used k10 system, it wouldn't cost that much today.

Next release should have double-hash.

[Lonnegan64]

Good job Fixing the K8/K10 bug might be a door opener for your miner. To be realistic, xmrig and xmr-stak have such a strong position in the market and are highly optimized, so it would be difficult to displace them on normal systems. But the strong performance of your miner on non-AES systems could be a market niche, to get those hunderts and thousands of older systems into mining which atm are too weak for cryptonight 

[JCE-Miner]

Jce is faster than them  , even with aes, but the difference is tight, i admit. About 2%.
Both xmrig and stak use old code from Wolf0, which is unfair, even if they give credit. My code is completely new, not even in the same language (i use asm).

Sure the real gain is on non-aes and 32 bits. My own rig is made of five Core2 Xeons 2.666Ghz, 117h/s versus ~85 for other miners.

[UnclWish]

Yes! On 32-bit nonAES CPU 0.19 is faster than others. Thanks!
Now waiting double threads and new coins!

[Lonnegan64]

Same here PhenomII X6 1090T, rejected by the pool due to "low difficulty share"

Have you tried the 32-bit version, too? It's a bit strange. With the 64-bit version the results are rejected on AMD Athlon II X2 "Regor" as well as on AMD Phenom II X4 "Deneb". The 32-bit version instead works on "Regor" but doesn't even start on my "Deneb". Can you please try if your AMD Phenom II X6 "Thuban" works with the 32-bit version?

[gsrcrxsi314]

Jce by default limits itself to 1 thread per 2M of cache (4M for cryptonight heavy). You can force more with parameter -t but it tends to flood the cache and lower performance. But not always, pentium4 and atom are better with all cores enabled, regardless of the cache. To be tested per cpu.

Good news the k10 bug is consistent, it will be easier to debug. Maybe try force another assembly with --archi pentium4 for example, to see if its an hardware oddity or asm big bug.
I've a k8 somewhere, will try on it. Remote debug would be complicated, i'd have to setup a whole dev environement. At last i'd buy a used k10 system, it wouldn't cost that much today.

Next release should have double-hash.

ah, makes sense. the CPU's do have 25MB cache each. so it looks like 2x 12-thread VMs would be the ticket. my VM software (bhyve) limits me to 16 cores per vm anyway.

does the speed sound right for 12 threads at 2.8GHz? 560H/s

[JCE-Miner]

My ryzen 1600 (6 cores, 16M cache, 8 mining threads, 3.2GHz, direct hardware (no VM)) peaks at 507, your performance sounds consistent, but i don't know how negative is the use of a VM.

Good news : I've setup an antique Athlon64 on Windows 7 x64 and I can reproduce the K8-K10 bug. Fixing, should be done in a few hours.

It invalidates version 0.17 to 0.19, switch to 0.20 once possible.
Then i update the documentation and remove the zip from github.

Sorry men for the bug

[JCE-Miner]

K8-K10 bug fixed

please update, unless you use AES or 32-bits, in such case JCE 0.19 and 0.20 are the exact same.
Documentation on first post now explains the attrib trick.

[aGeoM]

Same here PhenomII X6 1090T, rejected by the pool due to "low difficulty share"

Have you tried the 32-bit version, too? It's a bit strange. With the 64-bit version the results are rejected on AMD Athlon II X2 "Regor" as well as on AMD Phenom II X4 "Deneb". The 32-bit version instead works on "Regor" but doesn't even start on my "Deneb". Can you please try if your AMD Phenom II X6 "Thuban" works with the 32-bit version?

32Bit it is fine, hashes about 110H/s with 5 threads.

K8-K10 bug fixed

please update, unless you use AES or 32-bits, in such case JCE 0.19 and 0.20 are the exact same.
Documentation on first post now explains the attrib trick.

Testing it now. Thanks.

Edit

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9485636JCEX6.jpg

 

[JCE-Miner]

Good, and thanks for the screen
So that cpu has six cores and 3M of L2 + 6M of L3. Don't you have more perf with 6 threads ?
Or with my dual-thread feature, which is exactly made for that kind of cpu (no aes, lots of cores, low cache) ?
The config example in the zip would worth a look

[aGeoM]

Config 1:

Code:

"cpu_threads_conf" : 
[ 
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 0, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 1, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 2, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 3, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 4, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 5, "use_cache" : true },
]

Start 1

Code:

jce_cn_cpu_miner%BITS%.exe [b]--low[/b] -o %POOL%:%PORT% -u %WALLET% -p %PASSWORD% %SSL% %* -c config.txt --variation 3

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8848686JCEX6-6T-LOW.jpg

Start 2

Code:

jce_cn_cpu_miner%BITS%.exe  -o %POOL%:%PORT% -u %WALLET% -p %PASSWORD% %SSL% %* -c config.txt --variation 3

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2341731JCEX6-6T-HI.jpg

Config 2:

Code:

"cpu_threads_conf" : 
[ 
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 0, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 1, "use_cache" : true, "dual_mine_with": 0 },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 2, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 3, "use_cache" : true, "dual_mine_with": 2 },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 4, "use_cache" : true },
     { "cpu_architecture" : "phenomii", "affine_to_cpu" : 5, "use_cache" : true, "dual_mine_with": 4 },
]

