[ANN] sgminer v5 - optimized X11/X13/NeoScrypt/Lyra2RE/etc. kernel-switch miner

[pallas]

BTW I got another 10℅, programming on the phone.

I tuned for 290X - you hit 1.6MH/s yet?

I'm on 290@1000/1250, about 1.1 Mh/s.
But income is so low it's not worth working on it.

[djm34]

BTW I got another 10℅, programming on the phone.

I tuned for 290X - you hit 1.6MH/s yet?

I'm on 290@1000/1250, about 1.1 Mh/s.
But income is so low it's not worth working on it.

actually I tried to use your groestl kernel yesterday (at least one part... wasn't in the mood to unroll everything  ), but I don't see any difference and actually it was a bit slower for me).

Wolf0, can you post your speed with these core/mem 1030/1250 (can't get my card to work at 1500MHz).
My current average speed with my r9 290x and my latest kernel is 1.3MH/s

[gabrielknight]

Hey djm34, there's something is wrong with the compiled binary that you post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=404364.msg9817141#msg9817141

When hashing lyra2RE (vtc), the hashrate shown on the miner is indeed faster 5-10% than the metalicjames one, but on pool it will only record half the hashrate.
All stats normal, low rejected shares, no hardware errors that are shown on the miners.
Tested it on two different pools, coinotron and hashlink.eu, still when using your windows binary, only half hashrate will be recorded on the web.
Somehow only half the shares are sent by the miners or accepted by the pool.
And it's not  just estimations only, the coin received is halved for the same time period.
When back on using metalicjames version, the hashrate going back to normal again.

Where's that half hashrate gone??
Could you please recheck the binaries. Thanks.

[pallas]

actually I tried to use your groestl kernel yesterday (at least one part... wasn't in the mood to unroll everything  ), but I don't see any difference and actually it was a bit slower for me).

it is eavily tuned for groestlcoin/diamond.
to use in x11, lyra2re or other multi-algo it need to be tuned differently.

[djm34]

Hey djm34, there's something is wrong with the compiled binary that you post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=404364.msg9817141#msg9817141

When hashing lyra2RE (vtc), the hashrate shown on the miner is indeed faster 5-10% than the metalicjames one, but on pool it will only record half the hashrate.
All stats normal, low rejected shares, no hardware errors that are shown on the miners.
Tested it on two different pools, coinotron and hashlink.eu, still when using your windows binary, only half hashrate will be recorded on the web.
Somehow only half the shares are sent by the miners or accepted by the pool.
And it's not  just estimations only, the coin received is halved for the same time period.
When back on using metalicjames version, the hashrate going back to normal again.

Where's that half hashrate gone??
Could you please recheck the binaries. Thanks.

must be related to the difficulty adjustment..., I will re-upload it. In the mean time there is also a difficulty multiplier option in sgminer (it shows as deprecated in the help, however it still works).
Also, I think that several pool are still tuning their hash report things... 

[djm34]

BTW I got another 10℅, programming on the phone.

I tuned for 290X - you hit 1.6MH/s yet?

I'm on 290@1000/1250, about 1.1 Mh/s.
But income is so low it's not worth working on it.

actually I tried to use your groestl kernel yesterday (at least one part... wasn't in the mood to unroll everything  ), but I don't see any difference and actually it was a bit slower for me).

Wolf0, can you post your speed with these core/mem 1030/1250 (can't get my card to work at 1500MHz).
My current average speed with my r9 290x and my latest kernel is 1.3MH/s

1.35 or so, but I don't have your blake fix in.

ok so it isn't that bad 
You won't gain much with the blake fix, blake takes practically no time compared to the rest. It is a lot of pain to put in and sgminer5 dev admin doesn't like it 
(I need to change a few thing before they agree to update)

[pallas]

1.37 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1250

[Bananana]

1.37 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1250

That is really awesome, mine to let us know the power consumption too? Almost same like mining scrypt?

