CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[ol92]

Does anyone know what the whirlpoolx algo is like on ccminer?

On AMD my whirlpoolx miner does 670 Mh/s.
I tried ccminer some time ago on 970 and it was about 300 Mh/s, if I recall correctly.
I'd be glad to optimize ccminer like I did for AMD, but I see less and less interest in mining that algo, so I dropped the idea.

The whirlpoolx kernal is pretty fast already on the maxwell. But if you can make it faster, the same teqniques might be possible in x11 as well.

The 750ti does around 75MHASH. the 970 around 230MHASH

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

vnl is a rather good coin with some potential : with a GTX980 @650-700Mh/s it would be one of the most profitable coin to mine...
Right one, the miner is @300 for a GTX 980, which is not interesting in front of amd miners.

[1714660301]

1714660301

[1714660301]

1714660301

[1714660301]

1714660301

[ol92]

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

[crsminer]

Updated to r68 and lowered intensity to 22.9

What cards/clocks do you have?

With my Gigabyte's OC to 1400Mhz I get only 7,2Mh/s.

[Cryptozillah]

Updated to r68 and lowered intensity to 22.9

What cards/clocks do you have?

With my Gigabyte's OC to 1400Mhz I get only 7,2Mh/s.

In those two rigs i have EVGA FTW cards.
7.2Mhs with Gigabyte cards are probably really good.

I have a Gigabyte Windforce 750Ti that hardly makes 6.8-6.9Mhs. And it is not stable there.

[Genoil]

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

[serg_25]

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)

I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

[ol92]

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

[djm34]

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

you'll gain a bit but not a lot.

[hashbrown9000]

submitted a pull request for fixing syslog output.  Helps with kopiemtu's stats webpage and external LED displays created by @induktor.

[bathrobehero]

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

As far as I know memory access is the limiting factor and not bandwidth. Unfortunately tweaking memory timings is difficult though.

"Time to submit a share" doesn't depend on diff.
Nor does time to compute. Higher diff just means "less likely to find a share but with more value", so statistically speaking there is no disadvantage in higher diff.

I know what I missed now and yeah, it shouldn't be a problem on modern pools.

[myagui]

About memory intensive algos: any brainiac tried a LUT approach yet? In short, reducing memory access and doing additional compute work instead... (IIRC, the prime example of this is with scrypt-jane, and possibly some other flavours in cudaminer).

ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can be replaced with computation.

[zTheWolfz]

submitted a pull request for fixing syslog output.  Helps with kopiemtu's stats webpage and external LED displays created by @induktor.

Nice, computer porn! Thanks for sharing!  

[sp_]

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)
I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

I have all the cards.. It's like the house of cards...

The lyra algoritm is already using bandwitdh. The -X doesn't make any difference

[sp_]

ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can b replaced with computation.

The ET performance depends on the DAG  file.. Without a random file, every random acces isside the cached and the hashrate explodes

[djm34]

ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can b replaced with computation.

The ET performance depends on the DAG  file.. Without a random file, every random acces isside the cached and the hashrate explodes

duh ?! there is no way to get rid of those... otherwise,as Myaguy was explaining, it may possible to calculate some of the dag element hence reducing memory usage

[serg_25]

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)
I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

I have all the cards.. It's like the house of cards...

The lyra algoritm is already using bandwitdh. The -X doesn't make any difference

Sorry i mean lyra2v2 algo. you have asked previously for power consumption with different -X parameters.

About all cards - nice, but i was interesting what card model can perform 5mhs at so low core 1388/2700?

[sp_]

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)
I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

I have all the cards.. It's like the house of cards...
The lyra algoritm is already using bandwitdh. The -X doesn't make any difference

Sorry i mean lyra2v2 algo. you have asked previously for power consumption with different -X parameters.
About all cards - nice, but i was interesting what card model can perform 5mhs at so low core 1388/2700?

This card:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Graphics-Gainward-nVidia-GeForce-192-Bit/dp/B00IIMVBPA

windows 7 64bit (sp-mod 68 x86) latest drivers


Yes. thanks for testing the watt. From 44 watt to 42 watt is a 4.5% reduction of the powerbill.

[alz]

oops wrong thread 

[flipclip]

Nice display HB9K!

[hashbrown9000]

Nice display HB9K!

I cant' take credit for the added LED displays. Those are @Induktor's rigs.  However, outputting info to syslog (then outputting data thru a serial port) enables those displays to come alive.

If anyone else is interested, his schematics and build info is here:

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=16800.msg277720#msg277720