CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[s7icky]

Umm and after letting my 960 run for a bit ....


2016-01-24 13:02:44] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 430
2016-01-24 13:02:44] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 419
2016-01-24 13:02:45] accepted: 107/107 (100.00%), 427.48 kH/s yes!
2016-01-24 13:02:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 429
2016-01-24 13:02:50] accepted: 108/108 (100.00%), 427.33 kH/s yes!
2016-01-24 13:02:52] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 422
2016-01-24 13:02:53] accepted: 109/109 (100.00%), 427.18 kH/s yes!
2016-01-24 13:03:11] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 430
2016-01-24 13:03:12] accepted: 110/110 (100.00%), 427.37 kH/s yes!
2016-01-24 13:03:14] neoscrypt.usa.nicehash.com:3341 neoscrypt block 1060031
2016-01-24 13:03:14] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 432
2016-01-24 13:03:19] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 425
2016-01-24 13:03:19] accepted: 111/111 (100.00%), 427.50 kH/s yes!
2016-01-24 13:03:20] neoscrypt.usa.nicehash.com:3341 neoscrypt block 1060032
2016-01-24 13:03:20] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 960, 431

[djm34]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:

EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

EDIT:  Currently Neoscrypt is top-paying on HashPower.         --scryptr

please stop spreading bullshits, real number regarding my miner are on my thread...  
you tested a "test" version for cuda 7.5 that you did compiled with cuda 6.5 hence giving you low perf.

So at least report on the real version... 

[tbearhere]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:


EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

scryptr how you going to do that with Neoscrypt as the exe along with ccminer.exe .... can I see your bat file when your done   ?

thx

BATCH FILE--

I modified my auto-switching batch file with the new hash rates for Neoscrypt.  Simply copy and paste the lines between the "CUT LINE" notations into notepad and save the results as "switch.bat":

==========CUT LINE==========

:loop

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x11  -i 20.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533 -u Yourcoinaddy -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a quark -i 23.9 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4033 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,noscrypt=0.425,lyray2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt -i 15.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4233 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a lyra2v2 -i 19.1 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:5433 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a qubit -i 19.7  -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4733 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

goto loop

==========CUT LINE==========

The real difference is in the hash rate value for Neoscrypt in each launch line.  Another difference, from my earlier posting of this batch file, is that x13 and x15 algos have been removed, as HashPower no longer mines them.  Make sure to use the correct PATH  for your personal copy of CCminer.

       --scryptr

How are you using Neoscrypt.exe  that is sp 5  neoscrypt miner in your bat file. When I unpacked it it came out as Neoscrypt  not ccminer.exe  ?

[pokeytex]

Download ccminer1.2 from github in google chrome. It will be blocked.
https://github.com/cbuchner1/ccminer/releases

Most likely because a trojan/virus has included this exefile in their archieve.
Ccminer is safe.

JUST DON'T DOWNLOAD THE ONE I DID FROM CRYPTO MINING BLOG - GAVE ME A TROJAN AND STOLE ALL OF MY COINS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO!

[scryptr]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:


EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

scryptr how you going to do that with Neoscrypt as the exe along with ccminer.exe .... can I see your bat file when your done   ?

thx

BATCH FILE--

I modified my auto-switching batch file with the new hash rates for Neoscrypt.  Simply copy and paste the lines between the "CUT LINE" notations into notepad and save the results as "switch.bat":

==========CUT LINE==========

:loop

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x11  -i 20.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533 -u Yourcoinaddy -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a quark -i 23.9 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4033 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,noscrypt=0.425,lyray2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt -i 15.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4233 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a lyra2v2 -i 19.1 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:5433 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a qubit -i 19.7  -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4733 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

goto loop

==========CUT LINE==========

The real difference is in the hash rate value for Neoscrypt in each launch line.  Another difference, from my earlier posting of this batch file, is that x13 and x15 algos have been removed, as HashPower no longer mines them.  Make sure to use the correct PATH  for your personal copy of CCminer.

