X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log

[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.

[1714987689]

1714987689

[1714987689]

1714987689

[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)