These new EFFICIENT x11 algos everyone is talking about ?? BULLSHIT or real?

[ZeroBarrier]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

But that's the point. Imagine if I optimized a game to push my GPU as hard as Furmark does just to squeeze some extra work out of it. Both of us run the game and while you get 32 FPS using the exact same hardware as I am, I'm getting 48 FPS due to my secret optimizations under the hood. I know this is a very terrible analogy, but think about it.

None of this would be a problem if pushing the GPU or limiting the GPU is a user choice, much like scrypt. Let's say I mine a Scrypt coin and get 500Kh/s on my GPU stock, but if I OC and OV some I can push it to 585Kh/s; now durring the summer months this might be a problem where you live due in part to extreme heat, increased electricity price and increased power consumption, so I go ahead and underclock 50% and undervolt to about 60% and now get 255Kh/s. This makes sense to me; what doesn't make sense is claiming 50% less heat and power consumption while still hashing at full capacity.

[cryptohunter]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

Interesting.... since i'm not "clued up" with the design and workings of gpus... let's explore that idea further. I like to learn things...

I say nothing.... i am asking.

So just that i may understand what you are saying..... scrypt is stressing parts of the card harder than these other algos. The memory side of things in simple terms. Scrypt is memory intensive so it uses full memory bandwidth etc and can force the card to it's full limits. More heat and electricity used.

You are saying perhaps these other algos because they are not memory hard and do not stress the memory to it's full potential..... however the gpu could still not process these algos any faster not because the memory is being fully used but because other parts of the card are already stressed to the max. Therefore unlikely any more optimisation is possible regardless of the mining software?

Is that what you mean? This is what i was asking about when i was saying is there a bottleneck...........i mean surely if you could increase the cards calculating potential in all other areas except the memory parts then eventually the memory would be saturated by solving these new algos right? there is some part of the card holding back it having all of it's memory resources being fully exhausted?

Is that what you mean?

[cryptohunter]

I think that the best miner out there at the moment is sgminer when it comes to best performance overall!

Correct me if i am wrong please.

well this is exactly the point.... that miner gives the best widely KNOWN performace.............. however it seems your gpu is not working all that hard. Almost like driving a car at 1000rpm.

What if some people know how to unlock the rev limiter and step up the gears.... yes they may burn 2x the fuel but may be able to travel 10x as far.

This is what we want to find out.

Also .... what if x11 is not as secure as we all think against asics... what if there are already asics for it.

Would asics be far harder to build for scryptn, scrypt jane high n, and even qrk.  I mean what if x11 was less secure and more open to asics as well as not being any more efficient either???

That would kind of take the shine off of x11 wouldn't it. Actually x11 would look like a terrible idea.

Let's hope this is not the case.... but we need to look into it all the same. Imagine all the hard forking of all these coins having to swap back to scrypt N , scrypt jane, scrypt, QRK...

that would be terrible, let's explore x11 very very deeply before we all hop on board.

[hellscabane]

I agree with some of what has been said. As an example, GPUs mining SHA-256 doesn't run as hot as those running scrypt (and also uses a smidge less electricity).

With that said, does it mean that the miner isn't optimized? In the sense that "significant" improvements can be made, part of me says yes; there may be quicker opportunities to tweak the vectorizing. But this may be limited to an extent based on how the architecture interacts (I may be missing something regarding threading, so I'm not entirely sure.). Does this mean an already more efficient miner exists and only a select few know about it and use it? Wouldn't necessarily say yes, but I would say that's more likely with X11 than scrypt.

[I also want to call shenanigans on the lower draw; it seems much lower than what would make sense. However, this is from what I can gather, haven't had the chance to peruse everything in the source (and admittedly won't take all of the effort in doing so).]

[Wipeout2097]

I'm too tired atm, perhaps I didn't understand what you mean ...

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

But that's the point. Imagine if I optimized a game to push my GPU as hard as Furmark does just to squeeze some extra work out of it. Both of us run the game and while you get 32 FPS using the exact same hardware as I am, I'm getting 48 FPS due to my secret optimizations under the hood. I know this is a very terrible analogy, but think about it.