       --scryptr

How are you using Neoscrypt.exe  that is sp 5  neoscrypt miner in your bat file. When I unpacked it it came out as Neoscrypt  not ccminer.exe  ?

I RENAMED IT--

I simply renamed sp_ 's zipped up file.  It is sp_ 's version #5 of Private Miner, and a fully functional CCminer.  It does not mine only Neoscrypt, it mines all the regular algos.  Neoscrypt performance has been improved.  Is that what you are asking?       --scryptr

[djm34]

I RENAMED IT--

I simply renamed sp_ 's zipped up file.  It is sp_ 's version #5 of Private Miner, and a fully functional CCminer.  It does not mine only Neoscrypt, it mines all the regular algos.  Neoscrypt performance has been improved.  Is that what you are asking?       --scryptr

there is no difference in perf... hope he gives you some btc for your trolling

[scryptr]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:

EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

EDIT:  Currently Neoscrypt is top-paying on HashPower.         --scryptr

please stop spreading bullshits, real number regarding my miner are on my thread...  
you tested a "test" version for cuda 7.5 that you did compiled with cuda 6.5 hence giving you low perf.

So at least report on the real version...  

WHAT???--

I have not compared your version to his verrsion.  Are you saying that sp_ has a test copy of your new CCminer that has improved Neoscrypt, and is packaging it?

Sorry, I know that the existing Neoscrypt code was originally crafted by you, and tweaked by sp_.  If he tweaked the older code this much, he did a good job.  You still deserve credit.

If sp_ has just released your NEW code, and tweaked it even a little, it SURE DOES A GOOD JOB!!!  And, you still deserve credit.  Maybe you even deserve to be pissed off, too.  I didn't know that your new code had been released yet.

--scryptr

[djm34]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:

EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

EDIT:  Currently Neoscrypt is top-paying on HashPower.         --scryptr

please stop spreading bullshits, real number regarding my miner are on my thread...  
you tested a "test" version for cuda 7.5 that you did compiled with cuda 6.5 hence giving you low perf.

So at least report on the real version...  

WHAT???--

I have not compared your version to his verrsion.  Are you saying that sp_ has a test copy of your new CCminer that has improved Neoscrypt, and is packaging it?

Sorry, I know that the existing Neoscrypt code was originally crafted by you, and tweaked by sp_.  If he tweaked the older code this much, he did a good job.  You still deserve credit.

If sp_ has just released your NEW code, and tweaked it even a little, it SURE DOES A GOOD JOB!!!  And, you still deserve credit.  Maybe you even deserve to be pissed off, too.  I didn't know that your new code had been released yet.

--scryptr

sp reported all day long false number from my new release so he can sell his stuff, while picking up the new code I had put on github during the night (he didn't do anything at all except finding a problem on a card I don't own, so no he didn't do a hell of job, he just picked early my new release and bugged me all day with false report)

sorry but right now, you are just supporting his scamming attempt to sell a miner which has just been released for free (except to those who participated in the pledge)

"free" release here: https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-sp-neoscrypt/releases

[scryptr]

I SUPPORT CRYPTO-MINING, SHARING CODE, AND GOOD CODERS--

DJM34 deserves support, even if a miner can only afford a sliver of his daily take.  THANKS!!! DJM34!!!

This back-and-forth rivalry does not do good for clarity of The State of the Code.  It does make for better hash, though.  A better line of communication would prevent confusion.

I'll look at your GitHub release, DJM34.  I hope I can run it under Linux soon.  My ZoombieMiner minions need the boost.         --scryptr

[sp_]

I did more. My version is faster.

[kangjooe]

I did more. My version is faster.

even if your private miner is faster by a few percent or even 50% faster than djm34 release, i still using his miner instead for a simple reason... it's FREE (thank you for all the donator).

[crsminer]

I did more. My version is faster.

even if your private miner is faster by a few percent or even 50% faster than djm34 release, i still using his miner instead for a simple reason... it's FREE (thank you for all the donator).

