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

[JuanHungLo]

Sure it's a software bug in my miner. But i haven't found it yet
I'm uploading tweaked 0.31e right now.

edit: it's online. Please run with param --probe

Okay, I ran the new 0.31e with the modified date of 7/15/2018 7:53am, and the output seems to be exactly the same.

Code:

              +------------------------------------------+
              | JC Expert Cryptonote CPU+GPU Miner 0.31e |
              +------------------------------------------+


For Windows 64-bits
Analyzing Processors topology...
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
Assembly codename: generic_aes_avx
  SSE2          : Yes
  SSE3          : Yes
  SSE4          : Yes
  AES           : Yes
  AVX           : Yes
  AVX2          : Yes

Found CPU 0, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 1
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 1
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Found CPU 1, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 0
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 0
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Found CPU 2, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 3
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 3
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Found CPU 3, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 2
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 2
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
Found CPU 4, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 5
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 5
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Found CPU 5, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 4
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 4
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Found CPU 6, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 7
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 7
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
Found CPU 7, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 6
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 6
  L3 Cache:  8192 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
No OpenCL-capable GPU found.

[Uaciuganadu]

0.31e is still bad for Vega auto config and compared to 0.31c it is about 20h lower with best vega config

[JCE-Miner]

I had better results on my old cards with 0.31e but very possible there's a perf regression on Vega.
What is bad with autoconfig ? Give slow results or just bug ?

Are you talking about perf of CN-v7 or CN-Heavy?

@JuanHungLo: did you pass --probe as param? If yes, so that's... crazy. You then should have at least one line of extra log in red. Not just nothing.

[JuanHungLo]

I had better results on my old cards with 0.31e but very possible there's a perf regression on Vega.
What is bad with autoconfig ? Give slow results or just bug ?

@JuanHungLo: did you pass --probe as param? If yes, so that's... crazy. You then should have at least one line of extra log in red. Not just nothing.

I am outputting all data to a txt file.

@echo off

rem the GPU environment variables
set GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE=100
set GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS=1
set GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT=100
set GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT=100

rem All is good ! Let's mine
@echo on
jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe --probe>2.txt

That way you see all output, if I just run without the redirect then I get the command window and the line "No OpenCL-capable GPU round." is in red.

[Uaciuganadu]

I had better results on my old cards with 0.31e but very possible there's a perf regression on Vega.
What is bad with autoconfig ? Give slow results or just bug ?

Are you talking about perf of CN-v7 or CN-Heavy?

+-- Thread 4 config -----------------------+
| Run on GPU:                      1       |
| Multi-hash:                   1712       |
| Worksize:                        8       |
| Factor Alpha                    64       |
| Factor Beta                      8       |
| Factor Gamma                     4       |
| Factor Delta                     4       |
| Factor Epsilon                   4       |
| Factor Zeta                      4       |
+------------------------------------------+


On vega 64 with v7

Its not the best it can run on the above as i get around 2010h. Also if i set the best known manual config i get lower hash compared to the c version where i get 2095.

[maxity]

My win7-x64, 2 rx580, 2 rx550

Code:

              +------------------------------------------+
              | JC Expert Cryptonote CPU+GPU Miner 0.31e |
              +------------------------------------------+


For Windows 64-bits
Analyzing Processors topology...
Dual Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5650 @ 2.67GHz
Assembly codename: generic_aes
  SSE2          : Yes
  SSE3          : Yes
  SSE4          : Yes
  AES           : Yes
  AVX           : No
  AVX2          : No

Found CPU 0, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 1
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 1
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 1, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 0
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 0
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 2, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 3
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 3
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 3, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 2
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 2
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 4, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 5
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 5
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 5, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 4
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 4
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 6, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 7
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 7
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 7, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 6
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 6
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 8, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 9
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 9
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11
Found CPU 9, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 8
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 8
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11
Found CPU 10, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 11
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 11
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
Found CPU 11, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 10
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 10
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Found CPU 12, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 13
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 13
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 13, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 12
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 12
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 14, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 15
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 15
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 15, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 14
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 14
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 16, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 17
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 17
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 17, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 16
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 16
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 18, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 19
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 19
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 19, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 18
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 18
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 20, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 21
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 21
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23
Found CPU 21, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 20
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 20
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23
Found CPU 22, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 23
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 23
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23
Found CPU 23, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB, shared with CPU 22
  L2 Cache:   256 KB, shared with CPU 22
  L3 Cache: 12288 KB, shared with CPU 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
Calling clGetPlatformIDs
Returned CL_UNKNOWN_ERROR -1001
Found 0 OpenCL PlatformIDs

[JCE-Miner]

good, at least you get an error message. I can investigate, thanks.

