X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log

[JackIT]

Over the past few weeks I've done a number of "head to head" miner tests running at the same time on the same rig on the same pool, with multiple rounds to allow each miner to run on each GPU grouping (with exception of some early tests).

I've posted these results on https://ravenforum.org and various Discord channels. Unfortunately, the formatting and site speed on ravenforum.org are less than optimal. So, I'm here, posting the results for posterity's sake?  

Here they are in reverse chronological order:

Instance Balance Test... are they really balanced? yes, yes they are.
April 28th, 2018 - 692 Minutes - No restarts

• [Instance 1] 205.21 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] 205.11 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] 202.17 RVN - Pool Link

Enemy 1.09a Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git4a static diff
May 10th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09a	| 122.80 RVN
#2	-2.68%	| Enemy 1.08	| 118.36 RVN
#3	-6.35%	| sp-mod git4a	| 113.80 RVN

Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing
May 9th, 2018 - Test Results.

#1	*	| Diff = Mh/s / 2	| 127.58 RVN
#2	-5.44%	| var diff	| 121.00 RVN

Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3
May 7th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 106.27 RVN
#2	-7.62%	| Enemy 1.08	| 98.75 RVN
#3	-9.41%	| sp-mod	| 97.13 RVN

Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git1
May 5th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 137.38 RVN
#2	-5.71%	| Enemy 1.08	| 129.96 RVN
#3	-14.41%	| sp-mod	| 120.08 RVN

Pool Testing: Suprnova Vs Ravenminer Vs CryptoPool.party
April 29th, 2018 - Test Results.


Enemy 1.08 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2
April 27th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 211.20 RVN
#2	-14.98%	| Silent Miner  1.1.0	| 183.68 RVN
#3	-29.76%	| a1min3r 1.42	| 162.76 RVN

Variable Vs. Static Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing
April 25th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Var Diff	| 188.34 RVN
#2	-1.55%	| d=50	| 185.10 RVN
#3	-2.82%	| d=36	| 183.23 RVN

Enemy 1.08 @ 100% TDP [ no OC Vs. +250 mem ]
April 24th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy +250 mem	| 337.39 RVN
#2	-0.90%	| Enemy no OC	| 334.40 RVN

Enemy 1.08 Vs Silent Miner v1.0.9
April 24th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 134.07 RVN
#2	-8.13%	| Silent Miner v1.0.9	| 123.99 RVN

Enemy 1.08 - mem OC & power settings test
April 21st, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| (100% TDP / +250 mem)	| 150.92 RVN
#2	-5.90%	| (80% TDP / No overclock)	| 142.51 RVN
#3	-6.01%	| (80% TDP / +250 mem)	| 142.37 RVN

Enemy 1.08 Vs.Ravencoin Miner 2.5 Vs. Suprminer 1.6
April 20th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 116.17 RVN
#2	-8.16%	| Ravencoin Miner v2.5	| 107.41 RVN
#3	-8.60%	| Suprminer 1.6	| 106.97 RVN

Ravencoin Miner v2.5 Vs. Suprminer 1.6 Vs. PoolParty 1.3
April 11th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Ravencoin Miner v2.5	| 108.51 RVN
#2	-1.43%	| Suprminer 1.6	| 106.98 RVN
#3	-4.17%	| PoolParty 1.3	| 104.17 RVN

Suprminer 1.6 Vs A1min3r 0.1.2 Vs Nevermore 0.2.2 Vs Enemy 1.04
April 8th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Suprminer 1.6	| 67.98 RVN
#2	-0.06%	| A1min3r 0.1.2	| 67.94 RVN
#3	-6.43%	| Nevermore 0.2.2	| 63.87 RVN
#3	-7.70%	| Enemy 1.04	| 63.12 RVN

A1min3r 0.1.2 Vs. Enemy 1.04 Vs Enemy 1.03
April 8th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| a1_min3r	| 88.22 RVN
#2	-0.75%	| Enemy 1.04	| 87.56 RVN
#3	-4.92%	| Enemy 1.03	| 84.08 RVN

Suprminer 1.6 Vs. Enemy 1.03 Vs. Enemy 1.05
April 7th, 2018 - Full Test Results.

#1	*	| Suprminer 1.6	| 108.53 RVN
#2	-1.41%	| Enemy 1.03	| 107.02 RVN
#3	-1.77%	| Enemy 1.05	| 106.64 RVN

[bitcoinbromo]

Thanks for the testing, it has been very helpful.

Anyway you could do more testing in regards to overclock (specificially TDP and core clock)?

[JackIT]

Thanks for the testing, it has been very helpful.

Anyway you could do more testing in regards to overclock (specificially TDP and core clock)?

I have a few Zotac Amp Extreme GPUs in this test rig, they're factory OC'd. With as little as +100 core, they'll crash. So, unfortunately I can't reliably test core OC

[chrysophylax]

Nice setup.

Comparisons need to be tested over time.

Good job mate.

#crysx

[pomelo]

Great work man. Appreciate it!

Any benchmarks to give idea about intensity 20 vs 21 hash speed differences?

[beursstarter]

Really great post, much appreciated!

[ruplikminer]

Amazing post thanks!! KUDOS!!!!!

[JackIT]

Great work man. Appreciate it!

Any benchmarks to give idea about intensity 20 vs 21 hash speed differences?

check out: https://ravenforum.org/topic/29/suprminer-1-6-i-19-vs-i-20-vs-i-21-test-results

[WickedPigeon]

Thanks for the testing, it has been very helpful.

Anyway you could do more testing in regards to overclock (specificially TDP and core clock)?

I have a few Zotac Amp Extreme GPUs in this test rig, they're factory OC'd. With as little as +100 core, they'll crash. So, unfortunately I can't reliably test core OC

I had a 1070Ti Zotac Amp Extreme - pulled it from operations (only had 1 and I'm running 27 26 GPU's).
God I hated that GPU - no matter how or what I did, it crashed.

BTW - nice work on the testing. Love the multi round thing.

[ztaz]

Thanks to the author for the interesting tests - it is now clear which miner to choose for the Ravencoin, but why in the test included the old versions of the ENeMY miner and the rest at the moment on this coin, only three interesting miners are Enemy 1.08/Suprminer 1.6/Silent Miner v1.0.9.

[Vokas123]

Because he did those tests long before new versions (e.g. 1.08 enemy) were released.

@JackIT
 
Silent miner updated to 1.1.0, Ravencoinminer to 2.6... when you have time, they might be ready to battle with enemy.

[Renegade1979]

I have a few Zotac Amp Extreme GPUs in this test rig, they're factory OC'd. With as little as +100 core, they'll crash. So, unfortunately I can't reliably test core OC

Zotac always had bad reputation for overvolting their poor quality chips to hell and having poor cooling at the same time to the point they're hot like fire. Gigabyte like my 1066 G1 Gaming is overvolted to hell as well but that at least comes with Samsung memory and decent cooling and OC is usually 2000-2100+ depending on the power limit set

[bitcoinbromo]

Thanks for the testing, it has been very helpful.

Anyway you could do more testing in regards to overclock (specificially TDP and core clock)?

I have a few Zotac Amp Extreme GPUs in this test rig, they're factory OC'd. With as little as +100 core, they'll crash. So, unfortunately I can't reliably test core OC

Perhaps compare -100 or -150 to +0? Seems it would give a good idea on how much core clock effects the hash rate.

[JackIT]

New test result,  in 1st post

Enemy 1.08 @ 100% TDP [ no OC Vs. +250 mem ]

[JackIT]

Since ravenforum.org keeps crapping out... I guess I'll just post the in progress test details here:

Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing:

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance. I'll also normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round.

Miner tested:
Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee

Testing:

• Variable Diff / pool set diff
• d=50 (2/3 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 1.5)
• d=36 (1/2 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 2)

Why?
I've seen people in various Discord channels recommend setting a static pool/stratum diff. Typical advice is to set it to your avg hash divided by either 1.5 or 2... So, I wanted to run a test to see if it really mattered.

