bensam1231
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1024
|
 |
April 12, 2016, 03:50:07 PM
Last edit: April 12, 2016, 05:35:22 PM by bensam1231 |
|
Eth gives me (0.4 eth) or 3.9$ day(diff grow) 970 doing 18Mh 960 do 10Mh
Dcr gives me ~3-3.2 dcr or ~ 4.0-4.7$ (diff down) 970 do 1850Mh 960 do 1120Mh
You're using a messed up calculator, you should only be getting about 60% of what you're quoting. I understand that by default your miner faster. But if you set the settings manually the same for both miners your miner is slightly faster, and then slower than free
It should be faster - we already know that SP tweaked the default intensity in his miner. That doesn't mean that the comparison is fair - to make a fair comparison of the miners and the kernels, the condition should be the same. Lets say that SP's miner run by default on -i 25, so should be the intensity for Alexis78's miner when comparing. If I'm not wrong in the same conditions (same intesities and clocks) Alexis78's miner are faster on vcash and decred. Not all miners tolerate the same intensities depending on how they code it. Some miners will draw more power, while hashing less, and crash more often while mining the same algo at the same speed. |
I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
|
|
|
joblo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114
|
|
April 12, 2016, 05:03:26 PM |
|
its like saying that feul efficiency IS the factor in high octane drag races ... its not - its the time it takes to get from one point to another - and the fastest wins ... period ... they dont care how much feul or noise or rubber is used or destroyed in the process ...
that's because they have a wide margin. everybody must take expenses into account. if you made more money by lowering your TDP, wouldn't you do it? do the math and you'll see. agreed ... expense IS a factor IF the result takes it into account ... if all you want is more hashrate at the expense of power - then great ... i will concede though that in a larger farm environment - this view would be the deciding factor for the farm and its design and setup - as the smallest decrease in power would save a huge amount ... but in this case pallas - i honestly dont think the power reduction is that great that it would be anything to worry about - especially if thehasrate is increased by a larger margin ... not a very small one ... as for money - im not fussed on that end ... it comes good in the end when it comes to money ... im more concerned with the coins themselves ... more hash - more coin ... hence the reason why i have always said - that my view of 'profitability' is VERY different form what most people accept it to be ... #crysx By definition power is a variable in efficiency. But as crysx said many people don't care. The bottom line is to state whether power efficiency or raw hashrate is being specified. Otherwise we could end up in a false argument, and we already have enough real arguments. |
|
|
|
bensam1231
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1024
|
|
April 12, 2016, 05:38:53 PM |
|
its like saying that feul efficiency IS the factor in high octane drag races ... its not - its the time it takes to get from one point to another - and the fastest wins ... period ... they dont care how much feul or noise or rubber is used or destroyed in the process ...
that's because they have a wide margin. everybody must take expenses into account. if you made more money by lowering your TDP, wouldn't you do it? do the math and you'll see. agreed ... expense IS a factor IF the result takes it into account ... if all you want is more hashrate at the expense of power - then great ... i will concede though that in a larger farm environment - this view would be the deciding factor for the farm and its design and setup - as the smallest decrease in power would save a huge amount ... but in this case pallas - i honestly dont think the power reduction is that great that it would be anything to worry about - especially if thehasrate is increased by a larger margin ... not a very small one ... as for money - im not fussed on that end ... it comes good in the end when it comes to money ... im more concerned with the coins themselves ... more hash - more coin ... hence the reason why i have always said - that my view of 'profitability' is VERY different form what most people accept it to be ... #crysx By definition power is a variable in efficiency. But as crysx said many people don't care. The bottom line is to state whether power efficiency or raw hashrate is being specified. Otherwise we could end up in a false argument, and we already have enough real arguments. Hash/watt is what you're looking for. It's entirely possible to get the same speeds with two different miners only one uses less power. It definitely sounds like someone is getting free power though. When things start getting squeezed, you and everyone else will definitely care about efficiency. May I remind you guys in January we were getting about $1 revenue per day per 970... or $.5 if you include power where I live. Especially now days with the Eth boom over and everything dwindling, the hash is starting to leak out everywhere. Depending on how far Eth drops will determine where things will bottom out. |
I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
|
|
|
|
|
sp_ (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
April 12, 2016, 06:13:10 PM
Last edit: April 12, 2016, 06:23:54 PM by sp_ |
|
Just tested the Alexei miner. He is not submitting all the found solutions to the pool. (only one nonce per warp) This meens lower hashrates on low difficulties. Managed to gain 10MHASH on the gtx960M. Release 9 (alexus sp-mod) will be sendt to the decred donators.
Sendt.
