Review T-REX - PhoenixMiner - NBMiner - LolMiner - TRM - Gminer - TBM

[MLong2]

All miner tests are based on a runtime of minimum 1 million shares using TRM Ethash Miner Tester v1.0.0! If deviation are negative, the miner are over-reporting - If the deviation are positive, the miner are under-reporting the hashrate. The miner fee are accounted for. Estimates are with 99% certainty

That is a reallyreview with 1 Million of shares to avoid luck in hashrate.no/tests

https://i.ibb.co/F6LPkqJ/Screenshot-20211119-232724-Chrome.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/HzhMwFV/Screenshot-20211119-232744-Chrome.jpg


The review compare Reported hashrate (what miners said) vs True Hashrate (what we get payed)

Numbers say very clear than only lolMiner and TRM are honest  and they are both the best miners.
In conclusion we shouldn't believe miners Mhs like PhoenixMiner, GMiner, NBMiner or T-Rex, the only loyal miners are at the moment lolMiner and TRM

[1714793330]

1714793330

[1714793330]

1714793330

[1714793330]

1714793330

[1714793330]

1714793330

[1714793330]

1714793330

[deedeeranged]

A very good review with 1 Million of shares to avoid luck has been done in hashrate.no/tests
Numbers say very clear than only lolMiner and TRM are honest  and they are both the best miners.
In conclusion we shouldn't believe miners Mhs like PhoenixMiner, GMiner, NBMiner or T-Rex, the only loyal miners are at the moment lolMiner and TRM

Your falling for tha same trap.

The only hashrates that count are the ones reported by the pools and NOT the miner self.

[JayDDee]

In conclusion we shouldn't believe miners Mhs like PhoenixMiner, GMiner, NBMiner or T-Rex, the only loyal miners are at the moment lolMiner and TRM

Lies, damned lies, & statistics. Statistics are considered the worst kind of lies because they are misued.
Every miner calculates hash rates differently so they can't be directly compared. The dishonesty is in
using statistics out of context to mislead.

The conclusin is comparing reported hash rates is a waste of time.

[jgonzi]

In conclusion we shouldn't believe miners Mhs like PhoenixMiner, GMiner, NBMiner or T-Rex, the only loyal miners are at the moment lolMiner and TRM

Lies, damned lies, & statistics. Statistics are considered the worst kind of lies because they are misued.
Every miner calculates hash rates differently so they can't be directly compared. The dishonesty is in
using statistics out of context to mislead.

The conclusin is comparing reported hash rates is a waste of time.

So you mean that the TRM Analysis 1.0.0 is not good to determination that? What is your proposal?

I think you have developer a miner too. It is good to read new proposals.

[FP91G]

I did not understand how these experts conducted their tests. All tests must be carried out synchronously and on the same video cards.
Of course, you need to count the received shares, but in practice the difference is not big.
The problem can also be in the case of excessive overclocking and the mining farm is unstable.

[JayDDee]

So you mean that the TRM Analysis 1.0.0 is not good to determination that?

I'm saying comparing the reference hashrate reported by different miners is an invalid test because
each miner calculates differently. Objective measures are required to compare mining performance,
like effective hash rate calculated from shares submitted, and power consumption measured externally.
Anything the miner says is subjective.

I did not understand how these experts conducted their tests. All tests must be carried out synchronously and on the same video cards.
Of course, you need to count the received shares, but in practice the difference is not big.
The problem can also be in the case of excessive overclocking and the mining farm is unstable.

All important points but as you say the difference is not big, and it's not big enough to be significant.
But it's being used to claim dishonesty in hash reporting when there are many other factors that could cause
bigger differences.

The history is a feud between 2 closed source miners and claims of which was the fastest. One of the miner's
devs decided to prove it with a challenge and a test tool. The feud seemed to have died down but this may be
an attempt to revive it.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Rickirs]

Don't you think hashrate on pool depends upon luck, for example, if you get lots of consecutive valid shares, your pool hashrate will be higher. So I don't think reported hashrate to pool has anything to do with actual hashrate.