Results:

Round 1 - 128 Blocks Found - Duration: 661 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 195.95 RVN / 177.88 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 188.81 RVN / 171.40 RVN - d=50 Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 193.05 RVN / 175.25 RVN - d=36 Pool Link

Round 2  - 135 Blocks Found - Duration: 696 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 191.57 RVN / 183.42 RVN - d=36 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 199.23 RVN / 190.75 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 194.54 RVN / 186.26 RVN - d=50 - Pool Link

Round 3 - 160 Blocks Found - Duration: 727 minutes (var diff 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 171.94 RVN / 195.11 RVN - d=50 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 165.06 RVN / 187.30 RVN - d=36 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 169.83 RVN / 192.72 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link

Normalized Average Results FINAL

#1	*	| Var Diff	| 188.34 RVN
#2	-1.55%	| d=50	| 185.10 RVN
#3	-2.82%	| d=36	| 183.23 RVN

[WickedPigeon]

Inspired by JackIT and his 1080TI tests, I ran my own little experiment with 21X1070Ti.

Best ROI on 1070TI with Enemy 1.08, at Virtopia

I have 21 GPUs, all 1070TI, sitting on 4 different rigs, all slightly different builds, one rig is 6x MSI Tritium, another is 5x MSI Gaming, the last two are 5x a mix of EVGA, Gigabyte, and MSI.
4 rigs; 3x5 GPUs and 1x6 GPUs.

All were mining on Virtopia – each rig tracked separately but under one wallet address.  I ran 12hours at each setting and recorded the average hash rate at the end of each 12 hour period.
Perfect test? No. But it does confirm much of what JackIT found in his tests with the 1080TI.

After 12 hours at each setting, the average of all 21, Enemy 1.08, Auto Diff, auto i, Virtopia pool:
85%,+150,+200 – 11.90 MH/s per GPU - Baseline
80%, +150,+200 – 11.95Mh/s per GPU – increase of 0.4%
70%, +150, +200 – 11.58 95 Mh/s per GPU – decrease of 2.7% over baseline
70%,+0,+0 (no OC) – 11.29 Mh/s per GPU – decrease of 5.1% over baseline

The change between 80 and 85% showed that there was no significant difference. Clearly as the TDP was reduced, hashing fell off. As for OCing, there is a benefit to overclocking too. This, at least in my thoughts, confirm what JackIT is seeing in his tests and confirms the settings suggested in Enemy’s Readme file: 80% TDP and slight over clocking.

[JackIT]

I ran 12hours at each setting and recorded the average hash rate at the end of each 12 hour period.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as average hash rate for x16r.. you can quote a range of expected hash rate.. but average does not exists.

Why? because there are 16^16 different algo permutations. So x16r in reality is not one Algo, but rather it's 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 different algos

Additionally, there is a good amount of variability between brands and model of the same card family.. heck even identical GPUs have some level of variability.


That's really why I go through the steps I do, to take out as much variability as possible. running multiple rounds, using multiple wallet address, running at the same time/pool/rig etc

[gettilee]

Normalized Average Results - After 2 Rounds

#1	*	| Var Diff	| 184.27 RVN
#2	-2.74%	| d=36	| 179.35 RVN
#3	-3.09%	| d=50	| 1178.76 RVN

you have a typo in your results 1178.76 rvn i think you mean 178.76 rvn 

[chrysophylax]

I ran 12hours at each setting and recorded the average hash rate at the end of each 12 hour period.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as average hash rate for x16r.. you can quote a range of expected hash rate.. but average does not exists.

Why? because there are 16^16 different algo permutations. So x16r in reality is not one Algo, but rather it's 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 different algos

Additionally, there is a good amount of variability between brands and model of the same card family.. heck even identical GPUs have some level of variability.


That's really why I go through the steps I do, to take out as much variability as possible. running multiple rounds, using multiple wallet address, running at the same time/pool/rig etc

Even WITH variability is average.

It just takes time and a lot of patience.

This is why even if there is a huge variation in Algo pairing, over a finite period of time, mined many times over, a pattern and 'average' hashrate surfaces.

The amount of time is determined by the fluctuations of hashfunctions involved, and as such, can still be determined. As mentioned above though, time is the key factor here, regardless of what cards are being used. If there is a static source of testing, and a static method of testing, then comparisons can still be made over a static period of time.

#crysx

[ztaz]

in the branch on the ravens actively promote a certain Silent Miner v1.1.0. I would like to hear here the answers to the question - what are the speeds on it, if someone has already tested it. so already there is a certain instruction on the network to get rid of the dev fee in the Enemy Miner 1.08

[JackIT]

in the branch on the ravens actively promote a certain Silent Miner v1.1.0. I would like to hear here the answers to the question - what are the speeds on it, if someone has already tested it. so already there is a certain instruction on the network to get rid of the dev fee in the Enemy Miner 1.08

I tested 1.0.9 here https://ravenforum.org/topic/33/enemy-1-08-vs-silent-miner-v1-0-9
it lost by 8% to Enemy 1.0.8

Additional, Silent miner has the same 1% dev fee as Enemy


I'm happy to pay a 1% fee to any developer that dedicates their time and effort to helping me make more $$. It's motivation for them to continue development and make better miners.

[JackIT]

Even WITH variability is average.

It just takes time and a lot of patience.

This is why even if there is a huge variation in Algo pairing, over a finite period of time, mined many times over, a pattern and 'average' hashrate surfaces.

The amount of time is determined by the fluctuations of hashfunctions involved, and as such, can still be determined. As mentioned above though, time is the key factor here, regardless of what cards are being used. If there is a static source of testing, and a static method of testing, then comparisons can still be made over a static period of time.

#crysx

Agreed, but you need to determine the amount of time needed to establish an average with an acceptable level of confidence.
is 12hrs enough? that will get you through about 720 permutations of x16r, out of 1.84e+19 possible combinations.

[ztaz]

in the branch on the ravens actively promote a certain Silent Miner v1.1.0. I would like to hear here the answers to the question - what are the speeds on it, if someone has already tested it. so already there is a certain instruction on the network to get rid of the dev fee in the Enemy Miner 1.08

I tested 1.0.9 here https://ravenforum.org/topic/33/enemy-1-08-vs-silent-miner-v1-0-9
it lost by 8% to Enemy 1.0.8

Additional, Silent miner has the same 1% dev fee as Enemy


I'm happy to pay a 1% fee to any developer that dedicates their time and effort to helping me make more $$. It's motivation for them to continue development and make better miners.

thank you for checking out the miner, it's now clear that while still the best on ravens), and pay or not to the developer's interest, this is a strictly individual matter for everyone, although of course you need to thank the developer, and I think that soon Enemy will release a patched version with greater speed than the existing one, which can already remove the commission.

[JackIT]

Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing is finished.

Results: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35598147#msg35598147

[seriousirony]

would running with -500 mem +150 core be detrimental to hashrate vs 0 mem +150 core ie. does OCing mem even do anything in the X16r? 

[JackIT]

would running with -500 mem +150 core be detrimental to hashrate vs 0 mem +150 core ie. does OCing mem even do anything in the X16r? 

look at the first post.. there's a mem overclocking test.

unfortunately I can't overclock core on x16r, without periodically crashing, so I can't test that

[seriousirony]

would running with -500 mem +150 core be detrimental to hashrate vs 0 mem +150 core ie. does OCing mem even do anything in the X16r? 

look at the first post.. there's a mem overclocking test.

unfortunately I can't overclock core on x16r, without periodically crashing, so I can't test that

yeah, I saw test with/without +250 mem and results (+250 mem being slightly better: https://ravenforum.org/topic/34/enemy-1-08-100-tdp-no-oc-vs-250-mem) - I mean You didn't test with actually underclocking mem, does it have negative impact on a hashrate?

