eXtremal


September 21, 2014, 09:35:36 PM 

I can't optimize miner for 270/280X, because I don't have them. Version 9.1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/auba1v24elkz23y/xpmclient_v9.1.tar.gz?dl=0 All OpenCL kernel parameters (chain length target, sieve size, etc) moved to config.txt file. After changing kernel parameters you must delete old kernel.bin file before miner launching  Full 11ch target support (set target = "11"; in config.txt when difficulty reach ~10.98810.99).
For 270 and 280X cards you can try:  primorials 12, 13 and 14  "sieveSize" values  210, 420, 630 and 840  different "weaveDepth" values (must be a multiple of 256)







Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.



Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.


ap1
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 38
Merit: 0


September 22, 2014, 12:17:55 AM 

I can't optimize miner for 270/280X, because I don't have them. Version 9.1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/auba1v24elkz23y/xpmclient_v9.1.tar.gz?dl=0 All OpenCL kernel parameters (chain length target, sieve size, etc) moved to config.txt file. After changing kernel parameters you must delete old kernel.bin file before miner launching  Full 11ch target support (set target = "11"; in config.txt when difficulty reach ~10.98810.99).
For 270 and 280X cards you can try:  primorials 12, 13 and 14  "sieveSize" values  210, 420, 630 and 840  different "weaveDepth" values (must be a multiple of 256) Sure no problem and I don't expect that you will optimize it for all cards as you are planning to support old ATi cards and even Nvidia Maxwell. Just give you the information that old/slower cards probably need much different tuning parameters.




eXtremal


September 23, 2014, 09:14:43 AM 

My experiments with R9 280X (1100/1250) and version 9,1: primorial 14 [GPU 0] T=64C A=97% E=0 primes=0.104240 fermat=709830/sec cpd=9.29/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=736596 diff=10.976544 latency=169ms Work received: height=736597 diff=10.976542 latency=167ms [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.104230 fermat=700775/sec cpd=9.16/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=736598 diff=10.976527 latency=167ms Work received: height=736599 diff=10.976546 latency=170ms [GPU 0] T=64C A=95% E=0 primes=0.104253 fermat=708750/sec cpd=9.29/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 9ch(0/0/0)
primorial 13 [GPU 0] T=64C A=95% E=0 primes=0.105844 fermat=610418/sec cpd=9.31/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105879 fermat=622893/sec cpd=9.53/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105916 fermat=617762/sec cpd=9.48/day (ST/INV/DUP): 1x 10ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=736534 diff=10.976459 latency=172ms Work received: height=736535 diff=10.976453 latency=172ms
primorial 12 Work received: height=736542 diff=10.976462 latency=173ms [GPU 0] T=65C A=95% E=0 primes=0.107466 fermat=497988/sec cpd=8.84/day (ST/INV/DUP): none Work received: height=736543 diff=10.976461 latency=172ms Work received: height=736544 diff=10.976463 latency=175ms [GPU 0] T=65C A=94% E=0 primes=0.107517 fermat=493357/sec cpd=8.80/day (ST/INV/DUP): none
primorial 13 is optimal, trying change weave depth to 38912: [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105512 fermat=650201/sec cpd=9.61/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=736833 diff=10.976756 latency=175ms Work received: height=736834 diff=10.976754 latency=172ms [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105512 fermat=650914/sec cpd=9.62/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=736835 diff=10.976758 latency=176ms [GPU 0] T=65C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105516 fermat=651608/sec cpd=9.63/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0)
Memory overclocking to 1500 test: [GPU 0] T=66C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105486 fermat=662313/sec cpd=9.76/day (ST/INV/DUP): none [GPU 0] T=66C A=97% E=0 primes=0.105513 fermat=661911/sec cpd=9.78/day (ST/INV/DUP): none
You can reach ~9,8CPD on R9 280X @ 1100/1500 with primorial = 13 and weave depth = 38912




ivanlabrie


September 23, 2014, 10:04:29 AM 

Amazing results, props for the great work you've put out.




