X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log

[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?

[1715099268]

1715099268

[1715099268]

1715099268

[1715099268]

1715099268

[1715099268]

1715099268

[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.