Report your hashrates. I have only tested it on the gtx960M (768 cuda cores)
|
|
|
|
scryptr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1798
Merit: 1028
|
|
April 12, 2016, 06:24:44 PM |
|
COOL PIC, BRO! -- But did it mine AltCoin? BTW, A Dodge SuperBee with a six-pac carburetor (I think it was a dealer option) could go through a tank of 25-cent-a-gallon gas driving from one small town to the next. I was able to look at pictures in the weekly student science magazine ads. Gas was practically frre, I guess. My first car cost $35. --scryptr |
|
|
|
joblo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114
|
|
April 12, 2016, 07:07:25 PM |
|
COOL PIC, BRO! -- But did it mine AltCoin? BTW, A Dodge SuperBee with a six-pac carburetor (I think it was a dealer option) could go through a tank of 25-cent-a-gallon gas driving from one small town to the next. I was able to look at pictures in the weekly student science magazine ads. Gas was practically frre, I guess. My first car cost $35. --scryptr OOOH Hemi! That pic is from the Lost TV show, I freaked when I saw it on TV. It's rare enough I thought it might be mine. Most are fakes with a cut front bumper or full bumper, no nose extension, cat's eye front signals and large 3 piece rear spoiler. Real ones have a real two piece front bumper, nose extension, round front signals and a small one piece rear spoiler. The web page hosting the pic also has pics of a fake used in the car chase scenes on the show. I have to say I bought my dream car youg. Now I drive a Nissan Micra. Back to mining, profit is tumbling, but lyra2 is still hot for CPU miners, though perhaps not to Pallas' efficiency standards.  |
|
|
|
|
DragonSlayer
|
|
April 12, 2016, 10:21:59 PM |
|
the only fair conditions to compare miners is at the same power usage.
at the end of the story, it's efficiency that counts, not "maximum speed".
so just set a low tdp and see which one is faster.
But If my version can run stable @ 100mhz more, then my version is 6% faster. And if my miner can run stable and fast with -i 31.9 and his version is crashing, then it's not fair to compare both of them with -i 25. Comparison should always be at base clocks with like parameters. Apple to apples. All hardware can not take the same overclocks. My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3276
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 12, 2016, 10:33:38 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3276
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 12, 2016, 10:49:42 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
thevictimofuktyranny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1004
|
|
April 12, 2016, 10:59:09 PM |
|
Hey, does anyone have a Windows compiled version of CCminer optimized for 960 and 950 cards for Lyra2re2 algo.
The current version, I have is producing exactly the same has output as for those cards as my 750ti's?
10.1mhs 2x 750ti's
950 and 960 together are 10.1mhs
|
|
|
|
|
joblo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114
|
|
April 13, 2016, 12:14:46 AM |
|
I'm surprised they released tesla first, I would expect them to beta test with the consumer line. Maybe they are confident enough in the quality. |
|
|
|
|
crysx
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:22:42 AM |
|
its like saying that feul efficiency IS the factor in high octane drag races ... its not - its the time it takes to get from one point to another - and the fastest wins ... period ... they dont care how much feul or noise or rubber is used or destroyed in the process ...
that's because they have a wide margin. everybody must take expenses into account. if you made more money by lowering your TDP, wouldn't you do it? do the math and you'll see. agreed ... expense IS a factor IF the result takes it into account ... if all you want is more hashrate at the expense of power - then great ... i will concede though that in a larger farm environment - this view would be the deciding factor for the farm and its design and setup - as the smallest decrease in power would save a huge amount ... but in this case pallas - i honestly dont think the power reduction is that great that it would be anything to worry about - especially if thehasrate is increased by a larger margin ... not a very small one ... as for money - im not fussed on that end ... it comes good in the end when it comes to money ... im more concerned with the coins themselves ... more hash - more coin ... hence the reason why i have always said - that my view of 'profitability' is VERY different form what most people accept it to be ... #crysx WE ARE NOT IN A HIGH OCTANE DRAG RACE-- There has to be a standard for measurement, even in a drag race. The amount of sassy banter that goes on in this thread is extra-ordinary, and it is all about who has the best code. Even drag races have rules, it is not always just the fastest time. Some races are about the closest time to a point, etc. There has to be a standard way of comparison. I like my beer, I am not an idiot, and I want to keep my beer free of the yellow-tinted spray wash that is wizzed around so frequently in this happy thread. Don't pollute my sudz, please. --scryptr hahaha ... and as usual - you manage to put a smile on my face scryptr ... you are completely wrong - it IS a drag race here fro the highest hashrate - but nonetheless a very funny read ... i dont drink alcohol - nor smoke - nor do drugs ... i do drink a LOT of water though ( about 5 litres a day ) - so go figure with the yellow spray ...  ... if there was a standard of measure that could be verified by a reliable source that had standards to abide by - then i would totally agree ... but this is a drag race that has no rules - so the end result is who hash the 'bigger' hashrate and stable miner - no matter how much power is involved ... power is expensive here in australia - and so i need a LOT of coin to cater for it if i were to trade in all the coin i own ... luckily for me i have other businesses to make sure there is other income flows ... or maybe not luckily - just smart enough to make sure it doesnt kill everything i do ... im old enough and ugly enough to know the difference ... either way - hashrate is king in here ... whether we like to conserve power or not ... i guarantee you - that if a miner comes out that is twice the hashrate we are getting now - but uses three or four or five times time the current power usage - miners worldwide would jump on it like a sexy hollywood actress turned hooker giving away her services for free ... #crysx |