[bitcoin-shark]

so among all the mining software only lolminer and trm keep the real hashrate of the gpu? all the others turn them down? actually i believe we could never be sure of the real hashrate is impossible to verify

[skablast]

shark you don't read the table correctly. Phoenix and other are simply inflating the number they reported,not the other way around.
this report is accurate enough for me and it concur with the evidence on trying different miners on dual mining ZIL.(where each share count as its one minute)

I don't agree with Jaydee , (Btw, tx for your cpuminer) we aren't in the same situation were there was Claymore and Phoenix. It seem quite the opposite if you look at Hiveos Gpuminer % of users

[MLong2]

It is updated to last miners release in ETH:

https://i.ibb.co/vxmYwPN/ethminers.jpg

[FP91G]

I did not understand how these experts conducted their tests. All tests must be carried out synchronously and on the same video cards.
Of course, you need to count the received shares, but in practice the difference is not big.
The problem can also be in the case of excessive overclocking and the mining farm is unstable.

All important points but as you say the difference is not big, and it's not big enough to be significant.
But it's being used to claim dishonesty in hash reporting when there are many other factors that could cause
bigger differences.

The history is a feud between 2 closed source miners and claims of which was the fastest. One of the miner's
devs decided to prove it with a challenge and a test tool. The feud seemed to have died down but this may be
an attempt to revive it.

It is very important for a miner to achieve stable work from a mining farm.
For example, I use T-Rex, I learned how to fine tune this miner for my AMD video cards.
No article will convince me to change the miner, because even if I lose 1-3% of the shares, this will not greatly affect my profit.
Miners do not pay attention to such articles, because they understand that identical video cards can have different hash rates and different overclocking options.

[MLong2]

I did not understand how these experts conducted their tests. All tests must be carried out synchronously and on the same video cards.
Of course, you need to count the received shares, but in practice the difference is not big.
The problem can also be in the case of excessive overclocking and the mining farm is unstable.

All important points but as you say the difference is not big, and it's not big enough to be significant.
But it's being used to claim dishonesty in hash reporting when there are many other factors that could cause
bigger differences.

The history is a feud between 2 closed source miners and claims of which was the fastest. One of the miner's
devs decided to prove it with a challenge and a test tool. The feud seemed to have died down but this may be
an attempt to revive it.

It is very important for a miner to achieve stable work from a mining farm.
For example, I use T-Rex, I learned how to fine tune this miner for my AMD video cards.
No article will convince me to change the miner, because even if I lose 1-3% of the shares, this will not greatly affect my profit.
Miners do not pay attention to such articles, because they understand that identical video cards can have different hash rates and different overclocking options.

"For example, I use T-Rex, I learned how to fine tune this miner for my AMD video cards." Are you payed from T-Rex?? 1st time I read T-Rex in AMD ...

[doktor83]

Could you please run latest SRBMiner (0.8.3) too, im curious how it compares to this company of 'famous' miners ?

[miner29]

Stability above all else.  I run almost every miner on my rigs based on the cards and what the rig likes best.  If i get more uptime with miner X over Y then i prefer to be up and more stable over time = more shares.  Abosulte max speed is like chassing the most profitable coin at the moment.  I prefer the stable/steady over the absolute fastest.  They are never one in the same.

[swogerino]

I did not understand how these experts conducted their tests. All tests must be carried out synchronously and on the same video cards.
Of course, you need to count the received shares, but in practice the difference is not big.
The problem can also be in the case of excessive overclocking and the mining farm is unstable.

All important points but as you say the difference is not big, and it's not big enough to be significant.
But it's being used to claim dishonesty in hash reporting when there are many other factors that could cause
bigger differences.

The history is a feud between 2 closed source miners and claims of which was the fastest. One of the miner's
devs decided to prove it with a challenge and a test tool. The feud seemed to have died down but this may be
an attempt to revive it.

It is very important for a miner to achieve stable work from a mining farm.
For example, I use T-Rex, I learned how to fine tune this miner for my AMD video cards.
No article will convince me to change the miner, because even if I lose 1-3% of the shares, this will not greatly affect my profit.
Miners do not pay attention to such articles, because they understand that identical video cards can have different hash rates and different overclocking options.

"For example, I use T-Rex, I learned how to fine tune this miner for my AMD video cards." Are you payed from T-Rex?? 1st time I read T-Rex in AMD ...

FP91G has been in mining from a long time so most probably is either a typo as most probably he meant Nvidia cards.

I have tried all the AMD miners possible and dual miners Nvidia+AMD.I am happy with Phoenixminer the most although many says it lies about the hashrate I check at the pool and I don't see it lying at all,that's just my personal preference though.Overall there is no big difference in profit between miners,just use the one which is the most stable to your rig configuration.

