SS2006
|
|
November 12, 2014, 07:07:43 AM |
|
epsylon, i have a gtx 970 (5.2 right?)
but for some reason when i use ccminer50 instead of 52, i ALWAYS get better hashrate, less out of range errors, and just more accepts in general. This was the same case with SPminers betas etc..
any ideas why this happens?
|
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 12, 2014, 07:09:56 AM |
|
yes its 5.2, hmm i'm not sure about that for the moment maybe the right cuda sdk is required ? on windows ?
|
|
|
|
SS2006
|
|
November 12, 2014, 08:42:54 AM Last edit: November 12, 2014, 10:40:52 AM by SS2006 |
|
is there any real advantage to downloading and installing the 1 GB large CUDA 6.5 SDK. I figure if the miner runs, then I have everything in place already
|
|
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
November 12, 2014, 01:08:07 PM |
|
epsylon, i have a gtx 970 (5.2 right?)
but for some reason when i use ccminer50 instead of 52, i ALWAYS get better hashrate, less out of range errors, and just more accepts in general. This was the same case with SPminers betas etc..
any ideas why this happens?
registers... for some reason 5.2 doesn't like to allocate too much register...
|
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 12, 2014, 03:15:53 PM |
|
is there any real advantage to downloading and installing the 1 GB large CUDA 6.5 SDK. I figure if the miner runs, then I have everything in place already
no indeed, i dont think so... API is almost ready (limited to localhost for the moment, will add the config key to change that)
|
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3192
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 12, 2014, 03:20:51 PM |
|
is there any real advantage to downloading and installing the 1 GB large CUDA 6.5 SDK. I figure if the miner runs, then I have everything in place already
no indeed, i dont think so... API is almost ready (limited to localhost for the moment, will add the config key to change that) my read out for quark did i compile wrong? 4 750ti cards hashing at10mh/s total 10mh ?
|
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 12, 2014, 03:34:34 PM Last edit: November 12, 2014, 04:52:37 PM by Epsylon3 |
|
2 algos hashrates were divided by 2... quark and jackpot, i dont really know why... I removed the divider sample api output of php api-example.php : { "summary":{"NAME":"ccminer","VER":"1.4.8","API":"1.0","ALGO":"blake","KHS":"216674.14","ACC":"4","REJ":"0","ACCMN":"3.429","UPTIME":"70"}, "stats":{"GPU0":{"GPU":"0","TEMP":"0.0","FAN":"0","FANP":"0","KHS":"216674.15","HWF":"0","I":"0"}} } you can copy/paste that in http://json.parser.online.fr/will change some keys... adding UP (uptime), ACM (accepted/minute) v1.4.8 will be released today (to fix the multi gpu displayed hashrate)
|
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 12, 2014, 05:01:52 PM |
|
did i compile wrong? 4 750ti cards hashing at10mh/s total 10mh ?
fixed in 1.4.8 (else on git since this morning) release in a few minutes
|
|
|
|
antonio8
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 12, 2014, 05:53:24 PM |
|
Not sure if Epsylon3 has asked but I'll will for him
PLEASE DONATE to him for his work he has been putting in and improving his miner.
We should donate to all these devs that put out these miners and enhancements. Without them we would have nothing.
|
If you are going to leave your BTC on an exchange please send it to this address instead 1GH3ub3UUHbU5qDJW5u3E9jZ96ZEmzaXtG, I will at least use the money better than someone who steals it from the exchange. Thanks
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3192
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 12, 2014, 05:55:01 PM |
|
did i compile wrong? 4 750ti cards hashing at10mh/s total 10mh ?
fixed in 1.4.8 (else on git since this morning) release in a few minutes Epsylon3 there is an improvement in hash. on 1.4.7. waiting for 1.4.8.
|
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3192
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 12, 2014, 06:07:02 PM Last edit: November 12, 2014, 10:15:20 PM by tbearhere |
|
Not sure if Epsylon3 has asked but I'll will for him
PLEASE DONATE to him for his work he has been putting in and improving his miner.
We should donate to all these devs that put out these miners and enhancements. Without them we would have nothing.
