Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 03:52:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: GTX 680 numbers  (Read 4484 times)
kuroshiro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
March 26, 2012, 11:44:00 PM
 #1

Sorry, I can't post in the main 680 thread because I lurk.

Hey, just got back from the store with a 680. Here's a quick benchmark for people, and it's not looking good so far.

This is a stock EVGA gtx680, with latest drivers (301.10) and ufasoft 0.28, run with -t 0, under win7 x64.

Getting around 105Mh/s.

 Cry

Thankfully I didn't buy it for mining.

--
If I've posted something you find useful, please give me a tip:
13ndhNvWsbvHxoZDQcDcuem5frf2zbz5Xx
1481255578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481255578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481255578
Reply with quote  #2

1481255578
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481255578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481255578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481255578
Reply with quote  #2

1481255578
Report to moderator
TomatoCaqe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
March 26, 2012, 11:52:05 PM
 #2

What's the link?
I'll post it for you.
Mysil2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15


View Profile
March 26, 2012, 11:52:57 PM
 #3

Wow, that was a sad number...

I guess you would get some higher numbers with other settings. I am not into nvidia, but I assume ufasoft would give you the CUDA-benefits...

Just by looking at the mining hardware comparison wiki, some nvidia cards use rpcminer-cuda, but I am sure some other people than me can come up with settings you should test to get improvements.

1BLUeBirdV2RBnyJBQZvNXsCMm3VVqoPTj
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
March 26, 2012, 11:55:17 PM
 #4

Frankly we all knew the result will SUCK until some people get off their asses and start developing a Kepler miner.

This should get WAY more than a GTX 580 ...

Schleicher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 06:07:27 AM
 #5

Simply recompiling the source code with the new CUDA 4.2 toolkit would probably help.
But I don't think that the speed would be much faster.

Bitcoin donations: 1H2BHSyuwLP9vqt2p3bK9G3mDJsAi7qChw
ssateneth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 12:11:11 PM
 #6

Someone said "Try RPCMiner-CUDA with the CUDA dev kit, something doesn't sound right." in the main 680 thread.

wogaut
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
 #7

Sorry, I can't post in the main 680 thread because I lurk.

Hey, just got back from the store with a 680. Here's a quick benchmark for people, and it's not looking good so far.

This is a stock EVGA gtx680, with latest drivers (301.10) and ufasoft 0.28, run with -t 0, under win7 x64.

Getting around 105Mh/s.

 Cry

Thankfully I didn't buy it for mining.

Is that a joke or real?
Even my GTX580 gets about 150MH/s, but that's on cgminer.

105MH is a completely useless number, that card might not be a mining card, but you did something wrong if you can't get at least get to the 580 numbers.


kuroshiro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
March 28, 2012, 12:23:16 AM
 #8

Sorry, I can't post in the main 680 thread because I lurk.

Hey, just got back from the store with a 680. Here's a quick benchmark for people, and it's not looking good so far.

This is a stock EVGA gtx680, with latest drivers (301.10) and ufasoft 0.28, run with -t 0, under win7 x64.

Getting around 105Mh/s.

 Cry

Thankfully I didn't buy it for mining.

Is that a joke or real?
Even my GTX580 gets about 150MH/s, but that's on cgminer.

105MH is a completely useless number, that card might not be a mining card, but you did something wrong if you can't get at least get to the 580 numbers.



Not a joke, but again, here is EXACTLY what I did. I installed the card, and the latest drivers, in a win7 x64 box. I downloaded ufasoft 0.28 binary, and ran it. THAT'S IT. I didn't tweak anything, I didn't do a lot of research, I just wanted to see what would happen, and in the main thread someone said "run ufasoft" so I did. I didn't have time to compile anything. Now that more people probably have cards (I haven't looked at the main thread yet) there's better benchmarks posted. *shrug*

--
If I've posted something you find useful, please give me a tip:
13ndhNvWsbvHxoZDQcDcuem5frf2zbz5Xx
wogaut
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
March 28, 2012, 01:23:29 AM
 #9

Seems you have enough posts now to post outside the newbie thread. I'd recommend checking the Ufasoft thread for possible answers:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3486.0


Anvi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40



View Profile
March 28, 2012, 02:35:33 PM
 #10

It's a shame that nVidia cards perform so badly in OpenCL calculations.. Otherwise GTX 680 is overall way better card than HD7970 for example.

Sapphire HD7970, 2* HIS 7970 IceQ X² GHz Edition
LTC: LRk7zdN8F52NH9XeqRvWnUEe2XXcUFMv6e
wogaut
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
March 28, 2012, 02:59:19 PM
 #11

It's hard to believe for me, that a card with essentially 3 times the cores than the 580 performs worse than it.

Get the GTX680 running with cgminer.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
March 28, 2012, 03:11:34 PM
 #12

It's a shame that nVidia cards perform so badly in OpenCL calculations.. Otherwise GTX 680 is overall way better card than HD7970 for example.

Well they are pretty good at OpenCL and even better at pure CUDA but integer math has always been a weak point in NVidia's product line.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!