It's "free" because we donated 2.5 BTC in total 

For sp miner you have to donate yourself 0.1 BTC.

It's a different approach, important thing is that devs should be paid for their work (by donation or buying private miners).

[kangjooe]

I did more. My version is faster.

even if your private miner is faster by a few percent or even 50% faster than djm34 release, i still using his miner instead for a simple reason... it's FREE (thank you for all the donator).

It's "free" because we donated 2.5 BTC in total  

For sp miner you have to donate yourself 0.1 BTC.

It's a different approach, important thing is that devs should be paid for their work (by donation or buying private miners).

yes, i know that. that's why i said (thank you for all the donator).


i'm new to this mining community. and even $5 is big in here where i live. so i am saying thank you sincerely from my heart and hope that dev can see it and take it as me respecting their hard work.

[crsminer]

I did more. My version is faster.

even if your private miner is faster by a few percent or even 50% faster than djm34 release, i still using his miner instead for a simple reason... it's FREE (thank you for all the donator).

It's "free" because we donated 2.5 BTC in total  

For sp miner you have to donate yourself 0.1 BTC.

It's a different approach, important thing is that devs should be paid for their work (by donation or buying private miners).

yes, i know that. that's why i said (thank you for all the donator).


i'm new to this mining community. and even $5 is big in here where i live. so i am saying thank you sincerely from my heart and hope that dev can see it and take it as me respecting their hard work.

Then you're on the right thread. Here you'll find the fastest free versions.  

[djm34]

I did more. My version is faster.

you reported false information regarding my stuff all day long to sell your crap
(and removed two "//" for your private version  )
For me you are just acting as a greedy jealous scammer...   

[sp_]

I just tested again with your fastest and latest exefile .

2 gtx 960
1 gtx 970
2 gtx 750ti


Results after 200 accepts. My version is 1.48% faster and works on the gtx970 without cpu validation errors.

ccminer_cuda65_nosync.exe:

[2016-01-24 22:43:23] accepted: 196/196 (100.00%), 1687 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:23] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 570
[2016-01-24 22:43:23] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 401
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] accepted: 197/197 (100.00%), 1687 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] accepted: 198/198 (100.00%), 1687 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] neoscrypt.eu.nicehash.com:3341 neoscrypt block 1060241
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 409
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 644
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 402
[2016-01-24 22:43:24] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 179
[2016-01-24 22:43:25] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 184
[2016-01-24 22:43:25] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 380
[2016-01-24 22:43:25] accepted: 199/199 (100.00%), 1691 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 631
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] accepted: 200/200 (100.00%), 1690 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 75
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] accepted: 201/201 (100.00%), 1679 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 400
[2016-01-24 22:43:26] accepted: 202/202 (100.00%), 1679 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:28] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 395
[2016-01-24 22:43:28] accepted: 203/203 (100.00%), 1679 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:43:28] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 407
[2016-01-24 22:43:28] accepted: 204/204 (100.00%), 1680 kH/s (yes!!!)

CCminer private sp5:

[2016-01-24 22:47:08] accepted: 183/183 (100.00%), 1705 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 469
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] accepted: 184/184 (100.00%), 1701 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 411
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] accepted: 185/185 (100.00%), 1703 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 615
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] accepted: 186/186 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] Stratum set nonce 0804ABB757 with extranonce2 size=3
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] neoscrypt.eu.nicehash.com:3341 neoscrypt block 1060246
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 406
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 404
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 609
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 173
[2016-01-24 22:47:09] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 179
[2016-01-24 22:47:10] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 315
[2016-01-24 22:47:10] accepted: 187/187 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:10] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 611
[2016-01-24 22:47:10] accepted: 188/188 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:12] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 397
[2016-01-24 22:47:12] accepted: 189/189 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:13] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 177
[2016-01-24 22:47:13] accepted: 190/190 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:13] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 168
[2016-01-24 22:47:13] accepted: 191/191 (100.00%), 1702 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 647
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] neoscrypt.eu.nicehash.com:3341 neoscrypt block 1060246
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 404
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] accepted: 192/192 (100.00%), 1705 kH/s (yes!!!)
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 415
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 172
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 178
[2016-01-24 22:47:14] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 397

[sp_]

I did more. My version is faster.

you reported false information regarding my stuff all day long to sell your crap
(and removed two "//" for your private version  )
For me you are just acting as a greedy jealous scammer...  

