⛏Team Black Miner (ETHB3 ETHW ETC VTC KAWPOW FIROPOW ZIL +dual +tripple mining )

[sp_]

There seems to be a bug in the "Average" hash rate when starting up AMD RNDA2 cards and a high intensity value.
https://imgur.com/a/382cFXO

yes, this bug is also causing the xintensity -1 to fail on some rigs. Fixed in v1.16. What's up with the colors? Agent Orange  ?

let see if this version can beat nbminer on 1070ti, v1.15 still 1.5 mhs  slower

We can Memtweak too. v1.16 will have 8 cuda kernels, you need to test them all to find the fastest one.

--kernel parameter

Any more ethereum miners we need to checkout? What's the fastest on the 1070ti?

Already tested claymore, t-rex, gminer, nbminer, lolminer, phoenixminer, srbminer, teamredminer

Claymore seems to be the most popular one..



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[1714023472]

1714023472

[BitBlitzer]

I'm doing some testing with 6 x 3080 on TBM (1.14b) vs T-Rex miner (0.21.4), 3 x 3080 on each miner. I have them all locked at +940 memory and locked core aswell. I'm running them on Ethermine and have -xintensity 224 on TBM and -intensity 25 on T-rex miner.

The total hashrate reported in TBM is 302.2 MH/s and in T-rex miner it is 292.8 MH/s. TBM reports a higher hashrate but we will se how that translates into accepted shares by the pool

So far (after 24h) they are basically neck in neck on total accepted shares, both just around 5700 shares. Out of the total shares TBM has 125 stale shares so that is about 2% (125/5700). T-rex miner doesn't report stale shares on the client side but I can do an estimate on the pool side and it is lower than 0,5%. So it seems that T-rex is more efficient during these circumstances but we will see how they do after one week.

[Ramsete2]

Problem with RIG full of AMD RX6800, no statistics and wrong name of cards.
The statistics bug is present also on NVidia RTX rigs, can you solve it?

│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] crazypool.org (ethash)    PING: 20ms    DIFFICULTY: 2.00     EPOCH: 447                                                 
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028]                                                                                                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028]                                                                                                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] ID      BOARD   TYPE    TEMP    FAN     CORE    MEM     WATT    kW/h    COST/h                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU0   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU1   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU2   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU3   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU4   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU5   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU6   gfx1030 OpenCL  0/0     0       0       0       0       0.00    0.00USD                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028]                                                      0       0.00    0.00USD                                           
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028]                                                                                                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] ID      BOARD   HASHRATE/W      HASHRATE        AVERAGE         SHARES                                                 
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU0   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.04 MH/s      63.93 MH/s      1/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU1   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.45 MH/s      64.08 MH/s      0/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU2   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.70 MH/s      63.97 MH/s      3/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU3   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.45 MH/s      63.95 MH/s      2/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU4   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.44 MH/s      63.83 MH/s      0/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU5   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        69.01 MH/s      63.78 MH/s      2/0/0 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU6   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.00 MH/s      63.34 MH/s      2/0/1 (100.00%)                                         
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028]              0.00 H/W        461.10 MH/s     446.89 MH/s     10/0/1 (100.00%)                                           
                                                   

[ZerodayTrader]

Out of the total shares TBM has 125 stale shares so that is about 2% (125/5700)

Try out with High Difficulty Port. Otherwise; switch the Pool, or reduce Memory OC. On Binance () i had >2% staleshares too, and now mining somewhere else Shiba INU for ETHash, and guess what happens,..

https://i.imgur.com/GcSYCOH.png

Also same effect for my 1070.

https://i.imgur.com/LUpa0AH.png

[sp_]

Why don't you do a comparison between tbminer at 108.5 MHASH and tbminer at 100 MHASH. To reach 100MHASH you need to nerfe the --xintensity, cut alot of power, reduce the clocks and run on a pool that doesn't pay for stale work. The cuda 11_2 build is also helping to reduce the hashrate.

[ayiphelmy]

let see if this version can beat nbminer on 1070ti, v1.15 still 1.5 mhs  slower

We can Memtweak too. v1.16 will have 8 cuda kernels, you need to test them all to find the fastest one.

--kernel parameter

Any more ethereum miners we need to checkout? What's the fastest on the 1070ti?