ap1
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 38
Merit: 0


September 23, 2014, 12:13:47 PM 

You can reach ~9,8CPD on R9 280X @ 1100/1500 with primorial = 13 and weave depth = 38912
Thanks for your effort. I have tried v9.1 and it is quite funny that it seems default weave depth is faster this time... I need to test more to confirm it. Are you going to update your git source after you get to a stable release? (I know the CL code for kernel is in the tar.gz already.)




eXtremal


September 23, 2014, 12:41:28 PM 

I have tried v9.1 and it is quite funny that it seems default weave depth is faster this time... I need to test more to confirm it. I run 280X with default weave depth again, waiting... Are you going to update your git source after you get to a stable release? (I know the CL code for kernel is in the tar.gz already.) Latest sources already in repository https://github.com/eXtremalik7/xpmclientCL code sources need for recompile after kernel parameters (sieve size, weave depth, width and target) changed.




eXtremal


September 25, 2014, 04:46:51 PM 

it seems default weave depth is faster this time Not faster, same speed ~9,7x on R9 280X 1100/1500 And some results for 11ch target. Primorial 13: [GPU 0] T=68C A=96% E=0 primes=0.105659 fermat=221072/sec cpd=0.35/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=740488 diff=10.979589 latency=171ms [GPU 0] T=68C A=96% E=0 primes=0.105674 fermat=224389/sec cpd=0.36/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=740489 diff=10.979591 latency=169ms Work received: height=740490 diff=10.979592 latency=170ms Work received: height=740491 diff=10.979594 latency=170ms [GPU 0] T=68C A=94% E=0 primes=0.105695 fermat=219435/sec cpd=0.35/day
Primorial 14: GPU 0: core=1100MHz mem=1500MHz powertune=20 fanspeed=70 (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=69C A=96% E=0 primes=0.103969 fermat=284947/sec cpd=0.38/day (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=70C A=96% E=0 primes=0.103970 fermat=284381/sec cpd=0.38/day (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0)
For target 11, primorial 14 is optimal.




kev7112001


September 25, 2014, 04:52:51 PM 

it seems default weave depth is faster this time Not faster, same speed ~9,7x on R9 280X 1100/1500 And some results for 11ch target. Primorial 13: [GPU 0] T=68C A=96% E=0 primes=0.105659 fermat=221072/sec cpd=0.35/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=740488 diff=10.979589 latency=171ms [GPU 0] T=68C A=96% E=0 primes=0.105674 fermat=224389/sec cpd=0.36/day (ST/INV/DUP): 3x 9ch(0/0/0) Work received: height=740489 diff=10.979591 latency=169ms Work received: height=740490 diff=10.979592 latency=170ms Work received: height=740491 diff=10.979594 latency=170ms [GPU 0] T=68C A=94% E=0 primes=0.105695 fermat=219435/sec cpd=0.35/day
Primorial 14: GPU 0: core=1100MHz mem=1500MHz powertune=20 fanspeed=70 (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=69C A=96% E=0 primes=0.103969 fermat=284947/sec cpd=0.38/day (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0) [GPU 0] T=70C A=96% E=0 primes=0.103970 fermat=284381/sec cpd=0.38/day (ST/INV/DUP): 7x 9ch(0/0/0) 1x 10ch(0/0/0)
For target 11, primorial 14 is optimal. yeah i was about to ask if the cpd was correct for 11ch i got the same. also how do u figure the weave depth any calcs on that

MCXNOW MODERATOR



eXtremal


September 27, 2014, 08:14:20 PM 

also how do u figure the weave depth any calcs on that Weave depth is a number of primes using by sieve weaving... more primes  less candidates on sieve output but with more prime probability. Difficulty stop growing, 11ch target not needed again




kev7112001


September 27, 2014, 09:39:45 PM 

also how do u figure the weave depth any calcs on that Weave depth is a number of primes using by sieve weaving... more primes  less candidates on sieve output but with more prime probability. Difficulty stop growing, 11ch target not needed again yeah i know what it is but i was just wondering how to figure out the sizes i should u with other settings also u see that shieldcoin guess its using prime too looks like a moded primeminer