[WickedPigeon]

I ran 12hours at each setting and recorded the average hash rate at the end of each 12 hour period.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as average hash rate for x16r.. you can quote a range of expected hash rate.. but average does not exists.
Why? because there are 16^16 different algo permutations. So x16r in reality is not one Algo, but rather it's 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 different algos

Hey Jack,
Thanks again for the tests you do. I know it takes time, effort, and focus from optimized mining to run your tests. Your analysis helps all us miners find the right tweaks to gain those all-important “last couple percentages.” They really do add up! So thank you.

I like your methodology and would use it if I could tolerate my rigs running that long with sub-optimal settings/miners – clearly this is my problem  .

I agree with you on using averages, and I disagree with you on using averages at the same time.  Yes, you are correct about the algo and how it changes causing there to be millions of algo combos that are always changing which cause all sorts of testing problems. This does make time studies and averages difficult, but not impossible.
 
Here is where I disagree. Having been mining RVN over long period of time, months now, I have an average hash rate that I expect to produce. So by watching/recording shorter periods, 12 hours at a time, I can record “Average Hash Rates” (AHR) for the trailing twelve hours, period after period, minute by minute, and if I do this, I get a bell curve, a normal bell curve.

With a normal bell curve I get all sorts of fun math stuff like, mean and standard deviation. So when I am testing, each 12 hour period may vary, but I can see how that period has performed compared to the mean and the standard deviation of a rig that is a "control" rig. And Voila! Confidence rating for the test.
 
Perfect no, but good. Actually – really good and faster than rotating through my rigs. You can see from the attached photo where the average is reported on Virtopia. On rig 1 thru 4, which are all 1070TI, I get expected averages, and over time, they do hold up. One standard deviation on each rig is about +-2 MH/s and on all 5 rigs combined the SD is +- 6 MH/s. I when I change settings or miners, I can see that easily in those averages and how that period stacks against the norm.
 
So it’s yes and no to averages. No in theory, but with a little data, yes to the bell curve.

https://imgur.com/a/XWWWC0y

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.08 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0:

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible.
Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking. Dynamic pool/stratum diff

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance.
I'll also normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round.

Miners tested:

Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee
a1min3r 1.42 32bit - no dev fee
Silent Miner 1.1.0 - 1% dev fee


Results:

Round 1 -  1658 Blocks Found - Duration: 731  minutes (a1min3r = 1 restart, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] 211.20 RVN - Enemy - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] 162.76 RVN - a1min3r - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] 183.68 RVN - Silent Miner - Pool Link

Round 2  - not needed

Round 3  - not needed



Average Results FINAL

#1	*	| Enemy 1.08	| 211.20 RVN
#2	-14.98%	| Silent Miner  1.1.0	| 183.68 RVN
#3	-29.76%	| a1min3r 1.42	| 162.76 RVN

Notes:

• a1min3r 1.42: is buggy. miner reported hash rate is way off on some algo(s), often reporting 5-10x expected hash. Looking forward to a revised version
• Silent Miner 1.1.0: I tested Enemy 1.08 Vs Silent Miner 1.0.9, on these same instances just four days ago. The difference in the test is that 4 days ago I used a static pool diff of 50, and TDP was set at 90% and the test ran about 80 minutes shorter. four days ago 1.0.9 lost by 7.27%, today 1.1.0 lost by 14.98%  It could also be the case that Enemy 1.0.8 scales better with more power (90% vs 100%) than Silent Miner LINK TO PREVIOUS TEST

[Max Likelihood]

This is good work JackIt, helps lots of people.

[chrysophylax]

Even WITH variability is average.

It just takes time and a lot of patience.

This is why even if there is a huge variation in Algo pairing, over a finite period of time, mined many times over, a pattern and 'average' hashrate surfaces.

The amount of time is determined by the fluctuations of hashfunctions involved, and as such, can still be determined. As mentioned above though, time is the key factor here, regardless of what cards are being used. If there is a static source of testing, and a static method of testing, then comparisons can still be made over a static period of time.

#crysx

Agreed, but you need to determine the amount of time needed to establish an average with an acceptable level of confidence.
is 12hrs enough? that will get you through about 720 permutations of x16r, out of 1.84e+19 possible combinations.

We must understand that the Algo does NOT go through ALL the permutations ALL the time, only some.

Once that is established, a reasonable amount of time needs to be set.

We at CWI have ALWAYS tested in the long term, even with 'stable' hashrate Algos, of 24hours to 72hours. This allows for any anomalies to enter and then the test is redone over and over again. This is the only way to be sure of the results, and have a more accurate estimation of hashrate.

If you think this is difficult, try Timetravel10 which has more permutations than you can poke a stick at, yet there was NEVER this sort of fuss about it, until RVN came olong. Seems weird how the community can pick and choose which Algo is an Algo to be looked at and picked at, and others to be left alone.

The base conditions for ALL algos is time and non-variable testing equipment. That is pretty much it.

We will not mess with this sort of situation because as with TimeTravel10, a LOT of time and effort is wasted over the smallest things- especially when we were building our miner - CWIgm. So to test this 'properly' make sure you have three weeks available to do so. We will not commit that time to this, we will commit that time to the real work involved in designing, development, and physical work we have been doing.

Have fun doing this though, as it is quite a learning curve if you have never done thins before.

#crysx

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.08 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0

Test Results are can be found: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35754113#msg35754113

[WickedPigeon]

Enemy 1.08 Vs. a1min3r 1.4.2 Vs. Silent Miner 1.1.0

Test Results are can be found: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg35754113#msg35754113

Nice - and that is all she wrote folks.
Excellently done.

[WickedPigeon]

Inspired by JackIT and his 1080TI tests, I ran my own little experiment with 21X1070Ti.

Best ROI on 1070TI with Enemy 1.08, at Virtopia

I have 21 GPUs, all 1070TI, sitting on 4 different rigs, all slightly different builds, one rig is 6x MSI Tritium, another is 5x MSI Gaming, the last two are 5x a mix of EVGA, Gigabyte, and MSI.
4 rigs; 3x5 GPUs and 1x6 GPUs.

All were mining on Virtopia – each rig tracked separately but under one wallet address.  I ran 12hours at each setting and recorded the average hash rate at the end of each 12 hour period.
Perfect test? No. But it does confirm much of what JackIT found in his tests with the 1080TI.

After 12 hours at each setting, the average of all 21, Enemy 1.08, Auto Diff, auto i, Virtopia pool:
85%,+150,+200 – 11.90 MH/s per GPU - Baseline
80%, +150,+200 – 11.95Mh/s per GPU – increase of 0.4%
70%, +150, +200 – 11.58 95 Mh/s per GPU – decrease of 2.7% over baseline
70%,+0,+0 (no OC) – 11.29 Mh/s per GPU – decrease of 5.1% over baseline

The change between 80 and 85% showed that there was no significant difference. Clearly as the TDP was reduced, hashing fell off. As for OCing, there is a benefit to overclocking too. This, at least in my thoughts, confirm what JackIT is seeing in his tests and confirms the settings suggested in Enemy’s Readme file: 80% TDP and slight over clocking.

I know my testing isn't as thorough in methodology as Jack's - but:
I took off the Core over-clocking for 24 hours : 80%,0,+200
The hash rates under-preformed the benchmarks by 1-2%, just enough to be statistically relevant/noticeable.

Now I'm trying to "push" the 1070TI to it's limit. I'm bumping up the core and mem without crashing. I'll post the outcome once finished.

[JackIT]

After my most recent test run, the results were very lopsided. I started to question whether my instances were still well balanced.

So I immediately fired up a test of the instances, using the same settings (no static diff), all three using Enemy 1.08.

