[ANN] TeamRedMiner - Old Thread

[ku4eto]

ouch! where did this come from?!
I've already have 6 rigs using this miner.....!
and since I mine to a proxy, I need fail over pool
Will monitor the hashrate and compare hashrate with the fees and manage my profitability.

also to let you know that it does work on other AMD GPUs. I have tried WX 4100/7100 and fire pro, think cause they have polaris too.

Hi, sent you a PM. Nice with the other GPUs, there are a few that we haven't tested on ourselves. It's all about what device string the driver is presenting the GPU with, if we recognize it we present our kernels for that architecture, if we don't recognize it we crap out.

Hey Kerney, no need to even respond to such comments, like "Hurr durr, dev fee too high".

You did a great job with the CN kernels, and you keep on delivering the goodies for other algos. Keep up the good work!

[Apprentice]

ouch! where did this come from?!
I've already have 6 rigs using this miner.....!
and since I mine to a proxy, I need fail over pool
Will monitor the hashrate and compare hashrate with the fees and manage my profitability.

also to let you know that it does work on other AMD GPUs. I have tried WX 4100/7100 and fire pro, think cause they have polaris too.

Hi, sent you a PM. Nice with the other GPUs, there are a few that we haven't tested on ourselves. It's all about what device string the driver is presenting the GPU with, if we recognize it we present our kernels for that architecture, if we don't recognize it we crap out.

Hey Kerney, no need to even respond to such comments, like "Hurr durr, dev fee too high".

You did a great job with the CN kernels, and you keep on delivering the goodies for other algos. Keep up the good work!

Chill man! was an honest opinion, no one was complaining.
take it easy

[SigiSinatra]

We need Chukwa Turtle algo 

[Kodaman]

We need Chukwa Turtle algo 

Randomx will be present too? i heard it favors amd a little more but not much.

[kerney666]

We need Chukwa Turtle algo 

Randomx will be present too? i heard it favors amd a little more but not much.

Chukwa Turtle might very well be added, just don't have the bandwidth right now, it will be a little while.

For RandomX, GPUs don't have much to offer compared to CPUs, and the algo is quite complex. There's no point spending a significant amount of time on something that no rational GPU miner will use.

[heavyarms1912]

how to define multiple pools?

i really like this miner?

thanks.

Hehe, this is probably the 10th time I apologize that we still have pool failover support on our TODO list, it has been there from v0.3, we have continued to prioritize adding more algos rather than host-side work though. We should really add basic pool failover though, our bad. I'll discuss with todxx and see if/when we can slot it in.

well in my honest humble opinion, the miner is good but in comparison to other miners and provided options (especially the fail over pool) your dev fees are really high. Some other miners are below 1%. But a 1% is good number that you should consider.

Honestly, if you don't clearly earn more with TRM and/or have a hard time accepting the dev fee, then you should use another miner. For the dev fee, it won't change. If you don't want to pay for the kind of work we do, which means grinding instructions in GCN ASM and many times probably spending 5-10x more time (at least!) on our kernels than the other miners you refer to, then it's a no brainer, just use one of the other miners instead. For the specific issue of failover pool support, it's the last TODO item in that category, and no one has asked about it for 2-3 months.

My sincerest apologies for getting you in the line of fire now since you were quite gracious with your suggestion, but since you aren't the first one to imply that we'd be better off slashing our current income with -60% so they can increase their mining profits +1.5%, please allow me one last public rant about this.

This project is about putting your heart and soul into getting AMD GPUs to perform. Either we can make enough money from it to support two highly qualified devs spending a significant part of their available time on this, or we exit the market. And trust me, we're not getting rich from this, we're rather right at the level of it being worthwhile. So yeah, 1% dev fee means 0% for both you and for us, because we will be back to doing more lucrative work in other industries instead, or just doing private work in this space where you deal with business entities that do simple bottom line math and pay a premium for exclusivity. But no, we wanted to try to take our work public, benefitting all and making it much more difficult for private gpu miners to have a significant edge.

Many times people seem to think our +20-40% advantages in the compute algos (except for MTP, which is a different beast) is something that comes for free. "Oh, they just use GCN ASM, maybe I'll look into it later and I'll be just as good". Right. Good luck with that. It's not the toolset that matters, it's your skill and experience using it. We've spent _months_ in total on c29/c31, all as a service for Vega users to have something to do when XMR forks in October, drawing from 2 yrs of experience trying to squeeze perf out of AMD GPUs, which isn't trivial to begin with. Same thing investing time in MTP, which didn't have a proper Vega miner at all. Last, don't even get me _started_ on the work we've done with the x16 family of algos. Months and months of grinding away finding small opts in each of the 16 algos.