[MLong2]

Could you please run latest SRBMiner (0.8.3) too, im curious how it compares to this company of 'famous' miners ?

It is not my website... I only look on it... It will be interesting SRBMiner, Miniz and ethermine. My test with SRBMiner in ERGO have been always honestly reports.

[sp_]

This is not a real test. The TRM Ethash Miner Tester v1.0.0 is reducing the difficulty too much. Why don't you do a real test with 1 million shares on a normal pool?

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the miningsoftware to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

Users who have switched to the team black miner has reported more than +5% poolside profit. Check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFqb8I_eVI


And read the faq for the optimal pools and settings.

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/blob/main/FAQ.md

[philipma1957]

real tests are next to impossible to do.

but here goes. same rig in all case

use any software 1 mine eth to viabtc with a rig for 10 hours see what you earn

use any software 2 mine eth to viabtc with a rig for 10 hours see what you earn

use any software 3 mine eth to viabtc with a rig for 10 hours see what you earn


more in a minute.

a dag changes every 100 hours

so you can do 9 software tests. 10 hours each

[doktor83]

This is not a real test. The TRM Ethash Miner Tester v1.0.0 is reducing the difficulty too much. Why don't you do a real test with 1 million shares on a normal pool?

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the miningsoftware to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

Users who have switched to the team black miner has reported more than +5% poolside profit. Check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFqb8I_eVI


And read the faq for the optimal pools and settings.

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/blob/main/FAQ.md

you are incredible, using every situation to advertise your miner. Great job 

[skablast]

I agree.  Doktor is right. SRBminer need to  be included  in the comparison.even if it doesn't work with Nvidia card but this is also true for TRM

[MLong2]

This is not a real test. The TRM Ethash Miner Tester v1.0.0 is reducing the difficulty too much. Why don't you do a real test with 1 million shares on a normal pool?

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the miningsoftware to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

Users who have switched to the team black miner has reported more than +5% poolside profit. Check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFqb8I_eVI


And read the faq for the optimal pools and settings.

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/blob/main/FAQ.md

How can you see is not a real test?. You can put more difficulty in the test if you want it ... it will only take more time. I test your miner, and I discard it fast when I see how dishonest is your hashrate...

In our groups we call it instead of Team Black Miner (TBM) the Team Bluff Miner (TBM). Please, be honest with your hashrate and you will have people that use it, with the great support you give. But I don't accept the lies!!

[sp_]

--kernel [5] --xintensity [4096] (no add --tweak and no add --dagintensity)

Pictures say more than words.

This is a real test on a real mining pool.. With a real profit difference. The hashrate you see is real. The hashrate reported in the miner window is confirmed.

Why don't you do a test on the 2miners pool with --xintensity 4096? Compare it with all the other miners. And you will see why more and more ppl are switching to the Team Black Miner...

[MLong2]

--kernel [5] --xintensity [4096] (no add --tweak and no add --dagintensity)

Pictures say more than words.

This is a real test on a real mining pool.. With a real profit difference. The hashrate you see is real. The hashrate reported in the miner window is confirmed.

Why don't you do a test on the 2miners pool with --xintensity 4096? Compare it with all the other miners. And you will see why more and more ppl are switching to the Team Black Miner...

--kernel [5] --xintensity [4096] (no add --tweak and no add --dagintensity)

Pictures say more than words.

This is a real test on a real mining pool.. With a real profit difference. The hashrate you see is real. The hashrate reported in the miner window is confirmed.

Why don't you do a test on the 2miners pool with --xintensity 4096? Compare it with all the other miners. And you will perhaps you will understand why more and more ppl are switching to the Team Black Miner...

Yes it said all... You said Pool 53 Mhs and is 50Mhs... where are this 3Mhs?  Team Bluff Miner! (TBM)!

Please stop lying the people!! When you give real Numers you will have people using it. Do it really, is not a problem, people like the support, not the lies!!

[sp_]

My reply to you in my thread:

Yes it said all... You said Pool 53 Mhs and is 50Mhs... where are this 3Mhs?

The pool is the average of 6 hours, but he has only mined for 5:48 and the last accepted shares has not been added to the pool yet... The pool only refresh every 10minutes. So I expect the 50.50MHASH poolside hashrate comes from 5:30 minutes of mining

If you want to mine on low difficulty use --xintensity 1 . The hashrate will hurt, but perhaps the fake test will show the same numbers as in the miner window. I have explained to you why in the thread above, but you don't seem to listen.