I'm reworking my openCL, i hope I can make a version that is fast on all platforms. I can reach 360 on my little rx560 on CN-Heavy, which is better than before, but maybe those optims are bad on Vega...

edit:
https://community.amd.com/thread/129433

Looks like OpenCL + Mingw (my compiler under Win64) don't work well together. Other miners use Visual Studio, so why they work fine.

[polsska]

APU Windows 7 64

For Windows 64-bits
Analyzing Processors topology...
AMD E1-1200 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics
Assembly codename: generic
  SSE2          : Yes
  SSE3          : Yes
  SSE4          : No
  AES           : No
  AVX           : No
  AVX2          : No

Found CPU 0, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB
  L2 Cache:   512 KB
Found CPU 1, with:
  L1 Cache:    32 KB
  L2 Cache:   512 KB

Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
Calling clGetPlatformIDs
Returned CL_UNKNOWN_ERROR -1001
Found 0 OpenCL PlatformIDs

►aÍ☻

the last line is red four unicode characters

[UnclWish]

good, at least you get an error message. I can investigate, thanks.

I'm reworking my openCL, i hope I can make a version that is fast on all platforms. I can reach 360 on my little rx560 on CN-Heavy, which is better than before, but maybe those optims are bad on Vega...

edit:
https://community.amd.com/thread/129433

Looks like OpenCL + Mingw (my compiler under Win64) don't work well together. Other miners use Visual Studio, so why they work fine.

Theme on link is 8 years old...
I think it's not a problem. XMRig AMD and Stak-XMR compiles with mingw64 and works fine. Problem maybe in AMD ADL wich need to compile...

[Sx5000]

Developer! The last version of the miner is just royal, thank you! I look forward to supporting backup pools and temperature monitoring. This is the most useful, in my opinion, functions. Here is the result of the latest version on the bittube, rx552x12, although the hash is a bit unstable (perhaps because of the small amount of RAM for 12 cards).
http://prntscr.com/k71i2b
Thank you again for your work!

[JCE-Miner]

Thanks !

It's royal... on the small RX. On Vega it looks like it's slower than the 0.31c, and since i've no vega to test, i couldn't know. I'll split my code into a RX- and a Vega- version, the vega being closer to 0.31c code.

About OpenCL: maybe the topic is old but i've the exact same problem in the exact same context. I link JCE with a small OpenCL lib for mingw, not the official AMD SDK. I tought the OpenCL lib was just a link wrapper over system OpenCL.dll but obviously, not.

I'll make a 0.31f build over full AMD SDK and, I hope, a fix for Vega speed.

[WebTosha]

Good evening. Can anyone come across a situation, there is a rig for 13 cards. 10 cards on the buffin work stably at 500 h/s, and 3 cards on the Lexa give out 515 h/s but regularly drop to 440 h/s and run at this speed from 2 minutes to 15 minutes, then the speed is again restored to 515 h/s. After a while everything repeats itself. The intensity reduced, alpha and beta, too, the same result.
now everything works with such settings:
     ^{{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },}

I tried with these, the same result
     ^{{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 128, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 128, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },}

Drivers 18.5.1

the frequency does not decrease in these moments

[JCE-Miner]

Hello,

Are they 2Gb cards ? It sounds that's some RX550 or 560 with those speed.
With 2Gb i've a stable hashrate with multi-hash (intensity) of 432, and 448 or 464 when no screen is plugged.
You've a rig of 13 cards, that's big under windows, maybe you reach some drivers limits somewhere. JCE is a pure OpenCL miner, i let OpenCL and the drivers allocate resources, so if your driver makes your hashrate drop, JCE tries nothing to prevent it. Safety first.

I'm building 0.31f right now, with:

Code:

Linked against official AMD SDK 3.0
Invalid shares detected by CPU now logs the Thread and Lane (good for memory diagnostic)
Still new OpenCL code, it's good on all my cards (HD7000, RX550, 560) but blind-experimental on RX570, 580 and vega. Reads: perfs may be worse than 0.31c

edit:0.31f online

[WebTosha]

Hello,

Are they 2Gb cards ? It sounds that's some RX550 or 560 with those speed.
With 2Gb i've a stable hashrate with multi-hash (intensity) of 432, and 448 or 464 when no screen is plugged.
You've a rig of 13 cards, that's big under windows, maybe you reach some drivers limits somewhere. JCE is a pure OpenCL miner, i let OpenCL and the drivers allocate resources, so if your driver makes your hashrate drop, JCE tries nothing to prevent it. Safety first.