So, for everyone that feels the 2.5% TRM dev fee is unacceptable, please shop around for other AMD miner devs that right now are working proactively and are producing options that can at least compete with Team Green when XMR is out of the picture, and that has spent the same obscene amount of time as we have doing R&D just to be able to come close to Team Green. Then please use those miners instead.

Also, do people forget efficiency?  
Even at par in raw performance TRM consumes lesser power than other miners which might just offset that dev-fee with electricity cost.

[pbfarmer]

Great job guys this miner is awesome. Easy to use, good hashrates, and zero rejected shares. Here are my results hope this helps someone!

Driver: Adrenalin 19.8.1
Miner: TRM 0.5.7
Afterburner: 4.6.1
GPU: XFX Radeon VII
Test system: 7600K, Asus Z270E, 8GB RAM, EVGA 850 G2, Open Benchtable (open air)

Power consumption numbers are total system power as measured by a Kill A Watt. The system uses about 30w without a GPU so you can deduct 30w from these numbers to get an estimate of the GPU power consumption. I selected what I believe to be my weakest VII so I would expect most cards to do better than this.

Format is:
Voltage/Core Clock/Mem Clock - cn config that the auto tune ended up with, power usage range, GPU temp/junction temp, hash rate range

...

Retested the good settings to verify. Didn't record the cn config since it usually ended up at 13*12 CAB or AAA. Also these tests were done one the same day with the AC on so the temps should be more accurate.

821/1408/1100 - 168w-175w, 50C/60C, 2630-2700
850/1508/1100 - 180w-192w, 52C/63C, 2780-2840
890/1608/1100 - 196w-210w, 54C/66C, 2930-2990
915/1658/1100 - 206w-222w, 56C/69C, 3010-3060
940/1708/1100 - 224w-235w, 57C/72C, 3070-3130
 

Lower your core and bump your mem clock - CN in general likes faster memory (ideally lower latency, but higher clocks help too) which is usually cheaper power-wise than higher core clocks.  I'm running 1550 cclock / 1200 mclock / 858mv / 13*13 AAA, for 2940h/s @ 180w ATW (+/- 3w, including ~19w GPU idle, and prob w/ a bit higher power use due to increased fan speeds from being in an ATX enclosure).  I'm still on TRM v0.5.2 for my VII, but I don't believe there have been any significant changes for CNR in later releases.  Also, iirc others here have unlocked their mclocks via PPT and dialed up to 1250 to attain even higher h/r and better efficiency.

Btw, there's a separate thread for CN on TRM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5059817.0

[roma__11]

Ha мнoгo кapтoчныx cиcтeмax нe пoнятнo кaк paбoтaeт нa фepмe из 6 кapт дa вce xopoшo, нo кoгдa иx 12 (я пpo xeш нa пyлe) билибepдa пoлнaя, дoпycтим Vega 64 Luqid 12 штyк xeш 29+ aлгo кpиптoнит P, нa пyлe и нa MPP peгитcя 19+ и пpыгaeт пpиxoдитcя oткaтывaтьcя нa 4.2 вepcию, бeдa пpocтo, c кaкoгo-тo xepa peшил вce пoмeнять нa 5.7 в peзyльтaтe c 128 кн/c cкaтилcя дo 110- нy кyдa этo гoдитcя?.......

[kerney666]

Hello,

I have very low hashrate speed on Ubuntu 18.04.3 kernel 5.0 amdgpu-pro 19.30 (cr29 and c31) with Vega 64 Luqid Cooling
About 8x lower, then on Windows.
Sometime i saw on cd29 5.5, but now i only see 0.75 g/s

Are you using the card for monitors as well? I have had a Vega 64 LC running under 18.04 with amdgpu-pro 18.50 and 19.10, both working just fine for cd29 and c31. We use a lot of vram in both of these algos though, so if too much vram is already allocated for graphics it could spell trouble.

Also, just to be clear, you did run the miner on Windows on the exact same card and got a decent hashrate (5.5 g/s)?