No I did more. I am not a scammer. My private bins are always the fastest. Your plegde is a scam. You promised us a 25-100% boost in the hashrate. But all we got was 10-15% A 10-15% neoscrypt kernal is not more profitable than my free opensource public kernals..

[sp_]

Here is a comparison of the two bins:

Code:

==4948== Profiling application: ccminer_cuda65_nosync.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
==5848== Profiling result:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 26.59%  18.4119s       796  23.131ms  15.087ms  47.744ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 26.22%  18.1600s       796  22.814ms  14.943ms  48.441ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.68%  13.6279s       796  17.121ms  13.557ms  24.808ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 18.19%  12.5939s       796  15.822ms  12.835ms  23.530ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
  4.66%  3.22608s       796  4.0529ms  3.3128ms  5.7348ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_ending(int, int, unsigned int, unsigned int*)
  4.66%  3.22443s       796  4.0508ms  3.3958ms  6.4411ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_start(int, int, unsigned int)

==5848== Profiling application: ccminerneo.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
==5848== Profiling result:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 25.69%  26.1063s      1164  22.428ms  15.408ms  58.151ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 25.62%  26.0341s      1164  22.366ms  15.171ms  55.874ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.71%  20.0311s      1164  17.209ms  13.479ms  29.562ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.43%  19.7487s      1164  16.966ms  13.272ms  31.282ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
  4.80%  4.88065s      1164  4.1930ms  3.2593ms  6.5728ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_ending(int, int, unsigned int, unsigned int*)
  4.74%  4.82073s      1164  4.1415ms  3.3896ms  7.0174ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_start(int, int, unsigned int)

Here is the full run:

Code:

C:\Boss\>nvprof ccminer_cuda65_nosync.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
Compiled with Visual C++ 18 using Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 6.5

  Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
  CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
  Includes optimizations implemented by sp, klaust, tpruvot, tsiv and pallas.

==4948== NVPROF is profiling process 4948, command: ccminer_cuda65_nosync.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0 (mask 1)
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] Binding thread 2 to cpu 0 (mask 4)
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] Binding thread 3 to cpu 1 (mask 8)
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] Binding thread 1 to cpu 1 (mask 2)
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] 5 miner threads started, using 'neoscrypt' algorithm.
[2016-01-24 22:56:32] Binding thread 4 to cpu 0 (mask 10)
[2016-01-24 22:56:34] GPU #2 Found nounce 6667c303
[2016-01-24 22:56:34] GPU #0 Found nounce 000bbb86
[2016-01-24 22:56:35] CTRL_C_EVENT received, exiting once miner jobs complete.  Ctrl+C again to abort miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:56:36] CTRL_C_EVENT received, aborting miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:56:38] GPU #4 Found nounce cce9ae79
[2016-01-24 22:56:43] GPU #2 Found nounce 6680eb21
[2016-01-24 22:56:43] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 177
[2016-01-24 22:56:46] GPU #3 Found nounce 99bf3915
[2016-01-24 22:56:49] GPU #0 Found nounce 009955c5
[2016-01-24 22:56:49] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 656
[2016-01-24 22:56:54] GPU #1 Found nounce 33baba0f
==4948== Profiling application: ccminer_cuda65_nosync.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
==4948== Profiling result:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 26.59%  18.4119s       796  23.131ms  15.087ms  47.744ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 26.22%  18.1600s       796  22.814ms  14.943ms  48.441ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.68%  13.6279s       796  17.121ms  13.557ms  24.808ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 18.19%  12.5939s       796  15.822ms  12.835ms  23.530ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
  4.66%  3.22608s       796  4.0529ms  3.3128ms  5.7348ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_ending(int, int, unsigned int, unsigned int*)
  4.66%  3.22443s       796  4.0508ms  3.3958ms  6.4411ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_start(int, int, unsigned int)
  0.00%  2.7009ms       796  3.3930us  2.8480us  7.6800us  [CUDA memset]
  0.00%  2.4198ms       796  3.0390us  1.9200us  5.4080us  [CUDA memcpy DtoH]
  0.00%  100.13us        58  1.7260us     800ns  4.1280us  [CUDA memcpy HtoD]

