cost82el
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 91
Merit: 0
|
|
May 09, 2018, 01:55:12 PM |
|
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 ResultsFINAL 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 (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 09, 2018, 03:23:51 PM |
|
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.
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
djn053
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
|
|
May 09, 2018, 03:29:48 PM |
|
my computer reported that 1.09 have win64.trojan.miner.Sxxs. but not in 1.05-1.08. what should I do?
|
|
|
|
sp_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
May 09, 2018, 03:38:19 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1510
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 09, 2018, 03:59:03 PM |
|
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 (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 09, 2018, 04:11:30 PM |
|
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
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 09, 2018, 11:47:22 PM Last edit: May 10, 2018, 09:23:37 PM by 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
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
nsummy
|
|
May 10, 2018, 04:17:32 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 10, 2018, 05:53:01 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 10, 2018, 12:00:18 PM |
|
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.
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
sp_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
May 10, 2018, 03:13:39 PM |
|
x16r / x16s spmod-git4a has been released. Free no fee, more speed. https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releasesnow you can run your test vs 1.09
|
|
|
|
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 10, 2018, 09:30:52 PM |
|
Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing is complete:Test Results
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
JackIT (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
|
|
May 10, 2018, 10:19:59 PM Last edit: May 12, 2018, 01:39:33 PM by JackIT |
|
sp-mod git4a Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. Enemy 1.09aFor 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:
|
X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643)
|
|
|
platinum4
|
|
May 11, 2018, 01:48:55 AM Last edit: May 11, 2018, 02:39:02 AM by platinum4 |
|
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
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 274
Merit: 1
|
|
May 11, 2018, 09:52:51 AM |
|
Tried on 2 different PCs, sp-mod is buggy. Makes errors.
|
|
|
|
buzzkillb
|
|
May 12, 2018, 01:24:27 AM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
|
|
May 12, 2018, 02:46:36 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 12, 2018, 02:57:13 AM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
May 12, 2018, 03:16:14 AM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
May 12, 2018, 04:17:32 AM |
|
Great test.
|
|
|
|
|