Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2017, 12:10:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Open Source XPM (Primecoin) GPU Miner & Pool xpmforall.org  (Read 50282 times)
markoniko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 04:45:09 PM
 #101

Anyone tried older 6xxx and 5xxx card's with new beta miner?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498349406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498349406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498349406
Reply with quote  #2

1498349406
Report to moderator
1498349406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498349406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498349406
Reply with quote  #2

1498349406
Report to moderator
hoze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 06:19:42 PM
 #102

Yes... Ati 5970 only 2.8 cpd  Undecided , 6970 ~2cpd
eXtremal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 06:32:14 PM
 #103

Yes... Ati 5970 only 2.8 cpd  Undecided , 6970 ~2cpd
Can you run benchmarks (xpmclient -b) and post results for 5970 and 6970 cards ?

Open source ZEC/XPM mining pool: http://coinsforall.io
hoze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 06:54:15 PM
 #104

yes...give me few min.
hoze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 07:03:06 PM
 #105

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 07:33:08 PM
 #106

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 07:50:15 PM
 #107

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

Quote

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 Smiley

Open source ZEC/XPM mining pool: http://coinsforall.io
hoze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 08:03:40 PM
 #108

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

Quote

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 Smiley

No problem. I can make benchmark with gtx 750ti...
irritant
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Sodium hypochlorite, acetone, ethanol


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2015, 08:04:19 PM
 #109

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 08:26:53 PM
 #110

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

Quote

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 Smiley

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 08:44:18 PM
 #111

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

Quote

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 Smiley

Is there any chance for optimization in near future for Nvidia 750ti ?
eXtremal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 09:23:24 PM
 #112

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 ?

Quote
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.

Open source ZEC/XPM mining pool: http://coinsforall.io
CoffeeCat
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 11:39:13 PM
 #113

Quote from: 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:
Quote
[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 Smiley

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 06:11:17 PM
 #114

*** 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"];
TheIllusiveMan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 234



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
 #115

Quote from: 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:
Quote
[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 Smiley
Any suggestions about 970/980 performance after optimizations?
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 12:49:08 AM
 #116

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:29:44 AM
 #117

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:25:58 PM
 #118

Quote from: TheIllusiveMan
Any suggestions about 970/980 performance after optimizations?
After 2-3 days I'll release new beta version with optimizations for all NV cards.

Quote from: CoffeeCat
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.

Quote from: merc84
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 ?

Quote
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.

Open source ZEC/XPM mining pool: http://coinsforall.io
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:09:59 PM
 #119

Quote from: TheIllusiveMan
Any suggestions about 970/980 performance after optimizations?
After 2-3 days I'll release new beta version with optimizations for all NV cards.

Quote from: CoffeeCat
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.

Quote from: merc84
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 ?

Quote
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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 01:09:03 AM
 #120

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?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!