MCXNOW MODERATOR



eXtremal


October 03, 2014, 09:32:31 PM 

Version 9.2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pk4c6l7g8lpfsv/xpmclient_v9.2.tar.gz?dl=0 +3% on R9 280X, stable ~10CPD with clocks 1100/1500: [GPU 0] T=70C A=99% E=0 primes=0.105558 fermat=676272/sec cpd=10.04/day GPU 0: core=1100MHz mem=1500MHz powertune=20 fanspeed=70 (ST/INV/DUP): none [GPU 0] T=70C A=99% E=0 primes=0.105597 fermat=672678/sec cpd=10.02/day (ST/INV/DUP): none Work received: height=751324 diff=10.974172 latency=165ms
Stock R9 290X shows up to 14.114.2CPD (catalyst 14.7, primorial 13 used)  Sieve benchmark added (for benchmarking, run ./xpmclient b) square 320 bits: 20.752ms (6467.701M ops/sec) multiply 320 bits: 27.231ms (4928.858M ops/sec) square 352 bits: 25.454ms (5272.952M ops/sec) multiply 352 bits: 32.821ms (4089.386M ops/sec) Fermat tests 320 bits: 36.403ms (3.601M ops/sec) Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.552ms (2.756M ops/sec)
*** hashmod benchmark *** MHash per second: 592.928 Hash per iteration: 32.484 (0.000387 %) Hashes by multipliers count: * [8] 31.062 (95.623%) * [9] 1.344 (4.137%) * [10] 0.078 (0.241%)
*** sieve (check) benchmark *** * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 5456 by GPU: 5461 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0
*** sieve (performance) benchmark *** * scan speed: 94.472 G * iteration time: 5.827ms * candidates per second: 1062827.414 * candidates per iteration: 6193.26 (3228.46 320bit, 2964.81 352bit) * 320bit/352bit ratio: 1.089/1
 Reboot system after GPU crash (properly untested feature) yeah i know what it is but i was just wondering how to figure out the sizes i should u with other settings If I understand right.. only experiments helps you. For 10ch target default value optimal, for 9ch and 11ch may be another value of weave depth better. also u see that shieldcoin guess its using prime too looks like a moded primeminer You about this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=681570.0 ? It's X15.




kev7112001


October 04, 2014, 03:31:59 PM 


MCXNOW MODERATOR




kev7112001


October 04, 2014, 11:28:28 PM 

i noticed this new version gives errors if the cpu is being tasked before it would just lower speed some

MCXNOW MODERATOR



LongAndShort
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1050


October 05, 2014, 09:19:33 AM 

Awesome i also found one ages ago with your epic optimisations in the miner Thanks for 9.2 you really are a baws. Please give me your xpm address again please i want to donate some more to you




kev7112001


October 09, 2014, 06:21:22 PM 

i keep getting random errors every once in a while even with rigs that arent using any cpu usage just xpm mining only happens with 9.2

MCXNOW MODERATOR



kev7112001


October 16, 2014, 07:29:46 AM 

were at a all time high again

MCXNOW MODERATOR



LongAndShort
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1050


October 16, 2014, 07:57:24 AM 

were at a all time high again
Yup diff=10.980315 pretty high indeed looks like other gpu coins are not as profitable. I guess and people are looking to return to or diversify.




seansplayin
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0


October 19, 2014, 04:23:13 PM 

I'm trying to compile the primeserver but I'm getting /usr/bin/ld: cannot find lboost_random /usr/bin/ld: cannot find lpq collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [primecoind] Error 1
I have not Set the include paths etc. in makefile.unix, could this be what's giving me the error?
Ubuntu 12.04




eXtremal


October 19, 2014, 04:54:34 PM 

Ubuntu 12.04 sudo aptget install libboostalldev libpqdev