The results below. are validation of how balanced they really are, (kinda surprised myself) just 1.5% separates all three instances

Results: 692 Minutes - No restarts

• [Instance 1] 205.21 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] 205.11 RVN - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] 202.17 RVN - Pool Link

I also found that the pool reported hash rates and avg hasrate line, for the three instances are all over the place, yet produce the same results... I really don't have much faith in Yiimp pool reported hash rates

[carlos33193]

Have you done any testing using nevermore 0.2.2?

[JackIT]

I decided to do pool testing using my three balanced instances. The pools I'm testing are: Suprnova, Ravenminer and CryptoPool.party


I'm sure everyone has heard, "earnings from various pools should more or less even out over the long term" and while that's mostly true, there are several things that can impact earnings on one pool versus the next.
 
Here are some things that can comparatively impact pool earnings.

• Pool fees, can range from 0%-2% (some even higher)
• Stratum Stability, from DDOSing to overcrowding stratums, if the pool is down or struggling to stay up, your earnings will take a hit.
• Orphaned/Stale blocks, pools with better connectivity and infrastructure will have an edge
• Payment calculation methods, PPLNS, PPS, Prop, Yiimp etc (search google for moe info)  

Final Cumulative results after 5 days of testing:



Day 1 results:



Day 2 results:



Day 3 results:



Day 4 results:

[mercoinz]

thank you so much JackIT for your tests! I split test a lot of pools and suprnova always, always comes out on top by a landslide.

[sp_]

New free opensource x16r miner without a fee

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git1

will add some more speed later.

[ruplikminer]

New free opensource x16r miner without a fee

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git1

will add some more speed later.

Amazing!! when will you release a faster version? I tested this one and it's still slower than the Enemy miner

[abanamat]

New free opensource x16r miner without a fee

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git1

will add some more speed later.

Thank you!

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git1

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible.
Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance.
I'll then normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round, so that each instance/round is represented equally.

Miners tested:
Enemy 1.09 BETA 4 - 1% dev fee
Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee
sp-mod git1 - no dev fee


Results:

Round 1 - 143 Blocks Found - Duration: 705 minutes  (e1.09 restarted, accepted not increased in 4 mins)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 140.60 RVN | Raw: 133.44 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 136.22 RVN | Raw: 129.28 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 121.73 RVN | Raw: 115.53 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link

Round 2  - 148 Blocks Found - Duration: 660 minutes

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.01 RVN | Raw: 113.19 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 139.88 RVN | Raw: 136.48 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 123.45 RVN | Raw: 120.45 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link

Round 3 - 162 Blocks Found - Duration: 732 minutes

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 130.23 RVN | Raw: 140.02 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 122.49 RVN | Raw: 131.70 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 131.67 RVN | Raw: 141.57 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 137.38 RVN
#2	-5.71%	| Enemy 1.08	| 129.96 RVN
#3	-14.41%	| sp-mod	| 120.08 RVN

Round 1 Graphed Progression:


Round 2 Graphed Progression:


Round 3 Graphed Progression:

[Bimmber]

Gentlemen, watch SP`s spectacular failure on this comparison 

[cirlama]

JackIT, enemy can go up to I 21.5 and sp to 21 only, may be a comparison with these settings would be more interesting?

[JackIT]

JackIT, enemy can go up to I 21.5 and sp to 21 only, may be a comparison with these settings would be more interesting?

I prefer a level playing field

[ruplikminer]

Gentlemen, watch SP`s spectacular failure on this comparison 

+1

Time to make REAL good miners for SP with jsut dev fees. And not trying to sell for BTC.

[sp_]

#1 was slow. #2 has been released with more speed

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git2

[ruplikminer]

#1 was slow. #2 has been released with more speed

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git2

How much more?

[sp_]

My free opensource miner without a fee is still in progress.
I am adding more speed to github, and won't build exe files for each commit.

you can follow the progress here:

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/commits/master

[ruplikminer]

My free opensource miner without a fee is still in progress.
I am adding more speed to github, and won't build exe files for each commit.

you can follow the progress here:

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/commits/master

thanks. I am following. Seems like no one can beat Enemy miner. Maybe you can?

[Bimmber]

He can`t, in his wildest dreams. Enemy KGB team has best miner available, with new 1.09 getting into final stages, they are getting even more speed compared to first alpha release.

[sp_]

The sp-mod private is around 10% faster than the enemy 1.09 miner. I will add some more opensource speed, and then add the more speed in the private bin.

[Xazax310]

I know that Enemy's miner seems to be the best miner, however the "extra" coin you get, does that really offset the cost of the Dev fee? Supraminer 1.6 is free.

[Bimmber]

How does extra 10% doesn`t offset 1% dev fee?

[JackIT]

The sp-mod private is around 10% faster than the enemy 1.09 miner. I will add some more opensource speed, and then add the more speed in the private bin.

Proof?

if the sp-mod private one is 10% faster than enemy 1.09, why bother making an opensource version that is 25% slower than sp-mod private?

[Johnjay06]

How does one get to use the private version?

[sp_]

if the sp-mod private one is 10% faster than enemy 1.09, why bother making an opensource version that is 25% slower than sp-mod private?

My mod is the fastest opensource, and the mod is not complete. In the opensource I haven't touched the important algos, where the most speed is gained. Most of the commits are the 80bit algos that are only used in 1/16 th of the time. These algos are not used in any other coins and can be spread without hurting my other mods. The sp-mod private is ccminer/spmod and you find it on some of the pools.

[prettycode]

I know that Enemy's miner seems to be the best miner, however the "extra" coin you get, does that really offset the cost of the Dev fee? Supraminer 1.6 is free.

This doesn't make any sense, with all due respect. If you end up with more coins in your wallet, it doesn't matter whether the dev fee was 1% or 10% or 50%. The dev mining fee is run while the miner is hashing, meaning the "fees" have already been paid before you're awarded coins.

[JackIT]

if the sp-mod private one is 10% faster than enemy 1.09, why bother making an opensource version that is 25% slower than sp-mod private?

My mod is the fastest opensource, and the mod is not complete. In the opensource I haven't touched the important algos, where the most speed is gained. Most of the commits are the 80bit algos that are only used in 1/16 th of the time. These algos are not used in any other coins and can be spread without hurting my other mods. The sp-mod private is ccminer/spmod and you find it on some of the pools.

You didn't answer my question.

 You claim to have the fastest open source and fastest closed source x16r miners, without any proof whatsoever... at least you're consistent

[preda]

The sp-mod private is around 10% faster than the enemy 1.09 miner. I will add some more opensource speed, and then add the more speed in the private bin.

which one? sp mod 2? like btx?

[sp_]

You didn't answer my question.

 You claim to have the fastest open source and fastest closed source x16r miners, without any proof whatsoever... at least you're consistent

Here is a snapshot of the sp-mod private. each kernel in the x16r is run once. (x16s permutation). The enemy miner should include a command line option that can force a given sequence. Then we can do a direct comparison. Only 2 of the 16 kernels are included in the spmod-git opensource. (the hamsi80 and the luffa final)

gpu settings

100% tdp and +100 on the coreclock. (-i 24.4 in the batfile)

The bigfarm sp-mod x16r private binary also include a fast x17 kernel, and the x17 is more profitable right now on the 1080ti

[JackIT]

You didn't answer my question.

 You claim to have the fastest open source and fastest closed source x16r miners, without any proof whatsoever... at least you're consistent

Here is a snapshot of the sp-mod private. each kernel in the x16r is run once. (x16s permutation). The enemy miner should include a command line option that can force a given sequence. Then we can do a direct comparison. Only 2 of the 16 kernels are included in the spmod-git opensource. (the hamsi80 and the luffa final)

gpu settings

100% tdp and +100 on the coreclock. (-i 24.4 in the batfile)

The bigfarm sp-mod x16r private binary also include a fast x17 kernel, and the x17 is more profitable right now on the 1080ti

means very little.

