Open Source XPM (Primecoin) GPU Miner & Pool xpmforall.org

[hoze]

yes...give me few min.

[1714251600]

1714251600

[1714251600]

1714251600

[hoze]

yes...give me few min.

2 x 6970

Found 2 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
prepare_adl success
GPU 0 iAdapterIndex 0 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_6718&SUBSYS_0B001002&REV_00_4&31
4D47F&0&0018A iBusNumber 2 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002 str
dapterName  AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
GPU 1 iAdapterIndex 6 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_6718&SUBSYS_0B001002&REV_00_4&3B
5DC7D&0&0010A iBusNumber 1 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002 str
dapterName  AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 1 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
Cayman; 24 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 240.001ms (559.238M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 290.000ms (462.820M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 175.000ms (0.749M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 225.001ms (0.583M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 189.707
 Hash per iteration: 37.172 (0.000443 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.740

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 4408 by GPU: 4416
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 21.224 G
 * iteration time: 25.938ms
 * candidates per second: 143378.743
 * candidates per iteration: 3718.89 (1578.58 320bit, 2140.31 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.738/1

Cayman; 24 compute units
square 320 bits: 200.000ms (671.089M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 195.000ms (688.296M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.000ms (526.344M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 225.000ms (596.523M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 300.000ms (447.392M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 190.000ms (0.690M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 240.000ms (0.546M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 189.239
 Hash per iteration: 37.641 (0.000449 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.589

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 3566 by GPU: 3570
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 21.097 G
 * iteration time: 26.094ms
 * candidates per second: 141230.969
 * candidates per iteration: 3685.25 (1473.55 320bit, 2211.70 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.666/1

[hoze]

yes...give me few min.

5970


found platform[0] name = 'AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing'
Found 4 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
prepare_adl success
GPU 0 iAdapterIndex 0 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_20421002&REV_00_6&215
5A4DD&0&00400018A iBusNumber 8 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName  AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 1 iAdapterIndex 1 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_20421002&REV_00_6&300
44ABD&0&00400010A iBusNumber 4 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName  AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 2 iAdapterIndex 3 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00_6&24B
9C14F&0&00200010A iBusNumber 3 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName  AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 3 iAdapterIndex 6 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00_6&2CA
02E4B&0&00200018A iBusNumber 7 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName  AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 1 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 2 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 3 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
set_powertune(0, -1) failed.
set_powertune(1, -1) failed.
set_powertune(2, -1) failed.
set_powertune(3, -1) failed.
Cypress; 20 compute units
square 320 bits: 140.000ms (958.698M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 135.001ms (994.198M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 165.000ms (813.441M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 170.001ms (789.511M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 190.001ms (706.405M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 125.000ms (1.049M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 155.001ms (0.846M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 137.483
 Hash per iteration: 38.891 (0.000464 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.627

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 3454 by GPU: 3459
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 14.080 G
 * iteration time: 39.098ms
 * candidates per second: 93912.251
 * candidates per iteration: 3671.82 (1422.21 320bit, 2249.61 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.632/1

Cypress; 20 compute units
square 320 bits: 125.000ms (1073.742M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 135.000ms (994.205M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 160.001ms (838.856M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 160.000ms (838.861M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 175.000ms (766.958M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 125.001ms (1.049M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 165.000ms (0.794M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 136.957
 Hash per iteration: 39.063 (0.000466 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.673

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 2897 by GPU: 2903
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 14.082 G
 * iteration time: 39.094ms
 * candidates per second: 91983.829
 * candidates per iteration: 3596.00 (1628.66 320bit, 1967.34 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.828/1

[eXtremal]

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve For compare, R9 290:

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 550.495
 Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 94.933 G
 * iteration time: 5.799ms
 * candidates per second: 1282165.428
 * candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

[hoze]

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve For compare, R9 290:

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 550.495
 Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 94.933 G
 * iteration time: 5.799ms
 * candidates per second: 1282165.428
 * candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

No problem. I can make benchmark with gtx 750ti...

[irritant]

780ti

Code:

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 1 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Compiling ...
Source: 236814 bytes
binsize = 1457339 bytes
GeForce GTX 780 Ti; 15 compute units
square 320 bits: 95.020ms (1412.521M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 95.011ms (1412.655M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 81.012ms (1656.764M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 119.026ms (1127.634M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 99.012ms (1355.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 63.016ms (2.080M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 93.600ms (1.400M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 294.142
 Hash per iteration: 38.094 (0.000454 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.675

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 6999 by GPU: 7004
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 11.071 G
 * iteration time: 49.725ms
 * candidates per second: 148849.023
 * candidates per iteration: 7401.58 (3123.05 320bit, 4278.53 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.730/1

[hoze]

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve For compare, R9 290:

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 550.495
 Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 94.933 G
 * iteration time: 5.799ms
 * candidates per second: 1282165.428
 * candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

No problem. I can make benchmark with gtx 750ti...

