Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2016, 03:43:51 AM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin x64 for Windows  (Read 25471 times)
ichi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 06:30:17 PM
 #61

Wow, that tweaked one... I'm getting stunning rates.  I have a quad core Intel laptop.

I have ... one while everything but bitcoin (including explorer.exe) is shut down.
Stock:         x64 v1          x64 v2           x64 v2 Tweaked       
<snip>
Optimized Usage:1500-18002000-25001500-20002700-3400

On a Quad-Core AMD Opteron 2376 server running Ubuntu 10.04 Desktop x64 (wubi) and Bitcoin 0.3.0 x64, I get ~2,200 khash/s.  With Bitcoin 0.3.0 x86, I get ~2,000 khash/s.  What would I expect running Windows Server 2008 x64 and Olipro's x64 v2 Tweaked?

Is it faster than the stock Linux x64 build?  Could the Linux build be similarly tweaked?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Quantumplation
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 06:33:46 PM
 #62

Ichi: Probably pretty fast, I saw a huge increase in performance to the tweaked version.  No tellin until you try it though.

Against my better judgement... 1ADjszXMSRuAUjyy3ShFRy54SyRVrNDgDc
BitLex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2010, 08:00:49 PM
 #63

I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
 #64

I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run


the missing DLL is in my first release (libeay32.dll)

Bitcoins accepted to 18em7jEuKe1W74ChAZMFShUuqmwudWmpgu Smiley
kosovito
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 10:31:12 PM
 #65

Vista x64 here

From regular version ~1700khash/s to this version ~2300khash/s (last versios posted here)

Really nice, but i think need to be more stable

Please sir, give me any coin Smiley  135T7F27z7Mtvwffz359BE1zSfYgT1oJ8S
Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 22, 2010, 10:33:54 PM
 #66

Vista x64 here

From regular version ~1700khash/s to this version ~2300khash/s (last versios posted here)

Really nice, but i think need to be more stable

given that it's based on stock code and I doubt there's an issue with the compiler, it's more likely there's a bug in the SVN source, I'll make a build from the last stable production version just as soon as I've finished this CUDA code off.

Bitcoins accepted to 18em7jEuKe1W74ChAZMFShUuqmwudWmpgu Smiley
BitLex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
 #67

I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run


the missing DLL is in my first release (libeay32.dll)

thats not the one causing MSVC build not to work, that'd be MSVCR100.dll.
anyway, the Intel build does work, although it crashes.  Undecided

keep coding, i'm looking forward to test a cuda-version on my gtx260.  Grin

knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2010, 12:41:38 AM
 #68

My experience is similar, the first release was rock solid like the original client, the other releases, while still faster, randomly crash after minutes/hours/days  so it's kind of random.

So it's a trade off between stability and speed. The faster it gets, the less stable it seems.  Grin

Of course, I have mine on a batch to restart if there is a crash and to count how many times the program crashed during the day for example. So far up to about 2 crashes a day.

Bitcoiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 24, 2010, 12:01:28 AM
 #69

There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S

Want to thank me for this post? Donate here! Flip your coins over to: 13Cq8AmdrqewatRxEyU2xNuMvegbaLCvEe  Smiley
knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2010, 12:19:34 AM
 #70

There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

Olipro
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 24, 2010, 01:56:34 AM
 #71

There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.

Bitcoins accepted to 18em7jEuKe1W74ChAZMFShUuqmwudWmpgu Smiley
knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2010, 03:38:55 AM
 #72

There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.
Yes, sorry, I left that part out, the Linux servers (same hardware) always generate higher khash/s than the windows machines, at least mine do. Your mileage may vary.

Bitcoiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 24, 2010, 03:36:45 PM
 #73

There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.
Yes, sorry, I left that part out, the Linux servers (same hardware) always generate higher khash/s than the windows machines, at least mine do. Your mileage may vary.

On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.

Want to thank me for this post? Donate here! Flip your coins over to: 13Cq8AmdrqewatRxEyU2xNuMvegbaLCvEe  Smiley
ichi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 24, 2010, 11:14:13 PM
 #74

On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.
OK.  Could someone please explain the why of that, in terms that a non-programmer can understand?  Why is the stock Windows build slower than the stock Ubuntu build?
knightmb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


Timekoin - Save Electricity, Don't Waste It!


View Profile WWW
July 25, 2010, 12:54:44 AM
 #75

On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.
OK.  Could someone please explain the why of that, in terms that a non-programmer can understand?  Why is the stock Windows build slower than the stock Ubuntu build?
Optimizations mainly. When the program is being compiled on Windows, certainly optimizations make the program more efficient.

On Linux, we have both 32bit and 64bit builds to take advantage of the 64bit arch of the system. On windows, there was only a 32bit build.

ichi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 25, 2010, 01:30:15 AM
 #76

Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Bitcoiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 25, 2010, 06:13:57 AM
 #77

Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm moving to Ubuntu.

I still prefer windows 7 for many things, but I am liking Ubuntu more and more. If only some things weren't such a pain in the ass to use (Tor: Windows 7? 1 minute install. Ubuntu? WTF...)

Want to thank me for this post? Donate here! Flip your coins over to: 13Cq8AmdrqewatRxEyU2xNuMvegbaLCvEe  Smiley
ichi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 25, 2010, 08:05:05 AM
 #78

I really like Windows Server 2008, which is pretty close to Windows 7.  It'll be a while before I give that up.

OTOH, I'm thinking very seriously re going with Ubuntu for my next primary desktop.  As a test, I've recently installed Ubuntu 10.04 Server x64 + GNOME on an old Core 2 Quad machine.  Everything except boot lives on an encrypted RAID5 array managed by LVM.  Losing Excel 2007 might be a problem, though.

Although I don't use Tor, I'm sure that there must be many setup guides for Ubuntu.

This is way off topic.  Sorry.
Quantumplation
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
July 25, 2010, 02:59:03 PM
 #79

I absolutely hate Ubuntu, mostly because of the community surrounding it.  I much prefer gentoo, Debian, etc.

Against my better judgement... 1ADjszXMSRuAUjyy3ShFRy54SyRVrNDgDc
andy_3_913
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
July 25, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
 #80

mind if i ask?
satoshi has released a couple of updates recently, mostly about security concerns as far as i can see.
how are the 64bit versions keeping up with these developments? Smiley

172Yrvwi9xn25Ss17fZMNk56iu8FvcvtLS
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!