CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[Angora]

did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer

DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K

SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K     
 
sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K

Testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings

Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit   

V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.

[chrysophylax]

did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer

DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K

SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K     
 
sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K

Testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings

Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit   

V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.

thats strange how in v52 spmod lyra2 was bombing out ...

we had the tests run about an hour ago - and lyra was fine - same with quark and neoscrypt - x11 and x13 ...

x15 was running fine - but the nicehash stratum dropped the link - as it usually does on the us stratum ...

what settings did you use for lyra2 on v52? ... i have only the intensity parameter active -i 16.5 ( -i 22.5 is max but many cpu validation errors ) ...

#crysx

[sp_]

did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer
DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K
SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K     
  sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K
testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings
Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit   
V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.

your quark numbers are way off. they should be around 6MHASH on the EVGA 750ti 300% faster than the numbers you get.

[sp_]

2 sp_
Some testing your own built #52 vs. fresh github clone (my own build) vs one of the best "old" #47
gtx 750 best results
x11        2958 vs 2964 vs 2950
lyra2re     912 vs  909 vs 904
quark     6000 vs 5965 vs 5980
neoscrypt 190 vs 190 vs n/a
Please, return back quark and lyra performance for compute 5.0 ))

Try the last commit. Should give a small boost on the 750ti at least.

[bensam1231]

Bugreport for Neoscrypt. Running 5 970s on the same system causes it to spit out "Cuda error in func 'scanhash-neoscrypt' at line 67 : out of memory."

Limiting it to any 4 devices with -d eliminates the problem. Tried running separate instances with different devices, doesn't work. System memory is fine. DJM's miner has the same problem.

you need more memory... or pagefile... (which is required to allocate that memory to the gpu...)
alternatively you can lower the intensity, that should free up some memory
other alternative, try to start 1 or 2 ccminer session

As mentioned running more then one instance does not fix this, system memory is fine. It doesn't get maxed out or anywhere close to it while monitoring it. I'll throw some more memory into the system and see what happens though. Currently it's at 4GB.

Haven't tried a lower intensity, this seems more like a bug then anything if that's the case.

[sp_]

Tanguy Pruvot has optimized jh-512. I have added it into my fork now. Boost in quark and x11

[bathrobehero]

Bugreport for Neoscrypt. Running 5 970s on the same system causes it to spit out "Cuda error in func 'scanhash-neoscrypt' at line 67 : out of memory."

Limiting it to any 4 devices with -d eliminates the problem. Tried running separate instances with different devices, doesn't work. System memory is fine. DJM's miner has the same problem.

you need more memory... or pagefile... (which is required to allocate that memory to the gpu...)
alternatively you can lower the intensity, that should free up some memory
other alternative, try to start 1 or 2 ccminer session

As mentioned running more then one instance does not fix this, system memory is fine. It doesn't get maxed out or anywhere close to it while monitoring it. I'll throw some more memory into the system and see what happens though. Currently it's at 4GB.

Haven't tried a lower intensity, this seems more like a bug then anything if that's the case.

Memory is not necessary, pagefile will most likely work. I have 14GB (!) of pagefile on my rigs because I think there was a cudaminer algo that only ran if I had tons of pagefile but it never used more than a few megabytes.
Same goes for sgminer to a certain degree, although I was never able to run it with more than 4 cards enabled.

Can I get some ZR5 (Ziftr) hashrates from people with 750Ti/960/970/980/980Ti? Power use in W, too, if you've got it.

Stock or OC?

[rednoW]

Tanguy Pruvot has optimized jh-512. I have added it into my fork now. Boost in quark and x11

hell ya! + 30-40 khs in quark!

[bathrobehero]

Either. Both, if you can.

There you go (Tpruvot's latest release: ccminer-rel1.6.4-vc2013):

750 Ti (GV-N75TOC-2GI):
stock 1.02 mh/s at 58.6W
oc - 1.14 mh/s at 65.4W (+140/0 - 1293-1328mhz)

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)

780 Ti (GV-N78TOC-3GD):
stock - 2.0 mh/s at 237W
oc - 2.26 mh/s at 275W (+120/0 - 1204mhz)

Measured at the wall and while the cards are on a 1300W 80+ gold PSU, it's barely utilized so its efficiency is probably pretty terrible. Used my go to OC settings but it could probably go higher.

[djm34]

Bugreport for Neoscrypt. Running 5 970s on the same system causes it to spit out "Cuda error in func 'scanhash-neoscrypt' at line 67 : out of memory."