750ti

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 4 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
Using device 2 as GPU 2
Using device 3 as GPU 3
Compiling ...
Source: 236815 bytes
binsize = 1550311 bytes
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.000ms (526.344M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 260.000ms (516.222M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 230.000ms (0.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 285.001ms (0.460M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 139.810
 Hash per iteration: 36.734 (0.000438 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.654

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.001ms (745.650M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 257.002ms (522.244M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 265.001ms (506.480M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 235.001ms (0.558M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 277.002ms (0.473M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 139.194
 Hash per iteration: 38.797 (0.000462 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.667

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 250.000ms (536.871M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 212.001ms (633.100M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 262.001ms (512.279M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 230.000ms (0.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 280.000ms (0.468M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 140.985
 Hash per iteration: 36.391 (0.000434 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.745

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.001ms (526.342M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 215.000ms (624.269M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 265.001ms (506.480M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 232.004ms (0.565M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 277.002ms (0.473M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 139.194
 Hash per iteration: 37.313 (0.000445 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.561

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

[hoze]

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve For compare, R9 290:

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 550.495
 Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 94.933 G
 * iteration time: 5.799ms
 * candidates per second: 1282165.428
 * candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

Is there any chance for optimization in near future for Nvidia 750ti ?

[eXtremal]

780ti

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 11.071 G

Same problem as HD5xxx & HD6xxx, need another implementation of sieve.

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

Hmm.. what driver version and config.txt you use ?

Is there any chance for optimization in near future for Nvidia 750ti ?

I don't know speed limit of 750Ti and other cards, I'll try find it. It's easy to make 2+ CPD with 750Ti (now only 1.75), I'll release new version with optimizations for NVidia soon.

[CoffeeCat]

Can you explain with is different with this build? I tried it and I'm getting slower performance than with the previous version. I'm running 14.4 drivers. Thanks.

What GPU you use and how much CPD you see?
Can you run benchmarks (xpmclient -b) with versions 9.4.1 and 10.0?

GeForce GTX 750Ti results:

[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108085 fermat=92557/sec cpd=1.74/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 1369x 7ch(29/0/7) 154x 8ch(3/0/0) 13x 9ch(0/0/0) 3x 10ch(1/0/0)
Work received: height=1136229 diff=10.940961 latency=44ms
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 2
Share accepted.
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 3
Share accepted.
[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108085 fermat=93735/sec cpd=1.76/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 1371x 7ch(29/0/7) 154x 8ch(3/0/0) 13x 9ch(0/0/0) 3x 10ch(1/0/0)

XPM mining with 750Ti can be profitable after optimizations, if performance reaches 4+ CPD.. I think, it possible

So to answer your question, I'm running an R9 290. I was getting about 9 CPD with the new version and the older version I'm getting about 14 CPD. (I know this isn't the benchmark you were looking for but I'm away from my computer.) Again, I'm running the 14.4 drivers.

What performance are you seeing with an R9 290? It the performance lower because I'm using older drivers? If so, which version would you recommend?

Thanks!

[hoze]

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

Hmm.. what driver version and config.txt you use ?
Nvidia 750ti Driver version 347.88
standard config:

Code:

# Platform:
#  "amd": AMD GCN cards
#  "amd legacy": AMD HD5xxx & HD6xxx cards
#  "nvidia": NVidia Maxwell cards
platform = "nvidia";

# GPU crash handling (properly untested feature):
# 0 - do nothing
# 1 - close miner application
# 2 - reboot system (need superuser rights)
onCrash = "0";

# - Valid cpuload range: 0 to 4
# - More than 2 does not make sense
# - You can use 0 for really slow CPUs
cpuload = "1";

# Target Cunningham chain length, default = 10
target = "10";

# Sieve size in stripes (1 stripe = 16384 bits), recommended 420 for AMD, 210 for NVidia
# Big sieve size gives more candidates with less prime probability
sieveSize = "210";

# Weave depth (primes number count using by sieve), recommended 40960 for AMD, 65536 for NVidia
# Big weave depth increases prime probability, but sieve generate less candidates
weaveDepth = "65536";