|
|
|
GarlukKY
Member
Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:24:51 AM |
|
Report your hashrates. I have only tested it on the gtx960M (768 cuda cores)
980 TI -i 31 1641mhz I'm getting about 3285 which is +40ish vs Mod#7. -i 31.9 bumps it to 3292. |
|
|
|
|
|
crysx
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:25:05 AM |
|
I'm surprised they released tesla first, I would expect them to beta test with the consumer line. Maybe they are confident enough in the quality. same ... though nvidia do thngs in the most unorthodox ways ... cant wait to see how cuda 8 performs with it ... #crysx |
|
|
|
AzzAz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1030
Merit: 1006
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:31:43 AM |
|
Report your hashrates. I have only tested it on the gtx960M (768 cuda cores)
980 TI -i 31 1641mhz I'm getting about 3285 which is +40ish vs Mod#7. -i 31.9 bumps it to 3292. one gtx960 OC - 1060 MH stable @ decred#9 with just +50GPU |
|
|
|
|
AzzAz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1030
Merit: 1006
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:34:11 AM |
|
I'm surprised they released tesla first, I would expect them to beta test with the consumer line. Maybe they are confident enough in the quality. same ... though nvidia do thngs in the most unorthodox ways ... cant wait to see how cuda 8 performs with it ... #crysx If I understood properly: they will hit the market NEXT YEAR?? |
|
|
|
|
|
crysx
|
|
April 13, 2016, 01:43:22 AM |
|
I'm surprised they released tesla first, I would expect them to beta test with the consumer line. Maybe they are confident enough in the quality. same ... though nvidia do thngs in the most unorthodox ways ... cant wait to see how cuda 8 performs with it ... #crysx If I understood properly: they will hit the market NEXT YEAR?? now that tesla pascal is out - it will be in production for the corporates ... so chance are - nvidia already has the commercial consumer line already produced and is waiting on the influx of cashflow from the corporate range before they release the consumer line ... this MAY mean that they are only a few months down the track - if that long at all ... the consumer line will most definitely be the most expensive cards on the market when that happens ... so for me - it will be a good 6months before i buy any pascal in bulk for thefarm - though a single card for testing maybe on the books ... #crysx |
|
|
|
pokeytex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1504
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 13, 2016, 02:09:01 AM |
|
Just tested the Alexei miner. He is not submitting all the found solutions to the pool. (only one nonce per warp) This meens lower hashrates on low difficulties. Managed to gain 10MHASH on the gtx960M. Release 9 (alexus sp-mod) will be sendt to the decred donators.
Sendt.
Report your hashrates. I have only tested it on the gtx960M (768 cuda cores)
@sp - please resend #9 to me - I did not receive it - thanks - pokeytex |
|
|
|
GarlukKY
Member
Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
|
|
April 13, 2016, 04:59:03 AM |
|
Report your hashrates. I have only tested it on the gtx960M (768 cuda cores)
980 TI -i 31 1641mhz I'm getting about 3285 which is +42ish vs Mod#7. -i 31.9 bumps it to 3292. edit: these are numbers reported by the miner. Further testing.... 980TI Yiimp reports roughly the same hash rate (must run at least diff 2 which causes reported hash rate to vary depending on luck solving the job). Suprnova poolside (diff 1) reports a MAX of around 2.65GH with an avg of roughly 2.45 at -i 31 (and I did let it run for over an hour and kept an eye on it the entire time) using Mod9 whereas Mod7 poolside shows 2.7-3.5 averaging around 3.1 (data taken today and from DAYS of monitoring). Mod9 -i 31.9 was averaging about 2.3GH (see offtopic discussion at bottom of post for more info). 750TI -i 24.5 1339mhz (primary display) Mod7 614MH, Mod9 620 (Mod7 -i 24.2 reports about 602 with MUCH less screen lag) I am getting better poolside reports with Mod9 580-720 vs 470-630 Mod7. I am also significantly more likely to solve a job with Mod9. This is just an eyeball estimate but solve rate seems to have gone from 60-75% to around 85% on my 750TI. It is uncommon on Mod9 to have a string of 3 or more jobs fail to find a solution whereas Mod7 often had runs of 5-7+. The 980 TI also reports a higher solve rate on Mod9 but it's not as profound. Conclusion: On my equipment, Mod9 appears to be a gain on compute 5.0 but something is broken on 5.2 cards, the poolside hash as reported on Suprnova is significantly lower. Also, the --show-diff flag is broken in Mod9. It always shows (diff 0.000) for every solution. This flag was also broken in the 1.5% miner fee version from a few days ago. Offtopic: For the 980TI I actually get better throughput using -i 31 than -i 31.9 (as reported poolside). The typical job time is about .8 seconds vs 1.1-1.2 for the higher intensity. These numbers I can see when I have a run of jobs for which it did not find a solution (don't use -q). I am a bit more likely to find a solution meeting the difficulty requirement of the job at the higher intensity but the slower processing time lowers throughput. This made me scratch my head more than a little bit...why the higher solve rate at the higher intensity? But I've watched the numbers stream past for hours. Tried -i 31.5 and it yields same results as 31.9 for throughput. |
|
|
|
|
|
