TT-Miner 2024.1.2 BLAKE3, KAWPOW, ETHASH, ETCHASH, EPIC, SHA512256D, SHA3D, ETI

[joseph32]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

[1714066742]

1714066742

[1714066742]

1714066742

[dragonmike]

Mister TrailingStop you're putting quite some effort in that miner, kudos to you for staying on the ball!

I incidentally saw 'Neoscrypt' was mentioned earlier. Don't waste too much time developing that algo - in case you were having high hopes - it's now ASIC territory and GPUs aren't mining it anymore.

Keep up the good work on MTP, stay on the ball with ProgPow as ETH is (probably) getting closer to adopting it. Remember how Mr Claymore made his fortune is all I'm saying...

How's the OpenCL studying going?

[TrailingStop]

we really need a Linux version of your miner

Yes - I working hard on that. Sorry that it take so long.

[TrailingStop]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

[TrailingStop]

Mister TrailingStop you're putting quite some effort in that miner, kudos to you for staying on the ball!

I incidentally saw 'Neoscrypt' was mentioned earlier. Don't waste too much time developing that algo - in case you were having high hopes - it's now ASIC territory and GPUs aren't mining it anymore.

Keep up the good work on MTP, stay on the ball with ProgPow as ETH is (probably) getting closer to adopting it. Remember how Mr Claymore made his fortune is all I'm saying...

How's the OpenCL studying going?

Hi
yes, this was one of my first algo development tries - and somehow it made its way into the last package as debug version....I have removed it now completely from the drive. Thanks for all your advises - as you know: they are always welcome

[ouray]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

>>>You can set these values for each gpu separate
Either but not both, this case will not work: -d 0,1,2 -i 15,16,17
You can't have both -d & -i at the command line.  Can you fix that?

[TrailingStop]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

>>>You can set these values for each gpu separate
Either but not both, this case will not work: -d 0,1,2 -i 15,16,17
You can't have both -d & -i at the command line.  Can you fix that?

Hi- sure. I wasn't aware of that. Fix will come in next release.

Thanks

[TrailingStop]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

>>>You can set these values for each gpu separate
Either but not both, this case will not work: -d 0,1,2 -i 15,16,17
You can't have both -d & -i at the command line.  Can you fix that?

Hi,

do you use the last version? I just tried it here and it seems to work. Can you send program log please (-log)?

Thanks.

[ouray]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

>>>You can set these values for each gpu separate
Either but not both, this case will not work: -d 0,1,2 -i 15,16,17
You can't have both -d & -i at the command line.  Can you fix that?

Hi,

do you use the last version? I just tried it here and it seems to work. Can you send program log please (-log)?

Thanks.

Assume 10 GPUs (0-9) and I wanted to test first 2 GPUs (0,1).
It works but I have to do this way:
-d 0,1 -i 16,16,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

If you do this it will not work due to TT-Miner knows that you have 10 GPUs not 2 GPUs,
-d 0,1 -i 16,16

You will get this error message,

>>>>>Number of selected devices and intensity command line parameter didn't match.
>>>>>Please check your command line (parameter -d, -i), cannot continue!

[TrailingStop]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

>>>You can set these values for each gpu separate
Either but not both, this case will not work: -d 0,1,2 -i 15,16,17
You can't have both -d & -i at the command line.  Can you fix that?

Hi,

do you use the last version? I just tried it here and it seems to work. Can you send program log please (-log)?

Thanks.

Assume 10 GPUs (0-9) and I wanted to test first 2 GPUs (0,1).
It works but I have to do this way:
-d 0,1 -i 16,16,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

If you do this it will not work due to TT-Miner knows that you have 10 GPUs not 2 GPUs,
-d 0,1 -i 16,16

You will get this error message,

>>>>>Number of selected devices and intensity command line parameter didn't match.
>>>>>Please check your command line (parameter -d, -i), cannot continue!

Got it. let me check. Thanks for the details.

[joseph32]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

Yes, tested 2060, 2070 and 2080 Ti's with all possible Intensity's from 16 to 22, which seems to be the max. Grid size untested, I dont think that alone cant catch 10-20% hashrate, or?

If you live in the EU, pick a good shop, order a RTX and return after 30 day of heavy testing

[TrailingStop]

Hey Trailing,

on MTP your miner atm is the fastest on GTX cards, but have some problems on mixed rigs with 1070/1080 cards, dunno why.

But on RTX cards your miner is much slower than your competitor. Are there any more improvements possible?