# Sieve layers number, optimal value is target*2, default = 20
width = "20";

# Sieve window size. Recommended values:
# AMD GPUs: 4096
# NVidia GeForce 750Ti: 8188
# Other NVidia Maxwell GPUs: 12284
windowSize = "8188";

# - The following settings have one entry per GPU
# - If you have more than 4 just add more entries or leave it as is to use defaults
# - All entries must be separated by commas and set between double quotes

# 0 = don't use device
# 1 = use device
devices =        ["1", "0", "0", "0", "0"];

# Primorial 13 is optimal
sieveprimorial = ["13", "13", "13", "13", "13"];

# sieves per round value, default = 5
sievePerRound = ["5", "5", "5", "5", "5"];

# -1 means don't change
corefreq =       ["-1", "-1", "-1", "-1", "-1"];
memfreq =        ["-1", "-1", "-1", "-1", "-1"];
powertune =      ["-1", "-1", "-1", "-1", "-1"];
fanspeed =       ["-1", "-1", "-1", "-1", "-1"];

[merc84]

Got some weird issue with drivers,
WARNING: Linking two modules of different data layouts!
WARNING: Linking two modules of different target triples: 'amdil64-pc-unknown-am
dopencl' and 'amdil-pc-unknown-amdopencl'

Now this wouldn't be unexpected if i had say changed the driver version since the last time i ran the miner (which i haven't)
So drivers are the same 14.4 modded (so i can run 5 cards) but now they throw this error at the start and no longer perform at 9.4 cpd but instead 6 cpd what in the world could cause this???

Edit: This is happening on 2 rigs both previously working and without any change to drivers; one has 3 x 280x and running 14.7 rc3 the other 5 x 280x 14.4 modded drivers. On the 3x 280x rig i ran amd cleanup utility to remove drivers and re-installed 14.7rc3 but i still get the same warning and speed is only 6cpd. On the 5x 280x rig i ran amd cleanup and re-installed 14.4 modded drivers still get same warning and same 6 cpd. #mindfuck!

Edit2: Simple solution, delete kernel.bin forcing it to recompile everything works again.
It seems the average cpd is lower after recompiling kernel.bin 8.5 cpd instead of 9.4 cpd

[merc84]

With some other miners it is possible to put the opencl files into the folder with the miner and prevent the need to change drivers, is this something you would consider doing? It would be extremely useful in particular for rigs that need to use modded drivers.

[eXtremal]

Any suggestions about 970/980 performance after optimizations?

After 2-3 days I'll release new beta version with optimizations for all NV cards.

So to answer your question, I'm running an R9 290. I was getting about 9 CPD with the new version and the older version I'm getting about 14 CPD.

Use stable 9.4.1 version for AMD cards, 10.0beta don't have any AMD optimizations.
My tests says that 10.0beta have same speed as 9.4.1 on Linux/catalyst 14.4  and Windows/catalyst 14.6.

It seems the average cpd is lower after recompiling kernel.bin 8.5 cpd instead of 9.4 cpd

8.5 cpd with drivers 14.4 modded, or 14.7rc3? Or both ?

With some other miners it is possible to put the opencl files into the folder with the miner and prevent the need to change drivers, is this something you would consider doing?

What opencl files do you mean ? Sources in 'gpu' folder, compiled kernel 'kernel.bin' in root miner's directory.

[merc84]

Any suggestions about 970/980 performance after optimizations?

After 2-3 days I'll release new beta version with optimizations for all NV cards.

So to answer your question, I'm running an R9 290. I was getting about 9 CPD with the new version and the older version I'm getting about 14 CPD.

Use stable 9.4.1 version for AMD cards, 10.0beta don't have any AMD optimizations.
My tests says that 10.0beta have same speed as 9.4.1 on Linux/catalyst 14.4  and Windows/catalyst 14.6.

It seems the average cpd is lower after recompiling kernel.bin 8.5 cpd instead of 9.4 cpd

8.5 cpd with drivers 14.4 modded, or 14.7rc3? Or both ?

With some other miners it is possible to put the opencl files into the folder with the miner and prevent the need to change drivers, is this something you would consider doing?

What opencl files do you mean ? Sources in 'gpu' folder, compiled kernel 'kernel.bin' in root miner's directory.

The actual driver files like amd_opencl32.dll etc, for example https://www.dropbox.com/s/wb7jihr5ibe5zu7/14.9cl.rar?dl=0 With some miners it's possible to place these in the dir with the miner so you can use different drivers without the need to install new ones.