[djm34]

1.37 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1250

That is really awesome, mine to let us know the power consumption too? Almost same like mining scrypt?

hopefully not 

[pallas]

1.37 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1250

That is really awesome, mine to let us know the power consumption too? Almost same like mining scrypt?

no it's less, more like X11.

[djm34]

ok current longer test on verter pools: -I 19 -g2 -w64 290x at 1030/1250: 1.320MH/s (average still oscillate a bit between 1.318 and 1.322)
(using my latest on  https://github.com/djm34/sgminer )

[platinum4]

ok current longer test on verter pools: -I 19 -g2 -w64 290x at 1030/1250: 1.320MH/s (average still oscillate a bit between 1.318 and 1.322)
(using my latest on  https://github.com/djm34/sgminer )

Getting 1.5 per on badman74's build, 1040/1500, no hangs for past 6 hours.

algo still hasn't been added to br or mrr so nh is the only place rentable right now, even with f9=# it doesn't switch on port 4342 yet

[djm34]

ok current longer test on verter pools: -I 19 -g2 -w64 290x at 1030/1250: 1.320MH/s (average still oscillate a bit between 1.318 and 1.322)
(using my latest on  https://github.com/djm34/sgminer )

Getting 1.5 per on badman74's build, 1040/1500, no hangs for past 6 hours.

algo still hasn't been added to br or mrr so nh is the only place rentable right now, even with f9=# it doesn't switch on port 4342 yet

not bad after all   (I am not too ridiculous finally ... ), they both use the same kernel... (I wish I was able to get my card to 1500MH/s...)

[pallas]

1.66 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1500

EDIT: still far from profitable

[djm34]

1.66 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1500

EDIT: still far from profitable

not enough people sold their gpu's 

[splat44]

I know few are able determine amount of Mh/s based on their GPU but I am unsure how to determine that base on R7 240 seen on following image!



It's be great to know the Mh/s by seeing above image!
Any feedbacks?

About optimized x11 and ect...:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623409.0

Are settings same as v5?

[pallas]

1.66 Mh/s R9 290@1000/1500

EDIT: still far from profitable

not enough people sold their gpu's 

you're so sadly true :-D

[yudhistira]

Thank's to Wolf0 for your .bin files

increas from 4.3 to 6.6 MHs
x11 r9 280x



but profit same as it was get 4.3 MHs
maybe diff raise like crazy

hopefully get a special .bin that not make a crazy diff 

[drr0ss]

 Here are all the bins getting produced:

  I get this from my output.log:

Code:

[14:07:01] Building binary neoscryptHawaiigw64l4ku0big7hs.bin
[14:07:01] Error -11: Building Program (clBuildProgram)
[14:07:01] "C:\Users\ANIMAL~1\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL4772T27.cl", line 368: warning: 
          variable "t" was declared but never referenced
  	uint4 t, st[4];
  	      ^

"C:\Users\ANIMAL~1\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL4772T27.cl", line 495: error: 
          identifier "MAX_GLOBAL_THREADS" is undefined
  	__global ulong16 *V = (__global ulong16 *)(padcache + (0x8000 * (get_global_id(0) % MAX_GLOBAL_THREADS)));
  	                                                                                    ^

"C:\Users\ANIMAL~1\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL4772T27.cl", line 513: warning: 
          argument of type "__global ulong16 *" is incompatible with parameter
          of type "__global uint16 *"
  		SMix(X, V, flag);
  		        ^

1 error detected in the compilation of "C:\Users\ANIMAL~1\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL4772T27.cl".

Frontend phase failed compilation.

Any ideas?  Could CGWatcher be interfering somehow when bins are made?

You have wrong marucoin-mod.cl.
Try to find right, and replace in ./kernels
fix https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854257.240

[semajjames]

I there some issue with 290x on Lyra2RE ,,because i cant get my 290x's to hash as fast as my 290 non x's