Already tested claymore, t-rex, gminer, nbminer, lolminer, phoenixminer, srbminer, teamredminer

Claymore seems to be the most popular one..

34.24 mhs 1070ti with nbminer

[sp_]

Here is a preview of the autotune function in Team Black Miner v1.16. Tests have shown around +5% on low power configurations and overall a few percent faster.
NVIDIA only for now...



Will perhaps release tonight or tomorrow.

[Ramsete2]

Preliminary comparison after 12 hours: GMiner VS TBMiner
Used two gemini rigs of 6x3080, identical overclocks (Xintensity 192). Crazypool

GMiner (ver 2.70):
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+--------------+                                                           
| ID  GPU     Speed        Shares     Power    Efficiency    |                                                           
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+--------------+                                                           
|  0  3080  98.42 MH/s  449/0/0   223 W  441.35 KH/W |                                                           
|  1  3080  98.83 MH/s  466/0/0   215 W  459.67 KH/W |                                                           
|  2  3080  97.78 MH/s  453/0/0   220 W  444.46 KH/W |                                                           
|  3  3080  98.83 MH/s  436/0/0   220 W  449.22 KH/W |                                                           
|  4  3080  98.82 MH/s  455/0/0   216 W  457.48 KH/W |                                                           
|  5  3080  98.83 MH/s  423/0/0   220 W  449.22 KH/W |                                                           
|            591.50 MH/s 2682/0/0  1314 W  450.15 KH/W |                                                           
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+--------------+   

TBMiner (ver 1.15):
ID     BOARD   HASHRATE/W      HASHRATE        AVERAGE         SHARES         
GPU0   3080    0.00 H/W        102.42 MH/s     102.40 MH/s     447/0/4 (100.00%)
GPU1   3080    0.00 H/W        102.68 MH/s     102.72 MH/s     464/0/6 (100.00%)
GPU2   3080    0.00 H/W        102.78 MH/s     102.74 MH/s     502/0/6 (100.00%)
GPU3   3080    0.00 H/W        102.75 MH/s     102.74 MH/s     486/0/4 (100.00%)
GPU4   3080    0.00 H/W        102.67 MH/s     102.71 MH/s     418/0/1 (100.00%)
GPU5   3080    0.00 H/W        102.68 MH/s     102.71 MH/s     487/0/6 (100.00%)
                   0.00 H/W        615.98 MH/s     616.02 MH/s     2804/0/27 (100.00%)

I'll try to reduce a bit more Xintensity to eliminate stales.

SP, any news about the problem of zero statistics shown?

[sp_]

Preliminary comparison after 12 hours: GMiner VS TBMiner
Used two gemini rigs of 6x3080, identical overclocks (Xintensity 192). Crazypool
            591.50 MH/s 2682/0/0                                                            
TBMiner (ver 1.15):
            615.98 MH/s  2804/0/27

Crazypool doesn't pay for stales anymore. Interesting find with --xintensity 192..

It's Easy to compare by counting the number of accepted shares.

2804/2682 =  +4.54% poolside profit. v1.16 will be faster.

SP, any news about the problem of zero statistics shown?

Usually this is a driver problem. Try to reinstall the driver.
What happens when you type $ nvidia-smi in the shell ?

Xintensity 192

Tested a rig with mixed cards v1.16 with autotune on --xintensity 192. (181.80MHASH). Same speed as 1.15 with --xintensity 400.
v1.16 with autotune and xintensity 400 does 184mhash.

[Ramsete2]

Usually this is a driver problem. Try to reinstall the driver.
What happens when you type $ nvidia-smi in the shell ?

Mon Oct 18 08:06:24 2021       
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 495.29.05    Driver Version: 495.29.05    CUDA Version: 11.5     |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| GPU  Name        Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan  Temp  Perf  Pwr:Usage/Cap|         Memory-Usage | GPU-Util  Compute M. |
|                               |                      |               MIG M. |
|===============================+======================+======================|
|   0  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:01:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 62%   49C    P0   225W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   1  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:02:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 60%   49C    P0   226W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   2  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:03:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 62%   50C    P0   221W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   3  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:04:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 60%   49C    P0   225W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   4  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:05:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 64%   49C    P0   224W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   5  NVIDIA GeForce ...  On   | 00000000:06:00.0 Off |                  N/A |
| 65%   49C    P0   217W / 240W |   4833MiB / 10018MiB |    100%      Default |
|                               |                      |                  N/A |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
                                                                               