I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks

[sp_]

I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks

I've hit 100MHASH with the sp-mod private x16r, but the sequence in the picture is a x16s sequence. every hashing algo is executed once(permuted order, and not a random order): Sequence number B0126C3E789AF4D5

[JackIT]

I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks

I've hit 100MHASH with the sp-mod private x16r, but the sequence in the picture is a x16s sequence. every hashing algo is executed once(permuted order, and not a random order): Sequence number B0126C3E789AF4D5

You still haven't answered why you'd release an open source miner?

[sp_]

You still haven't answered why you'd release an open source miner?

I disassembled his code and found some optimalizations. Now the enemy can copy paste my code and gain a few percent.

my school is old school

http://www.pouet.net

[sp_]

which one? sp mod 2? like btx?

The sp-mod #2 have a buffer overflow exploit. Some gpl  shitcode from the klaus_t and the french swiss dude.. Disable the ccminer API... SIA-coin backdoor...

[JackIT]

 the french swiss dude..

Tanguy aka TPruvot

[JackIT]

I've hit 28.x MH/s on Enemy 1.08, just depends on the algos in the blocks

I've hit 100MHASH with the sp-mod private x16r, but the sequence in the picture is a x16s sequence. every hashing algo is executed once(permuted order, and not a random order): Sequence number B0126C3E789AF4D5

Well, I'd be happy to test the sp-mod private version.. I promise I'll return it when done 

[sp_]

Well, I'd be happy to test the sp-mod private version.. I promise I'll return it when done  

The sp-mod harvester has been mining for months. More than 1000++ 1080ti rigs. Million dollar profit.

[Bimmber]

SP,

Why don`t you add dev fee and release your top performing miner? You can then make 0.05 btc every few days. You could avoid all this drama...

[latinpmeow]

thanks for sharing this amazing content !

[djm34]

SP,

Why don`t you add dev fee and release your top performing miner? You can then make 0.05 btc every few days. You could avoid all this drama...

he's waiting for someone to make dev fee code public... and make it 5% faster
yeah, I am not sure if he ever wrote any piece of code himself...

[MrsDelish]

SP,

Why don`t you add dev fee and release your top performing miner? You can then make 0.05 btc every few days. You could avoid all this drama...

he's waiting for someone to make dev fee code public... and make it 5% faster
yeah, I am not sure if he ever wrote any piece of code himself...

The dev fee code should already be there since it is a fork of Nevermore.
(ccminer 2.2.5-rvn -> Nevermore -> Suprminer -> Sp-mod-git)

[antonio8]

SP,

Why don`t you add dev fee and release your top performing miner? You can then make 0.05 btc every few days. You could avoid all this drama...

he's waiting for someone to make dev fee code public... and make it 5% faster
yeah, I am not sure if he ever wrote any piece of code himself...

He hasn't.

[djm34]

SP,

Why don`t you add dev fee and release your top performing miner? You can then make 0.05 btc every few days. You could avoid all this drama...

he's waiting for someone to make dev fee code public... and make it 5% faster
yeah, I am not sure if he ever wrote any piece of code himself...

The dev fee code should already be there since it is a fork of Nevermore.
(ccminer 2.2.5-rvn -> Nevermore -> Suprminer -> Sp-mod-git)

thanks for pointing it to him
now, he will have a dev fee created by sp himself...

love his linkedin page btw, where he says he created ccminer  

[Bimmber]

Can I have a link to his LI ?

[dewdeded]

Subbed.

[Quake4]

JackIT

Please run test 1.09test5 vs sp3 vs 1.08.

[ruplikminer]

JackIT

Please run test 1.09test5 vs sp3 vs 1.08.

+2

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible.
Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

Static stratum diff set to 40 for Round 1 v1.0, 70 for Round 1 v2.0 and onward, reason: previous test showed pool diff settings impacting results and making them non linear.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 8-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance.
I'll then normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round, so that each instance/round is represented equally.

Miners tested:
Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 - 1% dev fee
Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee
sp-mod git3 - no dev fee


Results:

Round 1 v1.0 - Stopped after 110 minutes, with 30 blocks found. sp-mod was steadily 20-30% behind. I decided to re-run round 1 with SP-mod and 1.09 swapping instances, as well as increasing the stratum diff from 40 to 70. Link to graph of results: https://imgur.com/a/IPPkRYf

• [Instance 1] 26.33 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] 24.19 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] 19.36 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link

Round 1 v2.0 -  Duration: 540 Minutes - 120 blocks found - No restarts

• [Instance 1] Normalized:    94.31 RVN | Raw: 92.01 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized:    95.66 RVN | Raw: 93.33 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized:  102.39 RVN | Raw: 99.89 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link

Round 2  - Duration: 524 Minutes - 124 blocks found - No restarts

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 105.98 RVN | Raw: 106.84 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized:   91.19 RVN | Raw: 91.93 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 101.07 RVN | Raw: 101.89 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link

Round 3 - Duration: around 9hrs. 125 blocks found - near the start of the test ravenminer.com was being DDOS'd so I had to pause the test for a few hours.

• [Instance 1] Normalized:   99.51 RVN | Raw: 101.13 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 110.45 RVN | Raw: 112.24 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 105.89 RVN | Raw: 107.61 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link

FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09 Beta5	| 106.27 RVN
#2	-7.62%	| Enemy 1.08	| 98.75 RVN
#3	-9.41%	| sp-mod git3	| 97.13 RVN

Round 1 v2.0 Graph



Round 2 Graph


Round 3 Graph

[likwidkhaos]

ANDDDDDD THEY'RE OFFF..... and right out of the gates hmmna hmmna hmmna hmmna IT LOOKS LIKE SP IS STRAIiiiiiiiiGHT full of shit.... falling behind by 3 lengths alllllmost immediatley!  What a travesty at the derby ladies and germs, the nerbs were so excited at the prospect of a competitive race.

[JackIT]

I restarted the test, with new wallet addresses.

I'm not sure if there's a bug in sp-mod git3, or the static pool diff is too low, or that set of GPU's decided to slack off...
but I swapped instances sp-mod and enemy 1.09, and increased the polls diff from 40 to 70

[sp_]

but I swapped instances sp-mod and enemy 1.09, and increased the polls diff from 40 to 70

Round 1 v2.0 - IN PROGRESS

• [Instance 1] sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link

In this round, the free and opensource spmod-git3 seems to be doing abit faster than enemy 1.08 (50 blocks)

enemy 1.09r5 53
spmod-git3   48.5
enemy 1.08   48

The increase from 48(enemy 1.08) to 53(enemy 1.09r5) is because of the opensource optimalizations he has stolen from my git.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

Why do you restart the miner? Every restart will reduce the payouts. You should run for 12 hours without any restarts.

[JackIT]

Why do you restart the miner? Every restart will reduce the payouts. You should run for 12 hours without any restarts.

I do not manually restart the miner. Awesome miner has rules I've set up to restart the miner under certain conditions.
No accepted shares in the last 4 mins.
No API communication in last 4 mins.
Device temp over 82 degrees
Device failure
etc.

It's pretty rare that the miner is restarted, and I do note when it does.

[JackIT]

but I swapped instances sp-mod and enemy 1.09, and increased the polls diff from 40 to 70

In this round, the free and opensource spmod-git3 seems to be doing abit faster than enemy 1.08 (50 blocks)

I'm curious what your thoughts are on setting stratum difficulty. should it be set by the pool? static? if so, what's optimal

[JackIT]

Round 1 v2.0 is complete
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995

[Fenixn]

Hi, I have some quick question  1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer 

[Bimmber]

Hi, I have some quick question  1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer 

Wrong thread. This is not topic to ask advice, but for testing.

