Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 01:27:22 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log  (Read 7576 times)
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 01:15:33 PM
Last edit: May 12, 2018, 01:53:20 PM by JackIT
Merited by vapourminer (1), RealSwissMiner (1)
 #1

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?  Huh

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




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

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
1711632442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711632442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711632442
Reply with quote  #2

1711632442
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711632442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711632442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711632442
Reply with quote  #2

1711632442
Report to moderator
bitcoinbromo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 01:30:58 PM
 #2

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 (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 01:41:04 PM
 #3

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

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2814
Merit: 1091


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
April 24, 2018, 02:00:27 PM
 #4

Nice setup.

Comparisons need to be tested over time.

Good job mate.

#crysx

pomelo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118
Merit: 10

Mining since early 2013


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Last edit: April 24, 2018, 03:45:08 PM by pomelo
 #5

Great work man. Appreciate it!

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

9RRNN8vH6o5srbxPuKU61GuN6i6TPDMwxS XMG
beursstarter
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 04:07:53 PM
 #6

Really great post, much appreciated!
ruplikminer
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 3


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
 #7

Amazing post thanks!! KUDOS!!!!!
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 05:22:22 PM
 #8

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

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
WickedPigeon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 345
Merit: 16


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 06:26:11 PM
 #9

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.

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
ztaz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 11


View Profile
April 24, 2018, 07:05:44 PM
 #10

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 Huh at the moment on this coin, only three interesting miners are Enemy 1.08/Suprminer 1.6/Silent Miner v1.0.9.
Vokas123
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 25, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
 #11

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. Smiley
Renegade1979
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 105


View Profile
April 25, 2018, 11:07:25 AM
 #12

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 25, 2018, 05:33:45 PM
 #13

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 (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 26, 2018, 12:01:38 AM
 #14

New test result,  in 1st post

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

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 26, 2018, 12:59:15 AM
Last edit: April 27, 2018, 12:42:06 PM by JackIT
 #15


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




X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
WickedPigeon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 345
Merit: 16


View Profile
April 26, 2018, 02:51:53 PM
Last edit: April 26, 2018, 03:23:24 PM by WickedPigeon
 #16

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.

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 8


View Profile
April 26, 2018, 03:57:30 PM
 #17

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

X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
gettilee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 27, 2018, 03:25:48 AM
 #18


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  Grin
chrysophylax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2814
Merit: 1091


--- ChainWorks Industries ---


View Profile WWW
April 27, 2018, 04:13:59 AM
Last edit: April 27, 2018, 11:17:56 AM by chrysophylax
 #19

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 11


View Profile
April 27, 2018, 09:29:34 AM
 #20

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 Wink
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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