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Processes:                                                                  |
|  GPU   GI   CI        PID   Type   Process name                  GPU Memory |
|        ID   ID                                                   Usage      |
|=============================================================================|
|    0   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
|    1   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    1   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
|    2   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    2   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
|    3   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    3   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
|    4   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    4   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
|    5   N/A  N/A      3990      G   /usr/lib/xorg/Xorg                  5MiB |
|    5   N/A  N/A      4044      C   ...s//teamblackminer/TBMiner     4823MiB |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+   

[sp_]

Out of the total shares TBM has 125 stale shares so that is about 2%

In 1.16 we will reduce the stales to around 1% or less on etheremine and flexpool.


v1.16
1. Added new and faster nvida CUDA kernels. Improved performance with auto-tune to find the best option for each card.
2. Changed commandline long options use of underscore. Replaced with dash. See --help.
3. Added --kernel option. (NVIDIA) 8 different kernels to choose from. Without this set, autotune is enabled.
4. Added --lock-mclock option. Specifies minimum and maximum memory clocks per GPU. (run as admin)
5. Added --power-limit option. Specifies maximum power limit in watts per GPU. (run as admin)
6. --xintensity reduced to 192 to remove stales from pools.
7. Fixed a bug in average hashrate and xintensity -1 on amd cards.

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/releases/

TeamBlackMiner_1_16_cuda_11_2.7z
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/ca5cece84e34d09ad4748c8eb760e2577823d128cea1558f90090d1e2b26d6b1?nocache=1

TeamBlackMiner_1_16_cuda_11_4.7z
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/5614fe1e79b9a440ab3892cfc5036b1ff3e6c44e4f2cda146298760aebbe4e88?nocache=1

TeamBlackMiner_1_16_Ubuntu_18_04_Cuda_11_4
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4a79adfdd1ae321e9fa9e66cf84dcdcbb1b9fff137b897822157db6eecc3b7ff?nocache=1



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[KillrBee]

There seems to be a bug in the "Average" hash rate when starting up AMD RNDA2 cards and a high intensity value.
https://imgur.com/a/382cFXO

yes, this bug is also causing the xintensity -1 to fail on some rigs. Fixed in v1.16. What's up with the colors? Agent Orange  ?

It's Radeon Red Oktober! / oктябpe

[sp_]

v1.16 should be the fastest ethereum miner on most cards.

Any plans on optimizing the miner for LHR cards? I've got a couple 3080 tis looking for a home.

Yes. Which of teams has the fastest LHR kernel ?

Problem with RIG full of AMD RX6800, no statistics and wrong name of cards.
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU0   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.04 MH/s      63.93 MH/s      1/0/0 (100.00%)                                         

v1.16 should be faster than v1.15 on AMD with --xintensity -1 . We need to rewrite the way we get AMD stats, so this in the todo list.

The core lock is really a blessing, locking the core with afterburner is such a chore... What would also be quite nice is the way to set the memory frequency and fan speed as well.

--lock-mclock has been added in v1.16.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Ramsete2]

Problem with RIG full of AMD RX6800, no statistics and wrong name of cards.
│[2021-10-17 17:44:47][info][miner/0]:      3m [2021-10-17 17:44:46.028] GPU0   gfx1030 0.00 H/W        65.04 MH/s      63.93 MH/s      1/0/0 (100.00%)                                         

v1.16 should be faster than v1.15 on AMD with --xintensity -1 . We need to rewrite the way we get AMD stats, so this in the todo list.

At the moment I had to use --xintensity 48 for AMD cards.
Setting --xintensity -1 will cause too many stales for me.


GMIner VS TBMiner, update after 20 hours
It seems that GMiner overtook the race...