[JackIT]

Hi, I have some quick question  1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer 

Well, I don't think you'll be able to run more than -i 19 or 20 without stability issues. Test and find out which one works best for you

[Fenixn]

Hi, I have some quick question  1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer 

Well, I don't think you'll be able to run more than -i 19 or 20 without stability issues. Test and find out which one works best for you

hmm i try 21 for 12 hours and no stability issues so question is if even does matter if I mining with 21 or 19. if will be even diffreand with payaout when I have slow hdd swap file ??

[Fenixn]

Hi, I have some quick question   1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer  

Wrong thread. This is not topic to ask advice, but for testing.

Well, I sorry that its not correct topic but it was only curiosity and above that topic on this specfic question dosnt exist so, and I test the new program so  this is also the case of this topic i run my rig 12 hour on -i 21 without instability.

[JackIT]

Round 2 of Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3 results are in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995

After 2 rounds:

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 103.34 RVN
#2	-5.91%	| Enemy 1.08	| 97.57 RVN
#3	-12.33%	| sp-mod	| 92.00 RVN

[abanamat]

Round 2 of Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3 results are in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995

After 2 rounds:

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 103.34 RVN
#2	-5.91%	| Enemy 1.08	| 97.57 RVN
#3	-12.33%	| sp-mod	| 92.00 RVN

Amen, sp 

[djm34]

Round 2 of Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3 results are in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995

After 2 rounds:

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 103.34 RVN
#2	-5.91%	| Enemy 1.08	| 97.57 RVN
#3	-12.33%	| sp-mod	| 92.00 RVN

can you put a comparison including suprminer ?

[JackIT]

Round 2 of Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3 results are in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.msg36628995#msg36628995

After 2 rounds:

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 103.34 RVN
#2	-5.91%	| Enemy 1.08	| 97.57 RVN
#3	-12.33%	| sp-mod	| 92.00 RVN

can you put a comparison including suprminer ?

Suprminer was previously tested. Check the first post of this thread,

Suprminer performed about 8.6% worse than Enemy 1.08

[sp_]

in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4

[nitrobg]

in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4

Release already the full binary with a dev fee, we don't mind it as long as it's the fastest miner available.
Since Enemy 1.09 is way faster than your public version, we'll simply use it instead of yours.

[Marvell2]

what u need to do is create an optimized miner for opencl

I would willing switch all my rx cards and vegas if an rx 580 with optimal mem
straps was not basiclly btween a 1050ti and a 1060 lol

[JackIT]

in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4

You can't cherry pick a round and declare victory.

The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected.

Analyzing the weighted and normalized performance of the three instances, Instance 1 and 2 performed within 1% of each other, Instance 3 performed 3-4% better than the other two.

Also, towards the beginning of round three, ravenminer experienced a DDOS attack. This resulted in two things. testing was paused for approximately 2 hours, and sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not. (a total of 0.243 RVN)





Full Test Results

FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09 Beta5	| 106.27 RVN
#2	-7.62%	| Enemy 1.08	| 98.75 RVN
#3	-9.41%	| sp-mod git3	| 97.13 RVN

[sp_]

The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected.

but you need to run each round for 12 hours, if not the comparison is not fair. You run 2 rounds 9 hours and 1 round 12 hours. 12 hours is not enough to make a good prediction.

Instead of X16r, you shoudl compare the x16s algo.

sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not

Because they where busy mining the devfee. (switching pools, missing profits)

[cost82el]

in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4

You can't cherry pick a round and declare victory.

The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected.

Analyzing the weighted and normalized performance of the three instances, Instance 1 and 2 performed within 1% of each other, Instance 3 performed 3-4% better than the other two.

Also, towards the beginning of round three, ravenminer experienced a DDOS attack. This resulted in two things. testing was paused for approximately 2 hours, and sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not. (a total of 0.243 RVN)





Full Test Results

FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09 Beta5	| 106.27 RVN
#2	-7.62%	| Enemy 1.08	| 98.75 RVN
#3	-9.41%	| sp-mod git3	| 97.13 RVN

what driver version do you have?

[JackIT]

but you need to run each round for 12 hours, if not the comparison is not fair. You run 2 rounds 9 hours and 1 round 12 hours. 12 hours is not enough to make a good prediction.

why is 12hrs the magical number? why not 24 or 48, when is enough enough to see a pattern?

look at the posted graphs, the outcome is generally decided after as little as 4-6 hours.

Instead of X16r, you shoudl compare the x16s algo.

I'm not an altruistic miner, I mine to make a profit. There's nothing nearly as profitable as RVN [x16r] on [x16s], with the exception of PGN for a few hours  every ~5 days when their difficulty nose dives. If you want to sponsor a test on x16s, I'll take your BTC and run it for how ever long you'd like.

sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not

Because they where busy mining the devfee. (switching pools, missing profits)

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

[djn053]

my computer reported that 1.09  have win64.trojan.miner.Sxxs.     but not in 1.05-1.08.
what should I do?

[sp_]

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

[rednoW]

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

You are liar again.  enemy 1.09 v5 has no kernel improvements comparing to 1.09 v1 . Only stratum and devfee part was updated and some minor bug fixed. That gives additional boost.

[JackIT]

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

Your first commit was May 3rd, the beta of enemy 1.09 was released May 5th.

Did he steal your code, I have no clue.
Did you steal code to make your "private" miner? absolutely.

is enemy 1.09 the fastest miner that doesn't cost 0.5BTC? sure seems like it.

and stop spreading FUD.. you know as well as anyone, that most mining software can trigger anti virus warnings

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing:

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do two rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance. I'll also normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round.

Miner tested:
Enemy 1.09a - 1% dev fee

Testing:

• Variable Diff / pool set diff
• d=40 (1/2 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 2)

Results:

Round 1 - Duration: 645 minutes - 155 Blocks found

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 120.73 RVN | Raw: 131.32 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 127.36 RVN | Raw: 138.53 RVN - d=40 Pool Link

Round 2  - Duration: 632 minutes - 130 Blocks found

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 127.81 RVN | Raw: 116.60 RVN - d=40 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 121.28 RVN | Raw: 110.64 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link

FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Diff = Mh/s % by 2	| 127.58 RVN
#2	-5.44%	| var diff	| 121.00 RVN

Graph of Round 1



Graph of Round 2

[nsummy]

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

Your first commit was May 3rd, the beta of enemy 1.09 was released May 5th.

Did he steal your code, I have no clue.
Did you steal code to make your "private" miner? absolutely.

is enemy 1.09 the fastest miner that doesn't cost 0.5BTC? sure seems like it.

and stop spreading FUD.. you know as well as anyone, that most mining software can trigger anti virus warnings

Unless I am missing something, this sp-mod doesn't cost anything, is open source, and has no dev-fee.  I have no clue how fast it is compared to z-enemy, but you have to give some credit where it is due.

[RealSwissMiner]

Great overview, much appreciated.
As far as I can see nevermore miner was only used in one benchmark series and wasn't doing that bad. Do you keep an eye on it as future improvements could be promising?

[JackIT]

Great overview, much appreciated.
As far as I can see nevermore miner was only used in one benchmark series and wasn't doing that bad. Do you keep an eye on it as future improvements could be promising?

Brian has been busy focusing on Team Red, with Avermore. If he decides to release a meaningful update to Nevermore, I'll definitely test it again.

[sp_]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

[JackIT]

Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing is complete:

Test Results

[JackIT]

sp-mod git4a Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. Enemy 1.09a

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible.
Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2)

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do three rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 8-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance.
I'll then normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round, so that each instance/round is represented equally.