Start 1

Code:

jce_cn_cpu_miner%BITS%.exe [b]--low[/b] -o %POOL%:%PORT% -u %WALLET% -p %PASSWORD% %SSL% %* -c config2.txt --variation 3

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5357300JCEX6-6T-LOW-dual.jpg

EDIT

With a little OC to keep same CPU voltage (config1 and start1)

http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9095799JCEX6-6T-LOW-OC.jpg

[JCE-Miner]

Sorry i should have been more explicit : The idea was to set 6 threads on cpu 0-5 and make thread 5 (the last) dualmine with thread 4 (the one before). Period. And not use dualmine three times, which of course kill the perf.

But... Invalid hashes on dualmine on your k10... Yeah I made 0.20 so fast that I didn't even check the dualmine version of buggy k8-k10 asm, stupid. I'll go for another 0.21 that invalidate previous, remove all zip from github... Again.  

Will release asap. If you want a new unlisted coin by the way, ask here  

[Lonnegan64]

K8-K10 bug fixed

please update, unless you use AES or 32-bits, in such case JCE 0.19 and 0.20 are the exact same.
Documentation on first post now explains the attrib trick.

Yeeeees!  Great job! 

In the matter of OS Windows Vista / Server 2008 is min system requirement, isn't it? Any chance to get the code running on Windows XP / Server 2003? I have some of the very old boxes here with these operating systems.

[JCE-Miner]

I document minimum to be Seven, but I got reports 2008 Server and Vista work too.
XP and 2003 don't support Huge Pages, so they are not viable mining os

[sabercrypto]

i tried this on xeon haswell i got 155 hash for cryptonight heavy. xmrstak got 165 hash

[Iamtutut]

Was somebody already able to try it with a ryzen 5 2400G ?

[UnclWish]

Why miner stops to connect?

12:30:50 | Pool sends a new Job.
12:31:43 | Pool sends a new Job.
12:32:32 | Pool sends a new Job.
12:33:05 | Pool sends a new Job.
12:33:12 | Nicehash session timeout, instant-reconnect.
12:33:12 | Connecting with SSL to mining pool cryptonightv7.eu.nicehash.com:33363 ...
12:33:12 | Connected to pool. Now logging in...
12:33:12 | Connection failed: Socket receive error: socket explicitly closed by the pool
12:33:12 | Connection interrupted, waiting 5s then retry.
12:33:17 | Connecting with SSL to mining pool cryptonightv7.eu.nicehash.com:33363 ...
12:33:18 | Connected to pool. Now logging in...
12:33:18 | Connection failed: Socket receive error: socket explicitly closed by the pool
12:33:18 | Connection interrupted, waiting 5s then retry.
12:33:22 | Connecting with SSL to mining pool cryptonightv7.eu.nicehash.com:33363 ...
12:33:23 | Connected to pool. Now logging in...
12:33:23 | Connection failed: Socket receive error: socket explicitly closed by the pool
12:33:23 | Connection interrupted, waiting 5s then retry.
12:33:28 | Connecting with SSL to mining pool cryptonightv7.eu.nicehash.com:33363 ...
12:34:44 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:34:44 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:34:44 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:34:44 | Total: 0.00 h/s
12:39:38 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:39:38 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:39:38 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:39:38 | Total: 0.00 h/s
12:44:31 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:44:31 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:44:31 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:44:31 | Total: 0.00 h/s
12:49:25 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:49:25 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:49:25 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:49:25 | Total: 0.00 h/s
12:54:18 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:54:18 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:54:18 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:54:18 | Total: 0.00 h/s
12:59:12 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
12:59:12 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
12:59:12 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
12:59:12 | Total: 0.00 h/s
13:04:05 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
13:04:05 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
13:04:05 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
13:04:05 | Total: 0.00 h/s
13:08:59 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
13:08:59 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
13:08:59 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
13:08:59 | Total: 0.00 h/s
13:13:53 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
13:13:53 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
13:13:53 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
13:13:53 | Total: 0.00 h/s
13:18:46 | Hashrate Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
13:18:46 | Hashrate Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
13:18:46 | Hashrate Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
13:18:46 | Total: 0.00 h/s
13:22:13 | Stop signal received, Quitting...

Closing and launching again somtime fix connection... sometime not...

[Larvitar]

My ryzen 1600 (6 cores, 16M cache, 8 mining threads, 3.2GHz, direct hardware (no VM)) peaks at 507, your performance sounds consistent, but i don't know how negative is the use of a VM.

Good news : I've setup an antique Athlon64 on Windows 7 x64 and I can reproduce the K8-K10 bug. Fixing, should be done in a few hours.

It invalidates version 0.17 to 0.19, switch to 0.20 once possible.
Then i update the documentation and remove the zip from github.

Sorry men for the bug

What are your memory clock?

Ryzen likes memory at 2800+ and lowering the main timings (for 15-15-15-36 1T as example)