+1 on that Look at all these people reading and are they donating? 3743 PLEASE DONATE to ALL involved in cuda and ccminer.
|
|
|
|
BrewCrewFan
|
|
November 12, 2014, 09:54:25 PM |
|
Not sure if Epsylon3 has asked but I'll will for him
PLEASE DONATE to him for his work he has been putting in and improving his miner.
We should donate to all these devs that put out these miners and enhancements. Without them we would have nothing.
+1 on that Look at all these people reading and are they donating. 3743 PLEASE DONATE to ALL involved in cuda and ccminer. Even at a fraction of a BTC per user it would all add up rather fast.
|
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3192
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 13, 2014, 02:40:22 PM |
|
Epsylon3 1.4.8 still gives readout of 40mh/s, 4 750ti, when cards are doing 20mh/s quark.
|
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 13, 2014, 02:59:15 PM |
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
November 13, 2014, 04:54:49 PM |
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely
|
|
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
November 13, 2014, 05:17:16 PM |
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely not sure I really followed... but the hashrate in jpc is divided by two, because it hashes only on certain chain where it is faster and doesn't look at the slowest one... (because of large imbalance is hashrate of the various chain of algo, it is globaly faster to ignore few algo combination rather than computing everything blindly...) Therefore the total hashrate before the division isn't the total hashrate for every possible algo combination but only those computed by ccminer. Hence the reason why it is divided by two... (I will spare you the probability calculation which says it is the right thing to do ) Don't know the reason for quark (ask Christian), could be a similar reason since there are also various random chains...
|
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
November 13, 2014, 05:27:28 PM |
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely not sure I really followed... but the hashrate in jpc is divided by two, because it hashes only on certain chain where it is faster and doesn't look at the slowest one... (because of large imbalance is hashrate of the various chain of algo, it is globaly faster to ignore few algo combination rather than computing everything blindly...) Therefore the total hashrate before the division isn't the total hashrate for every possible algo combination but only those computed by ccminer. Hence the reason why it is divided by two... (I will spare you the probability calculation which says it is the right thing to do ) Don't know the reason for quark (ask Christian), could be a similar reason since there are also various random chains... Sounds dead-on correct, didn't actually think of that. Quark starts with two relatively fast algos, third would be groestl or skein depending on one bit in the second algos output but the nonces that lead down the groestl branch get discarded. Dividing by two isn't exactly right but it's a statistically fair estimate of the actual hashes finished.
|
|
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
November 13, 2014, 05:37:57 PM |
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely not sure I really followed... but the hashrate in jpc is divided by two, because it hashes only on certain chain where it is faster and doesn't look at the slowest one... (because of large imbalance is hashrate of the various chain of algo, it is globaly faster to ignore few algo combination rather than computing everything blindly...) Therefore the total hashrate before the division isn't the total hashrate for every possible algo combination but only those computed by ccminer. Hence the reason why it is divided by two... (I will spare you the probability calculation which says it is the right thing to do ) Don't know the reason for quark (ask Christian), could be a similar reason since there are also various random chains... Sounds dead-on correct, didn't actually think of that. Quark starts with two relatively fast algos, third would be groestl or skein depending on one bit in the second algos output but the nonces that lead down the groestl branch get discarded. Dividing by two isn't exactly right but it's a statistically fair estimate of the actual hashes finished. kind of silly to put groestl and skein in a uniform random choice for jpc, using bernouilli functions, it is exactly a factor 2
|
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
Epsylon3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1082
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
November 13, 2014, 06:10:04 PM Last edit: November 13, 2014, 09:27:59 PM by Epsylon3 |
|
The main problem is not the reported speed, but the hashdone reduced value (by 2), which can make problems on the next loop (recomputing the same nonces) for X11 we dont multiply them by 11
|
|
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
November 13, 2014, 06:16:24 PM |
|
The main problem is not the reported speed, but the hashdone reduced value (by 2), which can make problems on the next loop (recomputing the same nounces) for X11 we dont multiply them by 11 should'nt be done on hashdone for sure, but only on the displayed hashrate
|
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
|