Miners tested:
Enemy 1.09a - 1% dev fee
Enemy 1.08 - 1% dev fee
sp-mod git4a - no dev fee


Results:


Round 1 -  Duration 710 minutes - 165 blocks found (no restarts)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.71 RVN | Raw: 117.90 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 123.48 RVN | Raw: 124.74 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 12917 RVN | Raw: 130.49 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link

Round 2  - Duration 602 minutes - 147 blocks found (no restarts)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.43 RVN | Raw: 104.79 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 110.89 RVN | Raw:   99.28 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 113.23 RVN | Raw: 101.91 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link

Round 3 - Duration 723 minutes - 178 blocks found (no restarts)

• [Instance 1] Normalized: 116.56 RVN | Raw: 127.03 RVN - Enemy 1.08 - Pool Link
• [Instance 2] Normalized: 117.33 RVN | Raw: 127.87 RVN - Enemy 1.09 - Pool Link
• [Instance 3] Normalized: 113.58 RVN | Raw: 123.78 RVN - sp-mod - Pool Link

Normalized Average Results

#1	*	| Enemy 1.09	| 122.80 RVN
#2	-2.68%	| Enemy 1.08	| 118.36 RVN
#3	-6.35%	| sp-mod git4a	| 113.80 RVN

Graph of Round 1:



Graph of Round 2:


Graph of Round 3:

[platinum4]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.

gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile

oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

[abanamat]

Tried on 2 different PCs, sp-mod is buggy. Makes errors.

[buzzkillb]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.

gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile

oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

sp-mod from above link appears faster on tribus then tpruvots latest ccminer.

[Jounouchi]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.

gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile

oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

Same situation here, 4 still the best among of sp_'s works.

[platinum4]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.

gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile

oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

sp-mod from above link appears faster on tribus then tpruvots latest ccminer.

It is faster hashrate-wise but the increased power draw actually makes the profitability lower than tpruvot

[bubbAJoe]

x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed.

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases

now you can run your test vs 1.09

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.

gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile

oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

sp-mod from above link appears faster on tribus then tpruvots latest ccminer.

It is faster hashrate-wise but the increased power draw actually makes the profitability lower than tpruvot

Huh?  I haven't seen any additional power draw from any of the SP mods.  What are you using to measure power?  How much more of a power draw are you seeing?  What / how many GPUs?

[Cage1121]

Great test.

[jugger1028]

Jackit, can you explain this part on your stratum difficulty test? Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2), if you're running 12 1080ti, I would have thought your mh/s would be closer to ~228 mh/s? I'm trying to gauge my difficulty setting for my config on 8x 1080ti and was wondering, thanks.

[JackIT]

Jackit, can you explain this part on your stratum difficulty test? Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2), if you're running 12 1080ti, I would have thought your mh/s would be closer to ~228 mh/s? I'm trying to gauge my difficulty setting for my config on 8x 1080ti and was wondering, thanks.

sure.. the 12 GPU rig is split into three instances/groupings of 4 GPUs each, with the -d flag
This allows me to test three miners simultaneously.

Each instance/grouping hashes somewhere between 70-80MH/s on average. I didn't want to set the diff too low so I just went with 80MH/s / 2 = 40

[jugger1028]

Jackit, can you explain this part on your stratum difficulty test? Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2), if you're running 12 1080ti, I would have thought your mh/s would be closer to ~228 mh/s? I'm trying to gauge my difficulty setting for my config on 8x 1080ti and was wondering, thanks.

sure.. the 12 GPU rig is split into three instances/groupings of 4 GPUs each, with the -d flag
This allows me to test three miners simultaneously.

Each instance/grouping hashes somewhere between 70-80MH/s on average. I didn't want to set the diff too low so I just went with 80MH/s / 2 = 40

That's what I figured, I appreciate the explanation. I am a silent observer of your work, I love it, I think it's a big plus to the mining community. I am a financial analyst by profession and I love the level of detail you provide so thank you for all that you do.. 

[realfinansist]

.......

Perhaps you have a test using one of the miners for different operating systems Windows vs. Linux?

[beursstarter]

Jackit, can you explain this part on your stratum difficulty test? Static stratum diff set to 40 (~Mh/s / 2), if you're running 12 1080ti, I would have thought your mh/s would be closer to ~228 mh/s? I'm trying to gauge my difficulty setting for my config on 8x 1080ti and was wondering, thanks.

sure.. the 12 GPU rig is split into three instances/groupings of 4 GPUs each, with the -d flag
This allows me to test three miners simultaneously.

Each instance/grouping hashes somewhere between 70-80MH/s on average. I didn't want to set the diff too low so I just went with 80MH/s / 2 = 40

Why won't you set the diff too low, is there a disadvantage?

[Mikanoshi]

Significantly deflated EXE size versus normal ccminer, can this do skunk and tribus?  Those run faster on the fatter 43mb ones.
gitmod 4a the 8MB kind is messed up; probably should recompile
oh it cant take i 21.5 now, it maxes at i 21.0625

It is compressed using MPRESS2, alexis 1.0 under UPX is 4MB.

[MaxiMan]

Mega Like for this topic!
However, im concerned about efficiency per Watt, try with 65% ~ 80%PL

[Morama]

With different Rigs - have I to set the value for difficulty for each Rig?

Example:
Rig 1: 40 MH/s -> d=20
Rig 2: 65 MH/s -> d=32.5
Rig 3: 35 MH/s -> d=17.5

or the full account?
d = 70?

[beursstarter]

Mega Like for this topic!
However, im concerned about efficiency per Watt, try with 65% ~ 80%PL

Why is that important? As long as it's profitable, I mine at 100 pl because otherwise I don't earn as much as I could. Why leave capacity unused, even if it is somewhat less profitable above 80 pl...

[bswilmington]

Mega Like for this topic!
However, im concerned about efficiency per Watt, try with 65% ~ 80%PL

Why is that important? As long as it's profitable, I mine at 100 pl because otherwise I don't earn as much as I could. Why leave capacity unused, even if it is somewhat less profitable above 80 pl...

Some people like to factor in cost in electricity. But if that coin goes from $0.05 to $10, that cost savings actually hurts you.  I'm with you on running it at most optimal point of hash rate instead of hash per kwh.  But for each there own, so I ain't bashing opinions on savings. 

[Fenixn]

With different Rigs - have I to set the value for difficulty for each Rig?

Example:
Rig 1: 40 MH/s -> d=20
Rig 2: 65 MH/s -> d=32.5
Rig 3: 35 MH/s -> d=17.5

or the full account?
d = 70?

Hi, people here are not so good with answer on questions so I have to ask on the same question a second time,
so I have also mining rigs and I have two, each have 40 mh/s so difficulty must be 20 for each rig or 40 for 1 account ?? I thing that is realy good question ? so pls for answer, thanks

[DumaxFr]

With different Rigs - have I to set the value for difficulty for each Rig?

Example:
Rig 1: 40 MH/s -> d=20
Rig 2: 65 MH/s -> d=32.5
Rig 3: 35 MH/s -> d=17.5

or the full account?
d = 70?

Hi, people here are not so good with answer on questions so I have to ask on the same question a second time,
so I have also mining rigs and I have two, each have 40 mh/s so difficulty must be 20 for each rig or 40 for 1 account ?? I thing that is realy good question ? so pls for answer, thanks

If you are using a stratum-proxy : d=40.
If not, each rig must ask his own stratum difficulty.

Note that some pool have minimum stratum difficulty (15 for ravenminer.com) and others ignore this parameter.

[Fenixn]

With different Rigs - have I to set the value for difficulty for each Rig?

Example:
Rig 1: 40 MH/s -> d=20
Rig 2: 65 MH/s -> d=32.5
Rig 3: 35 MH/s -> d=17.5

or the full account?
d = 70?

Hi, people here are not so good with answer on questions so I have to ask on the same question a second time,
so I have also mining rigs and I have two, each have 40 mh/s so difficulty must be 20 for each rig or 40 for 1 account ?? I thing that is realy good question ? so pls for answer, thanks

If you are using a stratum-proxy : d=40.
If not, each rig must ask his own stratum difficulty.

Note that some pool have minimum stratum difficulty (15 for ravenminer.com) and others ignore this parameter.