None of this would be a problem if pushing the GPU or limiting the GPU is a user choice, much like scrypt. Let's say I mine a Scrypt coin and get 500Kh/s on my GPU stock, but if I OC and OV some I can push it to 585Kh/s; now durring the summer months this might be a problem where you live due in part to extreme heat, increased electricity price and increased power consumption, so I go ahead and underclock 50% and undervolt to about 60% and now get 255Kh/s. This makes sense to me; what doesn't make sense is claiming 50% less heat and power consumption while still hashing at full capacity.

Well, it could be hashing "at full capacity" with less heat, because the hash code is different. There are parts of the chip left unused, the code itself doesn't demand operations from what's memory related. There are not random addressing jumps like scrypt. Those parts just sit there because they just have nothing to do, while the arithmetic core is already at 100% usage.

I'll try to give a counter-example; the so called "CPU only" Heavycoin where the devs struggled to destroy paralellism and prevent GPU mining. It took 2 weeks(?) for the first heavycoin GPU miner to be mentioned. cgminer-heavy work-in-progress (that one needed to compile from source) could only reach 7(?) Mh/s on a 280x in the very beginning, then it raised to 11, to 15 Mh/s and I don't know how much it is now. Christian's ccminer could reach 13 Mh/s on a 750Ti and for a few hours it beat a R9-290. Reorder had to program, operate the pool, go on with his life, etc... Was someone holding the R9-290 speed vs a simpler 750Ti due to a conspiracy? No, of course not. It takes massive brain power, time, skill and personal effort to optimize miner code. Now, go and mine Heavycoin at the maxed out performance, and look at the temperatures.

Of course, I'm not trying to distract from the possibility that there are secret X11 miners out there and a few guys are mining at much higher speed than the rest of us. It could be! There have been lots of suspicions (or even confirmations) regarding private miners or optimizations during last months. However, that's a different discussion from what I'm trying to get at here.

[IloveAnonCoin]

Every algorithm in X11 are able to create by ASIC since day one, and it is not high memory constraint like Scrypt. The darkcoin dev also said.
Here is my thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=540160.0

[Kai Proctor]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

+1

GPU miner and the source if somebody is up for some "optimizations" : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475795.0

[precrime3]

Sgminer does not work with me. I assume its same parameters as cgminer, doesn't work. Put the same stratum info into darkcoins miner, and bloop! Mining hiro xD

[Kai Proctor]

Sgminer does not work with me. I assume its same parameters as cgminer, doesn't work. Put the same stratum info into darkcoins miner, and bloop! Mining hiro xD

What are your parameters ?

[precrime3]

I'm away from my computer, do not remember. Will try to post ASAP though.

[haggis]

I'm away from my computer, do not remember. Will try to post ASAP though.

Please don't talk about sgminer optimizations here. This topic is about the inner working of X11 whether it is architectural limited in ressource consumption or if this is just what the masses believe.

Here's the right thread for such questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475795.0

No offense, just don't want to see this interesting thread going offtopic
Thanks!

[precrime3]

I'm away from my computer, do not remember. Will try to post ASAP though.

Please don't talk about sgminer optimizations here. This topic is about the inner working of X11 whether it is architectural limited in ressource consumption or if this is just what the masses believe.

No offense, just don't want to see this interesting thread going offtopic
Thanks!

I won't! I will probably PM him/her if he/she is still interested when I get home from school tomorrow.

[cryptohunter]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

+1

GPU miner and the source if somebody is up for some "optimizations" : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475795.0

the problem here is that the persons able to build a far more efficient miner that uses the cards full capacity have no reason to release it. It hasn't been proven either way yet. However i think more time is required before we see a mass exodus from scrypt to x11.

Is x11 more open to asics than say QRK for instance since theirs is random not sequential.