I'm building 0.31f right now, with:

Code:

Linked against official AMD SDK 3.0
Invalid shares detected by CPU now logs the Thread and Lane (good for memory diagnostic)
Still new OpenCL code, it's good on all my cards (HD7000, RX550, 560) but blind-experimental on RX570, 580 and vega. Reads: perfs may be worse than 0.31c

edit:0.31f online

Yes it is RX552. The same situation is evident in other miners of the latest versions, but only on lexa cards. I'll try the new version.
Thank you.
Your miner I really like, good speed on the pool and the main stability without falling into the blue screen

[UnclWish]

Hello,

Are they 2Gb cards ? It sounds that's some RX550 or 560 with those speed.
With 2Gb i've a stable hashrate with multi-hash (intensity) of 432, and 448 or 464 when no screen is plugged.
You've a rig of 13 cards, that's big under windows, maybe you reach some drivers limits somewhere. JCE is a pure OpenCL miner, i let OpenCL and the drivers allocate resources, so if your driver makes your hashrate drop, JCE tries nothing to prevent it. Safety first.

I'm building 0.31f right now, with:

Code:

Linked against official AMD SDK 3.0
Invalid shares detected by CPU now logs the Thread and Lane (good for memory diagnostic)
Still new OpenCL code, it's good on all my cards (HD7000, RX550, 560) but blind-experimental on RX570, 580 and vega. Reads: perfs may be worse than 0.31c

edit:0.31f online

Heavy algo is still the same as before?

[Uaciuganadu]

Code:

Linked against official AMD SDK 3.0
Invalid shares detected by CPU now logs the Thread and Lane (good for memory diagnostic)
Still new OpenCL code, it's good on all my cards (HD7000, RX550, 560) but blind-experimental on RX570, 580 and vega. Reads: perfs may be worse than 0.31c

Seems to have same performance as 0.31C for Vega. Good job. The --auto is still not finding the best configuration unfortunately for Vega.

[JCE-Miner]

Autoconfig is still in early stage, at least it produces a config that is valid
i'll improve it for next version.

fine i made a code that is fast on all cards. version e was a regression.

any feedback about the no-GPU found bug?

Heavy : f is faster on RX560 and 550, i peak at 360 against 347 before. but i giveup optimizing on vega for now, i need to get a real vega. blind optims was just regressions on versions d and e.

i also stop changing my netcode, it's a good balance between Stale share aggresivity and rejects. JCE has more rejects than others, but a better pool hashrate. By design.

next big change : gpu fan and temperature. And watchdog.

[h311m4n]

Version f litterally crashes all my RX470s lol

EDIT: stupid me was launching 2 instances of the miner...

[JuanHungLo]

Hello,

Are they 2Gb cards ? It sounds that's some RX550 or 560 with those speed.
With 2Gb i've a stable hashrate with multi-hash (intensity) of 432, and 448 or 464 when no screen is plugged.
You've a rig of 13 cards, that's big under windows, maybe you reach some drivers limits somewhere. JCE is a pure OpenCL miner, i let OpenCL and the drivers allocate resources, so if your driver makes your hashrate drop, JCE tries nothing to prevent it. Safety first.

I'm building 0.31f right now, with:

Code:

Linked against official AMD SDK 3.0
Invalid shares detected by CPU now logs the Thread and Lane (good for memory diagnostic)
Still new OpenCL code, it's good on all my cards (HD7000, RX550, 560) but blind-experimental on RX570, 580 and vega. Reads: perfs may be worse than 0.31c

edit:0.31f online

Unfortunately, it still won't work for my win 7-64, blockchain drivers, RX 470-8GB with integrated graphics on MB.  But the output is different this time, now it says:

Code:

Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
Calling clGetPlatformIDs
Returned CL_UNKNOWN_ERROR -1001
Found 0 OpenCL PlatformIDs

[JCE-Miner]

ok, at least that's a clear error telling it doesn't find your OpenCL
i'll need to turn one rig into a Win7 + betablockchain to reproduce, i cannot continue to fail at blind attemps every time