Hi,

did you try to 'play' around with intensity or grid size. You can set these values for each gpu separate. Please try this for the RTX as well - if you haven't tried it yet. Unfortunately I do not have a RTX available and cannot run my own test, but maybe someone from the community can help - or give me some more information what the problem could be???

Thanks.

Yes, tested 2060, 2070 and 2080 Ti's with all possible Intensity's from 16 to 22, which seems to be the max. Grid size untested, I dont think that alone cant catch 10-20% hashrate, or?

If you live in the EU, pick a good shop, order a RTX and return after 30 day of heavy testing

On the long term I need a RTX anyway - so I try to save money for it. intensity can have a big impact on the hashrate. Which cuda version do you use? I guess the driver is the one that works well with the other miners?

[joseph32]

Newest Win 10, all patches. Latest nVidia driver 419.67. Cuda 10.1

But its the same picture as with older 417.71 and 10.0.
1080 Ti's getting full possible speed. Every single RTX just 80-90% of possible speed, no matter which Intensity.

So if you can catch a RTX, I would love to see improvements here, so we can switch that rigs also

Edit: Do yourself a favor. If you buy 2080 or 2080 Ti, go with a 3 fan and 3 slots version. All 2 slots have heat problems and running at max temp, even with 80-90% fan speed.

[george2019]

i noticed new beta 2.2.2 build available for download, it's worth testing or just minor changes

[TrailingStop]

i noticed new beta 2.2.2 build available for download, it's worth testing or just minor changes

Hi,

it contains only the fix to add -i and -d at the same time - no other changes included.

[george2019]

i understand, thing is my rig has higher average hashrates on mintpond using older 2.1.19 build with intesnity 20 and gridsize 4096 on all 5 GPU, with later builds it has intensity 15 and grid sizes are 7000+ for GTX1080Ti and 5000+ for GTX1080 but i don's see any hashrates improvements in 24 hour period, difference is around 1mh/sec daily average 16mh.sec+ VS 15mh.sec on newer builds, so maybe better to use older build at the moment with lower default gridsize, miner hashrates itself are more or less same with both builds

[solotrade]

hi, thats is the problem i mention about

https://imgur.com/9JX4eRs

[TrailingStop]

hi, thats is the problem i mention about

https://imgur.com/9JX4eRs

Does it work again if you restart the miner?

[TrailingStop]

i understand, thing is my rig has higher average hashrates on mintpond using older 2.1.19 build with intesnity 20 and gridsize 4096 on all 5 GPU, with later builds it has intensity 15 and grid sizes are 7000+ for GTX1080Ti and 5000+ for GTX1080 but i don's see any hashrates improvements in 24 hour period, difference is around 1mh/sec daily average 16mh.sec+ VS 15mh.sec on newer builds, so maybe better to use older build at the moment with lower default gridsize, miner hashrates itself are more or less same with both builds

Can you try to use grid size settings instead of intensity? If 4096 gives you good result try -gs 4096. Please do not use -i in that case. Please let me know if that changes something. Please also add -luck. This shows you your 'session' luck. This gives you an ide, if the miner sends as much shares as is should do on the 'LONG RUN'. This value should be close to 100%. Values over 100 means that the  miner doesn't find enough shares for the diff coming from the pool. values below 100 means that the miner finds more shares than expected - so you have some luck. After a day or two this values should be quite constant on 100 - 102.


The miner show the hashrate it gets from the gpu algo. if two versions shows the same hashrate, then the hashrate is the same. But the hashrate @ pool is calculated. So if the miner doesn't find 'eough' shares, thr pool will show a lower hashrate. Not sure how long you made the test, but you might check the hashrate a 3 hours - or so. Then calculate the average - as a starting point for the hashrate @ pool.

Thanks for reporting.

[george2019]

i'm using older build now, maybe later i will test latest build with gridsize 4096, for hashrate 14.3mh.sec i use port 3001, i compared 24 hours mining results, i will test -luck setting as well tomorrow, thing is mintpond has quite high luck in last 5-7 days or so:
24 hours   117.9%
3 Days   124.5%
7 Days   108%

here's my last few days earnings:

2019-04-01   0.39158624
2019-03-31   0.60101800
2019-03-30   0.45075329
2019-03-29   0.47766784

only 31 march i got 0.6, yesterday only 0.39, if situation doesn't change i will try 2miners again, with gridsize 4096 and -luck option using latest build