TBMiner (ver 1.15)
ID      BOARD   HASHRATE/W      HASHRATE        AVERAGE         SHARES           
GPU0   3080    0.00 H/W        102.39 MH/s     102.40 MH/s     797/0/7 (100.00%)
GPU1   3080    0.00 H/W        102.70 MH/s     102.70 MH/s     809/0/7 (100.00%)
GPU2   3080    0.00 H/W        102.69 MH/s     102.69 MH/s     843/0/10 (100.00%)
GPU3   3080    0.00 H/W        102.68 MH/s     102.69 MH/s     818/0/6 (100.00%)
GPU4   3080    0.00 H/W        102.63 MH/s     102.69 MH/s     753/0/3 (100.00%)
GPU5   3080    0.00 H/W        102.72 MH/s     102.69 MH/s     845/0/7 (100.00%)
                      0.00 H/W        615.83 MH/s     615.87 MH/s     4865/0/40 (100.00%)


GMiner (ver 2.70)
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+---------------+
| ID  GPU       Speed     Shares    Power    Efficiency       |
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+---------------+
|  0  3080  98.42 MH/s  833/0/0   223 W  441.34 KH/W |
|  1  3080  98.83 MH/s  792/0/0   217 W  455.43 KH/W |
|  2  3080  97.78 MH/s  806/0/0   222 W  440.45 KH/W |
|  3  3080  98.83 MH/s  811/0/0   221 W  447.18 KH/W |
|  4  3080  98.82 MH/s  810/0/0   218 W  453.28 KH/W |
|  5  3080  98.83 MH/s  820/0/0   222 W  445.17 KH/W |
|            591.50 MH/s 4872/0/0  1323 W  447.09 KH/W |
+---+-----+------------+---------+--------+---------------+

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[sp_]

At the moment I had to use --xintensity 48 for AMD cards.
Setting --xintensity -1 will cause too many stales for me.

Why do you mine on a pool that doesn't pay for stales?

[Ramsete2]

At the moment I had to use --xintensity 48 for AMD cards.
Setting --xintensity -1 will cause too many stales for me.

Why do you mine on a pool that doesn't pay for stales?

because it's still the most profitable for me.

[sp_]

Why don't you do a comparison between tbminer at 108.5 MHASH and tbminer at 100 MHASH. To reach 100MHASH you need to nerfe the --xintensity, cut alot of power, reduce the clocks and run on a pool that doesn't pay for stale work. The cuda 11_2 build is also helping to reduce the hashrate.

[matmator]

Hello,

why we always reported hashrate = 0 on ethermine?

I think that with the maj ca going to be arranged but no!

[sp_]

The reported hashrate on ethermine is working fine here. Why don't you share your realtime mining link so we can investigate.



gtx 1660 with memtweak (bios mod) ~35MHASH !

--kernel 0 / GPUMemoryTransferRateOffsetAllPerformanceLevels=1700

57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU0 1660S 0.00 H/W 34.98 MH/s 35.01 MH/s 18/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU1 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.14 MH/s 35.11 MH/s 29/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU2 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.18 MH/s 35.10 MH/s 22/0/1 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU3 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.10 MH/s 35.01 MH/s 22/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU4 1660S 0.00 H/W 33.33 MH/s 33.49 MH/s 24/0/1 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU5 1660S 0.00 H/W 33.43 MH/s 33.47 MH/s 21/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU6 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.02 MH/s 34.96 MH/s 26/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU7 1660S 0.00 H/W 34.83 MH/s 34.96 MH/s 32/0/1 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU8 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.03 MH/s 35.03 MH/s 20/0/1 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU9 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.03 MH/s 35.03 MH/s 24/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU10 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.09 MH/s 35.01 MH/s 32/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU11 1660S 0.00 H/W 34.94 MH/s 35.00 MH/s 29/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU12 1660S 0.00 H/W 32.47 MH/s 32.42 MH/s 25/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] GPU13 1660S 0.00 H/W 35.16 MH/s 35.09 MH/s 30/0/0 (100.00%)
57m [2021-10-18 17:57:42.023] 0.00 H/W 484.71 MH/s 484.68 MH/s 354/0/4 (100.00%)

--kernel 0 low power,cards with few shaders, low intensity
..
--kernel 7 higher power good on cards with many shaders, high intensity

If your rig has low tdp, low intensity, autotune will probobly select a lower number kernel.
The rtx 3060 and up works best on 5-7
The gtx 1070 has a new record speed on kernel #4

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[BitBlitzer]

So all things being equal, is a kernel 7 (TBM 1.16) on a RTX 3080 faster compared to whatever kernel was used in 1.15?

Is it faster in reported MH/s or in actual shares?