==4948== API calls:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 49.67%  11.0177s       796  13.841ms  1.3506ms  140.87ms  cudaStreamSynchronize
 23.54%  5.22234s         5  1.04447s  958.40ms  1.16171s  cudaDeviceSetCacheConfig
 17.14%  3.80248s       798  4.7650ms  147.49us  390.87ms  cudaDeviceSynchronize
  4.61%  1.02323s        35  29.235ms  474.01us  127.75ms  cudaMalloc
  1.36%  302.78ms       796  380.37us  123.16us  39.274ms  cudaMemcpy
  1.12%  247.50ms        17  14.559ms  6.7122ms  57.145ms  cudaGetDeviceProperties
  0.81%  179.27ms      4776  37.535us  17.486us  1.0408ms  cudaLaunch
  0.55%  121.59ms      1592  76.375us  38.392us  1.5406ms  cudaStreamDestroy
  0.39%  86.053ms         1  86.053ms  86.053ms  86.053ms  cudaDeviceReset
  0.22%  49.228ms       796  61.844us  32.310us  3.9833ms  cudaMemset
  0.21%  47.457ms       796  59.618us  35.351us  506.32us  cudaStreamQuery
  0.16%  34.620ms       415  83.422us       0ns  3.8434ms  cuDeviceGetAttribute
  0.12%  26.464ms      1592  16.622us  1.9010us  1.8466ms  cudaStreamCreate
  0.04%  8.1601ms         5  1.6320ms  1.6087ms  1.7045ms  cuDeviceGetName
  0.03%  7.6507ms        58  131.91us  34.591us  724.89us  cudaMemcpyToSymbol
  0.02%  4.2546ms     11940     356ns       0ns  740.10us  cudaSetupArgument
  0.01%  2.2253ms      4776     465ns       0ns  11.024us  cudaConfigureCall
  0.00%  42.193us         5  8.4380us  7.6020us  9.1230us  cuDeviceTotalMem
  0.00%  23.948us         5  4.7890us  4.5620us  4.9420us  cudaSetDevice
  0.00%  4.5620us        10     456ns       0ns  1.1410us  cuDeviceGet
  0.00%  1.9000us         2     950ns     760ns  1.1400us  cudaDriverGetVersion
  0.00%  1.5220us         2     761ns     381ns  1.1410us  cuDeviceGetCount
  0.00%     761ns         3     253ns       0ns     381ns  cudaGetDeviceCount

C:\Boss\>nvprof ccminerneo.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
                        SP-Mod Private #5
Compiled with Visual C++ 18 using Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 7.5

  Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
  CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
  Includes optimizations implemented by sp, klaust, tpruvot, tsiv and pallas.