Let's examine the differences between QRK and x11, does the mining the qrk algo seem to use a lot less electricity and produce a lot less heat?

I mean what exactly does x11 provide in terms of security and efficiency over and above qrks ??

Explain it to me so i can see exactly why everyone is wishing to jump to x11?  

Also why has scrypt jane lost favour to x11?  

If you were a developer now which algos would you be going for? and why?

Has x11 really had enough time to be tested?  and if there is nothing clearly superior about it over those that came before what is the point of it exactly.

Would tagging on a few more algos for x15 make it even better?

If we are really talking asic resistance x11 is nothing, i have heard countless times it would have been a lot easier to produce an x11 asic than even a scrypt asic. It has been said it would be far easier for an individual or small group of individuals to produce and x11 asic ?

So for now we really only have those with high N factor that seem resistant for now...

[precrime3]

I believe the reason why x11 is rising in popularity is simply the fact it uses less heat and power. All algos are asic resistant, until someone makes a ASIC for that algo, so that's for me is irrelevant. It hashes 3-4x faster compared to scrypt, but again irrelevant, as everyone else is hashing "faster" as well.

[Kai Proctor]

I'm away from my computer, do not remember. Will try to post ASAP though.

e.g. with a p2pool node (http://drk.poolhash.org/) :

sgminer -k darkcoin -o 54.186.8.140:7903 -u [your wallet address] -p 1234

offtopic: off  

[cryptohunter]

I'm away from my computer, do not remember. Will try to post ASAP though.

e.g. with a p2pool node (http://drk.poolhash.org/) :

sgminer -k darkcoin -o 54.186.8.140:7903 -u [your wallet address] -p 1234

offtopic: off  

we are not here to discuss your particular coin....it is the x11 chain we are here to discuss.  However if you wish to directly discuss your coin...

so far we have already called into question

1. that x11 is innovative.... it is not, it is less innovative than qrks own chain.... the algos are not even random and the block times are slower making it probably easier to attack too.
chaining algos is not innovative ( perhaps you are talking about the dark aspect of the coin but then again as yet it is talk - i guess we await zero coin)

2. that is it secure ? seem post 1 it seems less secure than qrk too with regards attacks, again untested so a bold claim.

3. that it efficient - this is open to question, the chain is not efficient - the miner is possibly intentionally crippled, or if not intentionally then it has probably been vastly improved so that most of x11 miners are getting raped by highly efficient optimised miners.

4. asic resistant ... again already mentioned it would be less costly to create asic for x11 than scrypt. It could already have happened. Far less costly then scryptN and scrypt jane with high N.


The thing about scrypt is in a few months everyone will have access to scrypt asics cheaply in some form or another.

Right now it is entirely possible there are those running highly efficient x11 miners that give the same advantage to a select few as having asics really. Even then there could be x11 asics too since the algos in that chain are not asic resistant. X11 saying it is asic resistant is a lot less likely than scrypt jane with high N or scryptN being asic resistant.

So you need to change your sig because it could be potentially be spreading misinformation and blatant lies.

So really relying on drks algo is looking pretty weak, it is looking like marketing hype over anything else. Show me some real advantages over existing high N factor algos or chained algos.
Also x11 is getting cloned by every single new coin coming out now so again this is no longer a real selling point for drk.

If i was a drk coin supporter i would be touting it's drk properties that could be end up making it a rival to a real dark coin like zero coin, not pushing the x11 algo because as yet i see NO evidence to suggest it was even worth coming up with.

Drk has a reasonable community and dedicated dev so i am not knocking it really, however let's discuss x11 not your coin.

[Wipeout2097]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

Interesting.... since i'm not "clued up" with the design and workings of gpus... let's explore that idea further. I like to learn things...

I say nothing.... i am asking.

So just that i may understand what you are saying..... scrypt is stressing parts of the card harder than these other algos. The memory side of things in simple terms. Scrypt is memory intensive so it uses full memory bandwidth etc and can force the card to it's full limits. More heat and electricity used.