Limiting it to any 4 devices with -d eliminates the problem. Tried running separate instances with different devices, doesn't work. System memory is fine. DJM's miner has the same problem.

you need more memory... or pagefile... (which is required to allocate that memory to the gpu...)
alternatively you can lower the intensity, that should free up some memory
other alternative, try to start 1 or 2 ccminer session

As mentioned running more then one instance does not fix this, system memory is fine. It doesn't get maxed out or anywhere close to it while monitoring it. I'll throw some more memory into the system and see what happens though. Currently it's at 4GB.

Haven't tried a lower intensity, this seems more like a bug then anything if that's the case.

no it isn't a bug... what do you think the intensity is  (and in most of the case it is already too high)

[rednoW]

no it isn't a bug... what do you think the intensity is  (and in most of the case it is already too high)

True! For my gtx750 1gb intensity 22.9 gives slightly better result then default one that is higher.

[chrysophylax]

Either. Both, if you can.

There you go (Tpruvot's latest release: ccminer-rel1.6.4-vc2013):

750 Ti (GV-N75TOC-2GI):
stock 1.02 mh/s at 58.6W
oc - 1.14 mh/s at 65.4W (+140/0 - 1293-1328mhz)

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)

780 Ti (GV-N78TOC-3GD):
stock - 2.0 mh/s at 237W
oc - 2.26 mh/s at 275W (+120/0 - 1204mhz)

Measured at the wall and while the cards are on a 1300W 80+ gold PSU, it's barely utilized so its efficiency is probably pretty terrible. Used my go to OC settings but it could probably go higher.

Thanks - I assumed Nvidia was doing far better than AMD on this one, but I wanted to check; good thing I did.

what parameters do you use for the commandline? ...

do you have spmod results? ...

tanx ...

#crysx

[bathrobehero]

what parameters do you use for the commandline? ...

do you have spmod results? ...

tanx ...

#crysx

In case that was aimed at me I used -i 20 because higher figures like 25 used the same amount of memory and didn't increase the speed at all so I figured that was the max.

I don't think sp_ added zr5 into his fork.

[chrysophylax]

Either. Both, if you can.

There you go (Tpruvot's latest release: ccminer-rel1.6.4-vc2013):

750 Ti (GV-N75TOC-2GI):
stock 1.02 mh/s at 58.6W
oc - 1.14 mh/s at 65.4W (+140/0 - 1293-1328mhz)

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)

780 Ti (GV-N78TOC-3GD):
stock - 2.0 mh/s at 237W
oc - 2.26 mh/s at 275W (+120/0 - 1204mhz)

Measured at the wall and while the cards are on a 1300W 80+ gold PSU, it's barely utilized so its efficiency is probably pretty terrible. Used my go to OC settings but it could probably go higher.

Thanks - I assumed Nvidia was doing far better than AMD on this one, but I wanted to check; good thing I did.

what parameters do you use for the commandline? ...

do you have spmod results? ...

tanx ...

#crysx

Did sp_ do ZR5? If so, I missed it.

i guess thats what i was asking ...

i couldnt see the algo anywhere in this fork ...

i thought maybe it was named another algo instead of -a ziftr ...

i must be too tired for this right now :| ...

#crysx

[sp_]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

[chrysophylax]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

tanx for clarifying that ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx

[djm34]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

tanx for clarifying that ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx

considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that 

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

[chrysophylax]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

tanx for clarifying that ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx

considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx

[djm34]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

tanx for clarifying that ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx

considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx

haven't noticed anything, haven't even had time to look at it...
now, Schleicher released a version, I haven't seen anyone saying it didn't compile (you just need to use the correct packages...)

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  sounds like that if it isn't in sp release it is crap... (or not optimized or whatever...)

[chrysophylax]

I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.

tanx for clarifying that ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx

considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx

haven't noticed anything, haven't even had time to look at it...
now, Schleicher released a version, I haven't seen anyone saying it didn't compile (you just need to use the correct packages...)

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  make sounds that if it isn't in sp release it is crap...

hehehe ... thats funny ...

sp is great at what he does ... as you are at what you do - and the same with the other devs ...

sp even posted that he has incorporated tprovots last commit into this fork of ccminer - not to mention your optimization of neoscrypt in here also ...

if it wasnt for the fact that all the devs work with one another ( and i do read what goes on in irc - when i can ) - then i guess we wouldnt have the setup that it is today ...

so dont take offence to anything like that ...

its just that the farm does what it does - and i would like it to do something else ... in this case sia mining ...

due to the miner being what it is - its a pain ... at least for the moment ...

it wouldnt hurt to have a simplified ( which probably means a more complex miner and coding ) to mine sia AND have it as optimized as possible ...

i think wolf and pallas are the only two that i know of that have very high hashrates with the miner currently - and that because they put the massive amounts of work to optimize and improve the miner in its current incarnation ...

its just a pity it wasnt as simple as implementing an added algorithm to the existing ccminer / sgminer code ...

no offence intended in anyway ...

#crysx