5w00p
|
|
July 06, 2014, 02:56:06 AM |
|
You can't install AES-NI. Your CPU either has the instructions and transistors, etc inside the actual silicon die, or it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
nioc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
|
|
July 06, 2014, 04:56:40 AM |
|
Drooling Masses® here.
I have read the entire thread and need some help please. I have a Pentium G3220 64 bit Non AES_NI processor using windows 8.1 and downloaded the appropriate binary. Post 259 dated 6/16 stated that it was not working and nothing mentioned after that. I assume it is working now? Even though I will get a slow hr I would like to participate.
I need to know what to do from here. What folder do I extract it to? What do I do after that? There are good instructions on some of the pools what to do with one's miner and I need to know how to get the miner operational.
Thank you for your consideration.
|
|
|
|
sleepdog
|
|
July 06, 2014, 11:31:49 AM |
|
Same thing happens for me on a machine with Xeon E5520's. Just lines of 'stratum detected new block'. No hash reported, no shares found. Both Lucas' and yam work fine on the same machines.
|
|
|
|
george888055
|
|
July 07, 2014, 02:06:45 PM |
|
why can't work on my win8.1 with i3 3220??
|
|
|
|
vitalya88
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
|
|
July 08, 2014, 12:58:41 PM |
|
Same thing happens for me on a machine with Xeon E5520's. Just lines of 'stratum detected new block'. No hash reported, no shares found. Both Lucas' and yam work fine on the same machines. It's broken atm, but I think I have a fix. Hold on. EDIT: All fixed. miner doesn`t work http://i031.radikal.ru/1407/7d/e18cb7a59427t.jpg
|
|
|
|
sparks2013
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
|
|
July 09, 2014, 02:05:16 PM |
|
Bump for update. Also, I should be making Windows x64 binaries shortly, provided I don't get distracted.
This is exciting news. I'll be waiting
|
|
|
|
nioc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
|
|
July 09, 2014, 03:36:52 PM |
|
Bump for update. Also, I should be making Windows x64 binaries shortly, provided I don't get distracted.
This is exciting news. I'll be waiting Oh, yeah, done. See OP. Okay, done. Have a Windows x64 binary for non-AES-NI. Does it submit shares? Yes. Does it work on a non-AES-NI system? Beats me. Where does a first time miner find instructions? I have looked around in various places to no avail.
|
|
|
|
dragonmike
|
|
July 09, 2014, 06:38:36 PM |
|
Ok, I gave it a go on my ol' Core2Duo E8600... And something funny happens. If I set -t 2 it gets stuck at showing difficulty. Nothing mines. Then, the higher I set -t, the higher the miner reports hashrate. I even tried -t 100, it reported a hashrate of 2500 H/s ...but on Minergate's website, no matter what -t setting I put (above 2), reported hashrate is 7.40 H/s Something clearly isn't working as it should... For ref, I get ~50 H/s using the minergate client.
|
|
|
|
infofront
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2793
Shitcoin Minimalist
|
|
July 09, 2014, 06:41:17 PM |
|
This is what happens to me as well, using the 7-9 binary on Windows 7 x64 and an AMD Llano processory. Also, no matter how many threads I set it to use, it maxes out all my cores.
|
|
|
|
dragonmike
|
|
July 09, 2014, 06:49:25 PM |
|
Ok, I gave it a go on my ol' Core2Duo E8600... And something funny happens. If I set -t 2 it gets stuck at showing difficulty. Nothing mines. Then, the higher I set -t, the higher the miner reports hashrate. I even tried -t 100, it reported a hashrate of 2500 H/s ...but on Minergate's website, no matter what -t setting I put (above 2), reported hashrate is 7.40 H/s Something clearly isn't working as it should... For ref, I get ~50 H/s using the minergate client. Okay, first off - why on earth are people still using MinerGate? They're a pretty well known scam, and besides that, it doesn't work half the time! Try another pool, any other pool. Here, point your miner to stratum+tcp://xmr.crypto-pool.fr:3333 You can check your stats at http://monero.crypto-pool.frMinergate's always worked for me and they also allow merged mining with MCN and FCN, which add about 20% revenue. Why do you think they're a scam? Also, I'm arguing that your miner doesn't report the correct hashrate so I have no idea where I stand... maybe I should try -t 10000000000000
|
|
|
|
dragonmike
|
|
July 09, 2014, 07:25:45 PM |
|
Probably a compatibility issue. Testing on crypto-pool.fr gives more consistent results. Using -t 2 and -t 4 give similar result of between 40 and 50 H/s on the miner and the website... which is also consistent with the figure I would get from the Minergate client... except there I'd get 20% more from merged mining.
|
|
|
|
NeuroticFish
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 6553
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
|
|
July 10, 2014, 11:48:50 AM |
|
In case that this is of any interest:
I did some tests with W0lf's latest non-AES miner (yeah, unfortunately I cannot "install" AES for now).