[kerney666]

Ha мнoгo кapтoчныx cиcтeмax нe пoнятнo кaк paбoтaeт нa фepмe из 6 кapт дa вce xopoшo, нo кoгдa иx 12 (я пpo xeш нa пyлe) билибepдa пoлнaя, дoпycтим Vega 64 Luqid 12 штyк xeш 29+ aлгo кpиптoнит P, нa пyлe и нa MPP peгитcя 19+ и пpыгaeт пpиxoдитcя oткaтывaтьcя нa 4.2 вepcию, бeдa пpocтo, c кaкoгo-тo xepa peшил вce пoмeнять нa 5.7 в peзyльтaтe c 128 кн/c cкaтилcя дo 110- нy кyдa этo гoдитcя?.......

Hi! Sorry to say no one in our team speaks Russian. The google translate was pretty much crap as well. Could anyone in the community translate maybe? I'm guessing you're seeing a performance regression and need to run 0.4.2 for some reason, and you're not particularly happy about it?

[ku4eto]

Ha мнoгo кapтoчныx cиcтeмax нe пoнятнo кaк paбoтaeт нa фepмe из 6 кapт дa вce xopoшo, нo кoгдa иx 12 (я пpo xeш нa пyлe) билибepдa пoлнaя, дoпycтим Vega 64 Luqid 12 штyк xeш 29+ aлгo кpиптoнит P, нa пyлe и нa MPP peгитcя 19+ и пpыгaeт пpиxoдитcя oткaтывaтьcя нa 4.2 вepcию, бeдa пpocтo, c кaкoгo-тo xepa peшил вce пoмeнять нa 5.7 в peзyльтaтe c 128 кн/c cкaтилcя дo 110- нy кyдa этo гoдитcя?.......

Hi! Sorry to say no one in our team speaks Russian. The google translate was pretty much crap as well. Could anyone in the community translate maybe? I'm guessing you're seeing a performance regression and need to run 0.4.2 for some reason, and you're not particularly happy about it?

From what i understand:

"I do not understand how this should work on multu-GPU systems. On a 6 GPU system, everything is good, but on a 12 GPU one (prohash pool), the dashboard on the pool (MPP) reports 19kh/s+, while the miner reports 29kh/s+, with 12 Vega 64 LC on CN_R. There is difference in the hashrate between v4.2 and v5.7, showing 128kh/s and going down to 110kh/s, why is that?"

Note, this is bad translation, i do not think this is russian, but rather than that ukrainian. I couldnt understand half of the stuff.

[sharmanov]

You guys missing out on so much creator's fees by not supporting BeamHash II. I bet you guys could get Vega and VII cards twice as fast than curren AMD supporting miners

[kerney666]

Hello,

I have very low hashrate speed on Ubuntu 18.04.3 kernel 5.0 amdgpu-pro 19.30 (cr29 and c31) with Vega 64 Luqid Cooling
About 8x lower, then on Windows.
Sometime i saw on cd29 5.5, but now i only see 0.75 g/s

Are you using the card for monitors as well? I have had a Vega 64 LC running under 18.04 with amdgpu-pro 18.50 and 19.10, both working just fine for cd29 and c31. We use a lot of vram in both of these algos though, so if too much vram is already allocated for graphics it could spell trouble.

Also, just to be clear, you did run the miner on Windows on the exact same card and got a decent hashrate (5.5 g/s)?

Yes, Kubuntu 18.04.3 with xorg and monitor. It occur only in amdgpu-pro 19.30 drivers, on latest rocm I see 6.3 g/s. Reinstall systems, but result the same. On rocm system works better, but I need amdgpu-pro. Could you test systems with Ubuntu 18.04.3 kernel 5 (latest hardware stack) and xorg. Thank you in advance.

Have you tested on amdgpu-pro 19.10? I'm running 19.10-785425 just fine, but that's still on kernel 4.15.0-20-generic (stock Ubuntu 18.04.2 iirc). The only guess I have is that these drivers are consuming too much vram themselves. Could you join our discord server perhaps? Much easier to discuss and throw out ideas.

If the issue is in the amdgpu-pro drivers rather than kernel 5.0, you could potentially install the ROCm stack on top of your base installation with amdgpu-pro. I run my linux dev env that way, it means I can control if I want the ROCm or amdgpu-pro OpenCL stack using LD_LIBRARY_PATH. It's a nice setup, and since you were seeing 6.3 g/s with latest ROCm, it could be the optimal choice for mining but still using amdgpu-pro for your other use cases?