So if I understand right stratum difficulty (d=) must be manualy se on 40 for each rig ? thanks

[lexele]

Mega Like for this topic!
However, im concerned about efficiency per Watt, try with 65% ~ 80%PL

Why is that important? As long as it's profitable, I mine at 100 pl because otherwise I don't earn as much as I could. Why leave capacity unused, even if it is somewhat less profitable above 80 pl...

Some people like to factor in cost in electricity. But if that coin goes from $0.05 to $10, that cost savings actually hurts you.  I'm with you on running it at most optimal point of hash rate instead of hash per kwh.  But for each there own, so I ain't bashing opinions on savings. 

Well, a lot of home miner are limited global power wise more than investment wise, so it can make sense to have best efficiency per card.

[DumaxFr]

With different Rigs - have I to set the value for difficulty for each Rig?

Example:
Rig 1: 40 MH/s -> d=20
Rig 2: 65 MH/s -> d=32.5
Rig 3: 35 MH/s -> d=17.5

or the full account?
d = 70?

Hi, people here are not so good with answer on questions so I have to ask on the same question a second time,
so I have also mining rigs and I have two, each have 40 mh/s so difficulty must be 20 for each rig or 40 for 1 account ?? I thing that is realy good question ? so pls for answer, thanks

If you are using a stratum-proxy : d=40.
If not, each rig must ask his own stratum difficulty.

Note that some pool have minimum stratum difficulty (15 for ravenminer.com) and others ignore this parameter.

So if I understand right stratum difficulty (d=) must be manualy se on 40 for each rig ? thanks

In fact i'm not sure if you know what is a stratum-proxy. It's a software somewhere on your network between your rigs and the pool. It's dispatching work to your rigs and concentrating shares to the pool.

We will assume that you don't use this kind of stuff, so you should set each rig password with d=20.

[heavyarms1912]

I would left you some merit if I had some spendable.  Good job.

[kadal88]

Really great post, much appreciated ...

[vanscrew]

Mega Like for this topic!
However, im concerned about efficiency per Watt, try with 65% ~ 80%PL

Why is that important? As long as it's profitable, I mine at 100 pl because otherwise I don't earn as much as I could. Why leave capacity unused, even if it is somewhat less profitable above 80 pl...

Some people like to factor in cost in electricity. But if that coin goes from $0.05 to $10, that cost savings actually hurts you.  I'm with you on running it at most optimal point of hash rate instead of hash per kwh.  But for each there own, so I ain't bashing opinions on savings. 

Well, a lot of home miner are limited global power wise more than investment wise, so it can make sense to have best efficiency per card.

Absolutely agree! Depending on the electricity cost, everyone should decide for his rigs what is best - max power or balanced Hash/Kwh.
The difference between $0.1/KwH and $1/KwH is kinda bothering when looking for profit.

[vanscrew]

JackIT, do you have performed tests based on different components of the GPUs?

I want to know the result on how performs one and the same technology but with different specifications.
And if anyone can perform such test, that would be very helpful.

2 GPUs, with different specifications:

                         Dual GTX1060-O3G                     Dual GTX1060-O6G
GPU/Boost:        1594MHz/1809MHz                      1594MHz/1809MHz
RAM:                 3GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz        6GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz

* Obviously, the GPU/Boost is the same for both GPUs, would that mean same speed of mining?
* If all parameters are identical with exception of the RAM (3GB & 6GB), how would that reflect to the mining?

[DumaxFr]

JackIT, do you have performed tests based on different components of the GPUs?

I want to know the result on how performs one and the same technology but with different specifications.
And if anyone can perform such test, that would be very helpful.

2 GPUs, with different specifications:

                         Dual GTX1060-O3G                     Dual GTX1060-O6G
GPU/Boost:        1594MHz/1809MHz                      1594MHz/1809MHz
RAM:                 3GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz        6GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz

* Obviously, the GPU/Boost is the same for both GPUs, would that mean same speed of mining?
* If all parameters are identical with exception of the RAM (3GB & 6GB), how would that reflect to the mining?

As of memory is not really a bottleneck for X16r, it shouldn't be noticeable.
There is no DAG things in X16r so memory capacity doesn't impact performance (like it does/did with ETH).
You will probably see different result if you cannot apply same OC on both cards (due to opposite ASIC quality).

[opus.224]

Sorry for polluting your thread, JackIT, but I've made 2 tests with 2 identical rigs that I want share.
I wanted to know if mem underclock (-502) would underperform mem 0 performance.
Results looks interesting.
Rigs have same mobo, cpu, ram, ssd, psu, risers and 6 x ASUS STRIX 1070TI.
Tests were done with Enemy 1.09b and last exactly 24 hours.
All cards are set: 70% Power limit (126W), 70C Temp Limit, Core Clock: +100

1. test:
RIG1: ASUS_L: Memory Clock: -502, 291.49613601 RVN
RIG2: ASUS_R: Memory Clock: 0,  293.82484280 RVN

After 1. test RIG2 with higher mem clock gets advantage of 0.007988, or less than 1%.

2. test:
RIG1: ASUS_L: Memory Clock: 0, 287.17642980 RVN
RIG2: ASUS_R: Memory Clock: -502, 295.71330164 RVN

Looks like RIG2 is even more faster with mem clock -502.
Advantage of 0.029727, or 2.97%.
RIG2 looks faster despite of identical hardware.

Conclusion: underclocking mem could gain you slightly better reward.
 

[potificate]

Conclusion: underclocking mem could gain you slightly better reward.

With that power limit in place, this would make sense. Since mem adds to the power load, underclocking the memory would have the core throttled later. Have you tried this same test with higher limits (100% or higher)?

[opus.224]

Conclusion: underclocking mem could gain you slightly better reward.

With that power limit in place, this would make sense. Since mem adds to the power load, underclocking the memory would have the core throttled later. Have you tried this same test with higher limits (100% or higher)?

I'm limited with 1000W PSUs.
I could try a test with 80% PL maximum.
 

[potificate]

I'm limited with 1000W PSUs.
I could try a test with 80% PL maximum.

That would be great! Also, whatever temp limit you might feel comfortable with might help too.

[djn053]

any test for 1.10？

[JackIT]

any test for 1.10？

nothing yet.. haven't been mining RVN the past week.  as soon as come back to it, I'll run another test

[WickedPigeon]

any test for 1.10？

nothing yet.. haven't been mining RVN the past week.  as soon as come back to it, I'll run another test

What are you Mining? (If I may be so bold as to ask)

[vanscrew]

JackIT, do you have performed tests based on different components of the GPUs?

I want to know the result on how performs one and the same technology but with different specifications.
And if anyone can perform such test, that would be very helpful.

2 GPUs, with different specifications:

                         Dual GTX1060-O3G                     Dual GTX1060-O6G
GPU/Boost:        1594MHz/1809MHz                      1594MHz/1809MHz
RAM:                 3GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz        6GB GDDR5/192bit 8008MHz

* Obviously, the GPU/Boost is the same for both GPUs, would that mean same speed of mining?
* If all parameters are identical with exception of the RAM (3GB & 6GB), how would that reflect to the mining?

As of memory is not really a bottleneck for X16r, it shouldn't be noticeable.
There is no DAG things in X16r so memory capacity doesn't impact performance (like it does/did with ETH).
You will probably see different result if you cannot apply same OC on both cards (due to opposite ASIC quality).

Great! Thanks for the info, it is very helpful.
I have to read more about the algos.

[burster51]

Hi,

anyone has had a chance to test enemy 1.10 against suprminer 1.6?
I have been watching them for a few days, it seems that enemy is slightly ahead, just a feeling, but no solid testing my side.

Has anyone tried the performance of the other implementations e.g. xevan etc?

Thanks and nice thread!

[stevascha]

any test for 1.10？

nothing yet.. haven't been mining RVN the past week.  as soon as come back to it, I'll run another test

looking another testing here, nice posting man!