You are saying perhaps these other algos because they are not memory hard and do not stress the memory to it's full potential..... however the gpu could still not process these algos any faster not because the memory is being fully used but because other parts of the card are already stressed to the max. Therefore unlikely any more optimisation is possible regardless of the mining software?

Is that what you mean? This is what i was asking about when i was saying is there a bottleneck...........i mean surely if you could increase the cards calculating potential in all other areas except the memory parts then eventually the memory would be saturated by solving these new algos right? there is some part of the card holding back it having all of it's memory resources being fully exhausted?

Is that what you mean?

Yes, basically what I mean is that there's actually nothing useful to be done on parts of the chip. Scrypt is stressing more parts of the videocard, that's what I know for sure. Regarding if some things could be done to get more hash out of a card, if there could be better load distribution or work around existing bottlenecks, that I don't know.

To give you accurate not half-assed answers though, I would need to dig deeper into OpenCL, hardware articles and ATI/AMD manuals. I'm very tempted to do so, when I have some free time and peace of mind

[cryptohunter]

I don't see where's a serious bottleneck or some conspiracy. Since X11 (and hefty, keccak and those others from sph-sgminer) is not memory hard, you're not stressing the memory controller, L2 caches and the ram chips.

You're used to scrypt, see it as a "reference" and say that others must not be optimized due to low power use and thermals. However, scrypt is the odd one out in the first place, a complete card fuck like Furmark or some videocard stress test.

Interesting.... since i'm not "clued up" with the design and workings of gpus... let's explore that idea further. I like to learn things...

I say nothing.... i am asking.

So just that i may understand what you are saying..... scrypt is stressing parts of the card harder than these other algos. The memory side of things in simple terms. Scrypt is memory intensive so it uses full memory bandwidth etc and can force the card to it's full limits. More heat and electricity used.

You are saying perhaps these other algos because they are not memory hard and do not stress the memory to it's full potential..... however the gpu could still not process these algos any faster not because the memory is being fully used but because other parts of the card are already stressed to the max. Therefore unlikely any more optimisation is possible regardless of the mining software?

Is that what you mean? This is what i was asking about when i was saying is there a bottleneck...........i mean surely if you could increase the cards calculating potential in all other areas except the memory parts then eventually the memory would be saturated by solving these new algos right? there is some part of the card holding back it having all of it's memory resources being fully exhausted?

Is that what you mean?

Yes, basically what I mean is that there's actually nothing useful to be done on parts of the chip. Scrypt is stressing more parts of the videocard, that's what I know for sure. Regarding if some things could be done to get more hash out of a card, if there could be better load distribution or work around existing bottlenecks, that I don't know.

To give you accurate not half-assed answers though, I would need to dig into code, articles and even ATI/AMD manuals. I'm very tempted to do so, when I have some free time  

Thanks that's what i thought.

If x11 is really a superior chained algo let's use it, but really we need to find out if it is or not. I was suggesting using it on a few threads and even was talking with a dev about switching from scrypt to x11 until he mentioned a few of the points i brought up here. I had just though there would have been a lot more questioning on this algo before everyone just jumped on it claiming it was the best thing out, so i just assumed it must be as great as everyone says..... then i was made aware there could be some serious issues with it.

Let's see if some super boffins turn up here to tell us straight if x11 is amazing or is a waste of time and nothing more than a marketing gimmick that seems to have gone viral with the noobs. All i hear is x11 x11 x11... be terrible if it turned out to be shit.

[SpeedDemon13]

Honestly, the car analogy is probably a bad example. Cars and computer hardware are two different things. For example, you have a high mhz cpu dual core vs a 4 core low mhz cpu quad core. Obviously, the high mhz dual core will win most single thread processes, but the quad core will win most multi threads. In a car's case, a high revving 4 cylinder car has to do high rpm to match the same horsepower as a lower revving V8.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Truly, if you wanted to know if it was efficient or not, you would need a programmer and computer engineer to debunk it or verify it.

[romang]

To much hype with this not as good as they say.