==5848== NVPROF is profiling process 5848, command: ccminer.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0 (mask 1)
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] Binding thread 1 to cpu 1 (mask 2)
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] Binding thread 3 to cpu 1 (mask 8)
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] Binding thread 2 to cpu 0 (mask 4)
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] 5 miner threads started, using 'neoscrypt' algorithm.
[2016-01-24 22:57:29] Binding thread 4 to cpu 0 (mask 10)
[2016-01-24 22:57:31] GPU #2 Found nounce 6667c303
[2016-01-24 22:57:31] GPU #0 Found nounce 000bbb86
[2016-01-24 22:57:35] GPU #4 Found nounce cce9ae79
[2016-01-24 22:57:35] GPU #4 Found nounce ccee4c85
[2016-01-24 22:57:35] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 387
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #0 Found nounce 00354a70
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 650
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #0 Found nounce 003764ae
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 532
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #4 Found nounce ccf3909e
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 374
[2016-01-24 22:57:36] Total: 590.85 kH/s
[2016-01-24 22:57:38] GPU #3 Found nounce 99b08920
[2016-01-24 22:57:39] GPU #1 Found nounce 336afc90
[2016-01-24 22:57:40] GPU #2 Found nounce 6680eb21
[2016-01-24 22:57:40] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 172
[2016-01-24 22:57:41] CTRL_C_EVENT received, exiting once miner jobs complete.  Ctrl+C again to abort miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:57:41] CTRL_C_EVENT received, aborting miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:57:41] CTRL_C_EVENT received, aborting miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:57:44] GPU #3 Found nounce 99bf3915
[2016-01-24 22:57:44] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 177
[2016-01-24 22:57:46] GPU #0 Found nounce 009955c5
[2016-01-24 22:57:46] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 655
[2016-01-24 22:57:47] GPU #2 Found nounce 6692f03e
[2016-01-24 22:57:47] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 170
[2016-01-24 22:57:51] GPU #1 Found nounce 33baba0f
[2016-01-24 22:57:51] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 960, 415
[2016-01-24 22:57:58] CTRL_C_EVENT received, aborting miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:57:59] CTRL_C_EVENT received, aborting miner jobs
[2016-01-24 22:57:59] GPU #4 Found nounce cd80fddc
[2016-01-24 22:57:59] GPU #4: GeForce GTX 960, 407
[2016-01-24 22:57:59] Total: 1734.83 kH/s
==5848== Profiling application: ccminer.exe -a neoscrypt --benchmark
==5848== Profiling result:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 25.69%  26.1063s      1164  22.428ms  15.408ms  58.151ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 25.62%  26.0341s      1164  22.366ms  15.171ms  55.874ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha1_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.71%  20.0311s      1164  17.209ms  13.479ms  29.562ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_chacha2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
 19.43%  19.7487s      1164  16.966ms  13.272ms  31.282ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_salsa2_stream1(int, unsigned int)
  4.80%  4.88065s      1164  4.1930ms  3.2593ms  6.5728ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_ending(int, int, unsigned int, unsigned int*)
  4.74%  4.82073s      1164  4.1415ms  3.3896ms  7.0174ms  neoscrypt_gpu_hash_start(int, int, unsigned int)
  0.00%  3.9227ms      1164  3.3690us  2.8470us  7.8720us  [CUDA memset]
  0.00%  3.5539ms      1164  3.0530us  1.9190us  5.5690us  [CUDA memcpy DtoH]
  0.00%  151.10us        90  1.6780us     800ns  4.0960us  [CUDA memcpy HtoD]

==5848== API calls:
Time(%)      Time     Calls       Avg       Min       Max  Name
 92.54%  91.6359s      2330  39.329ms  88.568us  296.98ms  cudaDeviceSynchronize
  4.05%  4.01266s         5  802.53ms  686.43ms  1.01414s  cudaDeviceSetCacheConfig
  1.13%  1.11615s      1164  958.89us  17.106us  6.5145ms  cudaStreamSynchronize
  1.13%  1.11531s        35  31.866ms  493.78us  129.53ms  cudaMalloc
  0.33%  323.72ms        25  12.949ms  6.7658ms  43.151ms  cudaGetDeviceProperties
  0.23%  229.81ms      6984  32.905us  19.006us  1.8063ms  cudaLaunch
  0.18%  179.37ms      1164  154.10us  98.831us  699.80us  cudaMemcpy
  0.13%  131.66ms      1164  113.11us  48.655us  27.393ms  cudaStreamQuery
  0.09%  87.075ms         1  87.075ms  87.075ms  87.075ms  cudaDeviceReset
  0.08%  76.789ms      2328  32.984us  26.228us  264.56us  cudaStreamDestroy
  0.04%  39.028ms      1164  33.529us  23.947us  272.93us  cudaMemset
  0.04%  35.107ms       415  84.595us       0ns  3.7119ms  cuDeviceGetAttribute
  0.02%  16.680ms        90  185.33us  33.450us  2.3845ms  cudaMemcpyToSymbol
  0.01%  8.4858ms         5  1.6972ms  1.6140ms  1.8592ms  cuDeviceGetName
  0.01%  5.9565ms     17460     341ns       0ns  990.59us  cudaSetupArgument
  0.01%  5.7767ms      2328  2.4810us     760ns  508.60us  cudaStreamCreate
  0.00%  3.7187ms      6984     532ns       0ns  808.14us  cudaConfigureCall
  0.00%  52.838us         5  10.567us  7.9820us  17.106us  cuDeviceTotalMem
  0.00%  38.012us         5  7.6020us  7.2220us  7.9820us  cudaSetDevice
  0.00%  2.6600us        10     266ns       0ns     380ns  cuDeviceGet
  0.00%  2.2800us         3     760ns       0ns  1.9000us  cudaGetDeviceCount
  0.00%  1.9010us         2     950ns     381ns  1.5200us  cuDeviceGetCount
  0.00%  1.9000us         2     950ns     760ns  1.1400us  cudaDriverGetVersion