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the mining software to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

The point of a miner software is to make money. Configure it wrong and you will loose money.

[deedeeranged]

--kernel [5] --xintensity [4096] (no add --tweak and no add --dagintensity)

Pictures say more than words.

This is a real test on a real mining pool.. With a real profit difference. The hashrate you see is real. The hashrate reported in the miner window is confirmed.

Why don't you do a test on the 2miners pool with --xintensity 4096? Compare it with all the other miners. And you will see why more and more ppl are switching to the Team Black Miner...

--kernel [5] --xintensity [4096] (no add --tweak and no add --dagintensity)

Pictures say more than words.

This is a real test on a real mining pool.. With a real profit difference. The hashrate you see is real. The hashrate reported in the miner window is confirmed.

Why don't you do a test on the 2miners pool with --xintensity 4096? Compare it with all the other miners. And you will perhaps you will understand why more and more ppl are switching to the Team Black Miner...

Yes it said all... You said Pool 53 Mhs and is 50Mhs... where are this 3Mhs?  Team Bluff Miner! (TBM)!

Please stop lying the people!! When you give real Numers you will have people using it. Do it really, is not a problem, people like the support, not the lies!!

As I said in the beginning POOL hashrate is leading NOT miners reported hashrate. You are falling in the same trap as a lot off others, and no I am not using TBM.
You have to learn which hashrates are important

[JayDDee]

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the miningsoftware to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

This is BS. If you find more solutions than you submit it will lower the pool's hash rate, the one that matters.
If this is really happening it's a software defect that should be fixed.
And lower difficulty doesn't result in more frequent jobs. It just lowers the threshold for solutions so you find
more solutions per job.

[sp_]

This is BS. If you find more solutions than you submit it will lower the pool's hash rate, the one that matters.
If this is really happening it's a software defect that should be fixed.

The point is that mining on super Low difficulty is not a real case scenario. Check the latest NBMiner. They have moved the cpu verfication code out to it's own thread in order to perform better on low difficulty. We might do the same in tbminer, but why should we? No ethereum pools use low difficulty, so it wont affect the profit, but it can improve the test scenario.. Better to disable cpu verification.
A software defect in the test, not in the miner.

[JayDDee]

This is BS. If you find more solutions than you submit it will lower the pool's hash rate, the one that matters.
If this is really happening it's a software defect that should be fixed.

The point is that mining on super Low difficulty is not a real case scenario. Check the latest NBMiner. They have moved the cpu verfication code out to it's own thread in order to perform better on low difficulty. We might do the same in tbminer, but why should we? No ethereum pools use low difficulty, so it wont affect the profit, but it can improve the test scenario.. Better to disable cpu verification.
A software defect in the test, not in the miner.

For comparison testing all miners should use the same difficulty. If some miners can't handle low difficulty it's the miner's problem.
I had already suggested decoupling the CPU verification so the GPU can keep hashing in parallel with verification and submission.

[dedizonesv2]

This is not a real test. The TRM Ethash Miner Tester v1.0.0 is reducing the difficulty too much. Why don't you do a real test with 1 million shares on a normal pool?

When the difficulty is low, the gpu mining software will need to submit all the found solutions in a warp to the pool,. On high diff only 1 solution is found, but on low diff 16 or more could be found, and this could cause the miningsoftware to skip sending solutions to the pool because 2 or 4 is the maximum solutions limit per warp in the optimized code.. An other problem is that on low difficulty the jobs enter the miner much more rapidly, and  then the gpu has to abort work more often. So by reducing the workload (intensity) of each warp it will give an advantage in the test. This means that it is easy to improve the "test results" in the simulation, but it won't improve the profit on the pool...

Users who have switched to the team black miner has reported more than +5% poolside profit. Check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFqb8I_eVI


And read the faq for the optimal pools and settings.

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/blob/main/FAQ.md

you are incredible, using every situation to advertise your miner. Great job 

I confess +1

Miner hahsrate inflation, and the SP_ does not know how to go to pools where we pay the stales .. to earn more!

[MLong2]

Totally agree, the are new updates of the test in the webpage!!

[jgonzi]

Very interesting review... I hope they continue doing it with new miners updates

[GoRdiE]

Well. for me, and 1070ti the best seems to be NBMiner. Here a capture on nicehash.

Looking at the UNPAID BALANCE more than hashrate, it is a test of just over three hours

https://ibb.co/z5Bg4xp