On my I7-920, -t 8, it shows an average of 60 H/s. Cpuminer-multi (1.0.3) shows about 70 H/s.
The numbers on the pool have a big variation area because I get - quite often - connection errors, so I don't have a reliable way to compare.
Is there any chance that the miner hash reporting is wrong? Is there anything I can do to avoid the connection problems? Are there some details I am missing?
----------
I've read your explanation about 32bit vs 64bit on XMR thread... hats off to you, sir.
|
|
|
|
sleepdog
|
|
July 10, 2014, 12:57:03 PM |
|
Similar results here. I ran some tests with a dual E5520 server.
cpu-multi / LucasJones (these are the same thing, right?) v2.3.3 gets max 148 H/s and is pretty much always over 140.
Wolf's newly provided non-AES version gets 118 H/s max, with a range of 100 - 118.
Looks like any advantages of Wolf's miner come from the AES-NI code.
|
|
|
|
sleepdog
|
|
July 10, 2014, 02:07:19 PM |
|
I meant that if yours is quicker than his on AES-NI systems it must be down to that part of the code that uses AES-NI.
I'm running 2008 R2 Enterprise.
|
|
|
|
ajiekceu4
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 38
Merit: 0
|
|
July 11, 2014, 10:39:42 PM |
|
Download links broken. (ottrbutt.com and 46.105.182.112 didn't response).
|
|
|
|
primer-
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 12, 2014, 09:50:34 AM |
|
I'm getting different results when running the miner on all threads vs only physical cores.
On newer CPUs i'm getting up to 50% more power when running only on physical cpu cores. On older CPUs (also with AES) i get 50% less when using only physical cores. Why is this ?
|
|
|
|
primer-
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 12, 2014, 09:19:12 PM |
|
I'm getting different results when running the miner on all threads vs only physical cores.
On newer CPUs i'm getting up to 50% more power when running only on physical cpu cores. On older CPUs (also with AES) i get 50% less when using only physical cores. Why is this ?
That isn't obvious? Newer CPUs tend to be faster, and I don't mean in terms of clock speeds. They improve shit like out of order execution, speculative execution, branch prediction... I think you misunderstood my post, example below : dual E5-2620 (12 cores/24 threads) -t 23 (default when run without -t tag) does around 310H/s -t 12 (physical cores) does around 390H/s Dual E5620 (8 cores/16 threads) -t 15 (default when run without -t tag) does around 150H/s -t 8 (physical cores) does around 100H/s EDIT:Dual E5620 figures might not be correct, i performed tests earlier today (couple hours) and no longer have access. Difference was 50%
|
|
|
|
primer-
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 12, 2014, 09:28:21 PM |
|
Oh, I see. Odd... maybe the older CPUs did hyperthreading better?
Maybe. Newer CPUs definitely dont like the default -t option. I'm also getting a %10-%20 difference on a i7 4770 (210-230 when using -t 7 compared to 265-280 when using -t 4).
|
|
|
|
Rytir_fik
|
|
July 12, 2014, 09:38:01 PM Last edit: July 12, 2014, 11:26:08 PM by Rytir_fik |
|
Oh, I see. Odd... maybe the older CPUs did hyperthreading better?
Maybe. Newer CPUs definitely dont like the default -t option. I'm also getting a %10-%20 difference on a i7 4770 (210-230 when using -t 7 compared to 265-280 when using -t 4). In case you use it for CryptoNight hash algorithm then the answer could be this. CryptoNight hash algorithm requires 2 MB of cache for each of the mining threads. In my case of i5-2500K with 4 cores and 6MB I am able to use only -t 3 properly, so any additional thread (over 3) will only slow the process down.
|
|
|
|
Rytir_fik
|
|
July 13, 2014, 08:31:17 AM |
|
Oh, I see. Odd... maybe the older CPUs did hyperthreading better?
Maybe. Newer CPUs definitely dont like the default -t option. I'm also getting a %10-%20 difference on a i7 4770 (210-230 when using -t 7 compared to 265-280 when using -t 4). in one i5 laptop I get more hashes with -t 1 than with -t 3, for aes-ni cpus less threads means more performance. Of course it could be correct. In case you have only 3MB cache memory on your processor then the -t 1 will be faster (see my previous post with explanation). How much memory your processor has you can check eg. here: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75024/4th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@All
|
|
|
|
|