I modded and bugfixed the the first version you put out on github. The second version you published (cuda 6.5 nosync) is faster than your first chekin but doesn't work on gtx 970.

I will do another mod and gain more.

[tbearhere]

NEOSCRYPT HASH RATES FOR SP_ Private Miner 5--

Our favorite coder has made a substantial increase in the hash rate for Neoscrypt algo in his Private Miner #5.  Below is an initial picture:


EVGA GTX 960 SC miniing Neoscrypt at 420kh/s

Earlier today, the rate was 335-350kh/s on the same card with Private Miner #4.  I do notice some CPU validation errors.  Further, this is an initial result, after less than 5 minutes of mining.

I'll modify my auto-switch batch file in a few minutes with the new hash rate values and see which algo pops up as top paying.        --scryptr

scryptr how you going to do that with Neoscrypt as the exe along with ccminer.exe .... can I see your bat file when your done   ?

thx

BATCH FILE--

I modified my auto-switching batch file with the new hash rates for Neoscrypt.  Simply copy and paste the lines between the "CUT LINE" notations into notepad and save the results as "switch.bat":

==========CUT LINE==========

:loop

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x11  -i 20.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533 -u Yourcoinaddy -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a quark -i 23.9 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4033 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,noscrypt=0.425,lyray2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt -i 15.5 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4233 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a lyra2v2 -i 19.1 -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:5433 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

C:\work\mine\spminer\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a qubit -i 19.7  -C --cpu-priority 5 -o stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:4733 -u Yourcoinaddy  -p x11=5.5,quark=11.5,neoscrypt=0.425,lyra2v2=6.5,qubit=8.35  -b 0.0.0.0:4068
timeout /t 3

goto loop

==========CUT LINE==========

The real difference is in the hash rate value for Neoscrypt in each launch line.  Another difference, from my earlier posting of this batch file, is that x13 and x15 algos have been removed, as HashPower no longer mines them.  Make sure to use the correct PATH  for your personal copy of CCminer.

       --scryptr

How are you using Neoscrypt.exe  that is sp 5  neoscrypt miner in your bat file. When I unpacked it it came out as Neoscrypt  not ccminer.exe  ?

I RENAMED IT--

I simply renamed sp_ 's zipped up file.  It is sp_ 's version #5 of Private Miner, and a fully functional CCminer.  It does not mine only Neoscrypt, it mines all the regular algos.  Neoscrypt performance has been improved.  Is that what you are asking?       --scryptr

Yes thx scryptr   I didn't know it would run all algo's.

[scryptr]

BRAINS!!! BRAAYIINS!!! BRAAAYIIIINS!!!!!--


My ZoombieMiner minions are hungry.  As lomg as it compiles on Linux, they will continue to devour the product of your brains.  I will be testing the open code on GitHub that compiles on Linux.       --scryptr