Also 8.5CPD with both 14.4 modded and 14.7rc3

[CoffeeCat]

So I'm assuming that long latency times can drop your earnings as the GPU goes for periods without getting work. Is there any way to improve this? It seems like it happens a lot. Do another pools have this problem?

[eXtremal]

First 14ch share found by pool! Block height is 1144207.

So I'm assuming that long latency times can drop your earnings as the GPU goes for periods without getting work. Is there any way to improve this? It seems like it happens a lot. Do another pools have this problem?

High latency is a problem of original primecoind application. I have already tried to fix it, current pool version after optimizations works better, but not ideal

Also 8.5CPD with both 14.4 modded and 14.7rc3

Ok, I'll try test different versions of drivers.
Also you can try use different OS, Linux (and Windows 8.1?) does not require modded drivers for run 5+ GPUs.

[Hix]

First 14ch share found by pool! Block height is 1144207.

So I'm assuming that long latency times can drop your earnings as the GPU goes for periods without getting work. Is there any way to improve this? It seems like it happens a lot. Do another pools have this problem?

High latency is a problem of original primecoind application. I have already tried to fix it, current pool version after optimizations works better, but not ideal

Also 8.5CPD with both 14.4 modded and 14.7rc3

Ok, I'll try test different versions of drivers.
Also you can try use different OS, Linux (and Windows 8.1?) does not require modded drivers for run 5+ GPUs.

Any news about optimization version for NVidia cards?

[irritant]

5870

Code:

found platform[0] name = 'AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing'
Found 1 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Compiling ...
Source: 236814 bytes
binsize = 1318152 bytes
prepare_adl success
Failed to ADL_Adapter_ID_Get. Error -5Failed to ADL_Adapter_ID_Get. Error -5ADL
found less devices than opencl!There is possibly more than one display attached
to a GPUUse the gpu map feature to reliably map OpenCL to ADLWARNING: Number of
OpenCL and ADL devices did not match!Hardware monitoring may NOT match up with d
evices!Set powertune not supported
set_powertune(0, -1) failed.
Cypress; 20 compute units
square 320 bits: 120.000ms (1118.481M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 119.000ms (1127.880M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 139.000ms (965.595M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 124.000ms (1082.401M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 163.000ms (823.422M ops/sec)
element index: 0
gmp: A13A81BA 6AFB6EC4 D5F93DF9 EE1F8DC0 6C08796C 8B29C976 5DF3364E 671DEF36 09F
CC100 00000000
gpu: D3A14E6C 0065A8B1 130EC568 55976CF1 855A01F2 8657BA6F 880780B3 053C3EB6 019
89E83 00000000
results differ!
Fermat tests 320 bits: 110.000ms (1.192M ops/sec)
element index: 0
gmp: 9C07BBCF CF6E4015 84CCD446 D94FC2E9 F3F607B2 0A8DE0F2 EC950808 B2E1EADA 596
FB284 26A0F830 00000000
gpu: 117547F1 E9A416D7 C99C4C05 12EEE851 13D3BFB8 855FB2DC 91E1C13D 9879362F 516
901F9 DE6254E6 00000000
results differ!
Fermat tests 352 bits: 129.000ms (1.016M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 179.977
 Hash per iteration: 38.047 (0.000454 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.629

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 3505 by GPU: 3508
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 13.458 G
 * iteration time: 40.906ms
 * candidates per second: 89372.422
 * candidates per iteration: 3655.89 (1579.16 320bit, 2076.73 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.760/1

[merc84]

First 14ch share found by pool! Block height is 1144207.

So I'm assuming that long latency times can drop your earnings as the GPU goes for periods without getting work. Is there any way to improve this? It seems like it happens a lot. Do another pools have this problem?

High latency is a problem of original primecoind application. I have already tried to fix it, current pool version after optimizations works better, but not ideal

Also 8.5CPD with both 14.4 modded and 14.7rc3

Ok, I'll try test different versions of drivers.
Also you can try use different OS, Linux (and Windows 8.1?) does not require modded drivers for run 5+ GPUs.

I'm trying to understand why it worked perfectly before but now gives error even though I made no changes to drivers. Also why recompiling kernel.bin removes error but does not give same speed as precompiled kernel.bin? I notice a slight size difference in newly compiled kernel.bin vs precompiled one. If it helps here is a link to the newly compiled kernel.bin https://www.dropbox.com/s/qlbi7z815dnbhly/kernel.bin?dl=0
For what its worth Claymore xpm miner also gives same error.