[sergioheadache]

Ha мнoгo кapтoчныx cиcтeмax нe пoнятнo кaк paбoтaeт нa фepмe из 6 кapт дa вce xopoшo, нo кoгдa иx 12 (я пpo xeш нa пyлe) билибepдa пoлнaя, дoпycтим Vega 64 Luqid 12 штyк xeш 29+ aлгo кpиптoнит P, нa пyлe и нa MPP peгитcя 19+ и пpыгaeт пpиxoдитcя oткaтывaтьcя нa 4.2 вepcию, бeдa пpocтo, c кaкoгo-тo xepa peшил вce пoмeнять нa 5.7 в peзyльтaтe c 128 кн/c cкaтилcя дo 110- нy кyдa этo гoдитcя?.......

Hi! Sorry to say no one in our team speaks Russian. The google translate was pretty much crap as well. Could anyone in the community translate maybe? I'm guessing you're seeing a performance regression and need to run 0.4.2 for some reason, and you're not particularly happy about it?

there are problems i dont understand on multi GPU rigs, on a 6 card rig - its working find, but on 12 card rig (i am talking about hash on the pool side) - it not good.
for example 12 cards of vega64, hash is 29+ on CN_R but pool shows 19+ and jumps all the time.
we had to go back to 4.2 very frustrated.
for some reason you changed something on 5.7 and as a result we now get 110 instead of 128 - please help.


PS.
it is russian, but the guys uses much slang / swears, which i omitted / changed to normal words
thats why the prev. translation wasnt good and thats why good translate fails.
but you get the point i guess.

[sergioheadache]

hi all,

i have a small farm of 144 x rx580 8gb cards
currently mining ETH with 4.55ghs

will this miner be more profitable ?
if yes, then by how much, and at which coin?

can anyone show the best earnings for rx580 8gb cards ?

thanks.

[ku4eto]

hi all,

i have a small farm of 144 x rx580 8gb cards
currently mining ETH with 4.55ghs

will this miner be more profitable ?
if yes, then by how much, and at which coin?

can anyone show the best earnings for rx580 8gb cards ?

thanks.

Uh.... You have to calculate it by yourself for each coin.

But this miner does not support Ethash.

Profitability right now between ETH and XMR is about the same with this miner for XMR.
Depends on your electricity price and your memory timing mods. With 12x 580s per rig, you should be pulling ~1400W per rig, while doing 1kh/s+ per card.

[sergioheadache]

hi all,

i have a small farm of 144 x rx580 8gb cards
currently mining ETH with 4.55ghs

will this miner be more profitable ?
if yes, then by how much, and at which coin?

can anyone show the best earnings for rx580 8gb cards ?

thanks.

Uh.... You have to calculate it by yourself for each coin.

But this miner does not support Ethash.

Profitability right now between ETH and XMR is about the same with this miner for XMR.
Depends on your electricity price and your memory timing mods. With 12x 580s per rig, you should be pulling ~1400W per rig, while doing 1kh/s+ per card.

well if its "about the same" - there is no real reason to switch...
i was thinking maybe there is something with much higher profit then ETH...

[batsonxl]

please red team fix this random crashes.
0.5.6 version was good,barely crashed whole week.but this latest one crashing too much,not stable for a have day,everytime when i try benchmar it crashes.

[kerney666]

please red team fix this random crashes.
0.5.6 version was good,barely crashed whole week.but this latest one crashing too much,not stable for a have day,everytime when i try benchmar it crashes.

What algo are you mining? And, what OS and GPUs are you running?

[kerney666]

hi all,

i have a small farm of 144 x rx580 8gb cards
currently mining ETH with 4.55ghs

will this miner be more profitable ?
if yes, then by how much, and at which coin?

can anyone show the best earnings for rx580 8gb cards ?

thanks.

Uh.... You have to calculate it by yourself for each coin.

But this miner does not support Ethash.

Profitability right now between ETH and XMR is about the same with this miner for XMR.
Depends on your electricity price and your memory timing mods. With 12x 580s per rig, you should be pulling ~1400W per rig, while doing 1kh/s+ per card.

well if its "about the same" - there is no real reason to switch...
i was thinking maybe there is something with much higher profit then ETH...

The market is balanced, and Polaris cards are very good at ethash compared to how they perform on most other algos. When we developed MTP, cd29, c31 the numbers looked great, after that networks and profitability has rebalanced. One factor was the VDS block reward going to shit, which forced the equivalent of ~100k 1080s to look for other coins and algos. Moreover, the number of GPUs mining ethash is just massive, whenever a more profitable opportunity appears for Polaris cards, it will be saturated quickly.

The CN Heavy algos is something that Polaris 8GBs are very good at, unfortunately those markets are tiny nowadays.