ATTN Litecoin GPU Miners - Scrypt support for cgminer

[BCMan]

 Getting 30 khash (--scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 6144 -g 2 -I 17) with latest version comparing to 190 kh/s with Reaper on 6770. Pool showing same 30 kh/s. Maybe drivers/sdk fault? Using 12.1/2.6.

[xurious]

Getting 30 khash (--scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 6144 -g 2 -I 17) with latest version comparing to 190 kh/s with Reaper on 6770. Pool showing same 30 kh/s. Maybe drivers/sdk fault? Using 12.1/2.6.

Change -g 2 to -g 1.

[phantitox]

im getting this on my 6870X2 any ideas why?

Code:

cgminer version 2.5.0 - Started: [2012-07-21 13:27:49]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):24.0 (avg):33.3 Kh/s | Q:6  A:2  R:0  HW:0  E:33%  U:1.6/m
 TQ: 2  ST: 2  SS: 0  DW: 4  NB: 2  LW: 14  GF: 0  RF: 0
 Connected to http://notroll.in:6332 with LP as user phantitox.1
 Block: 1d7d315f19c507a46f520b6a6b4d2b12...  Started: [13:28:44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  63.0C 100%    |  12.9/ 14.5Kh/s | A:1 R:0 HW:0 U:0.80/m I:15
 GPU 1:  54.0C 32515RPM |  18.5/ 20.6Kh/s | A:2 R:0 HW:0 U:1.61/m I:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [2012-07-21 13:27:47] Started cgminer 2.5.0
 [2012-07-21 13:27:49] Probing for an alive pool
 [2012-07-21 13:27:49] Long-polling activated for http://notroll.in:6332/LP
 [2012-07-21 13:27:50] Pool 0 http://notroll.in:6332 alive
 [2012-07-21 13:28:30] Accepted cfa3c70a.d78d8df3 GPU 1
 [2012-07-21 13:28:31] Accepted 220fa3a9.d768cc99 GPU 1
 [2012-07-21 13:28:44] LONGPOLL from pool 0 detected new block
 [2012-07-21 13:29:10] Accepted 72785a06.e2fd5124 GPU 0

[BCMan]

Getting 30 khash (--scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 6144 -g 2 -I 17) with latest version comparing to 190 kh/s with Reaper on 6770. Pool showing same 30 kh/s. Maybe drivers/sdk fault? Using 12.1/2.6.

Change -g 2 to -g 1.

Nothing changed.
 Can't get it even to work with another rig (5770 & 6870). Getting clkernel error.

[Schleicher]

Try decreasing the values, like this:
--thread-concurrency 2048 -g 1 -I 11
and see what happens

[BCMan]

Try decreasing the values, like this:
--thread-concurrency 2048 -g 1 -I 11
and see what happens

Getting 173 khash/s now with --thread-concurrency 4200. Still lower than Reaper, but maybe more thread-concurrency tweaking will give extra juice.
 UPD: 180 khash/s with --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 3500 -g 1 -I 17. Looks like thats a maximum.

[Graet]

heh
getting
607khash and 477kahsh from 2 x 7970
be nice if both were 607

cgminer.exe --scrypt -o http://lc.ozco.in:9332 -u Graet.4 -p p --worksize 256 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 1 --auto-fan --gpu-fan 50-90 --gpu-engine 1100-1165 --auto-gpu --gpu-vddc 0.88

[dishwara]

any one got more than 360 kh/s on 5870 on windows 7

[-ck]

ckolivas, could you also set a user-definable parameter to adjust the difficulty needed for submitting a share?

Instead of reading off the difficulty from the pool? I guess so... but not right now.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that each pool sends its difficulty requirement to the miner. Just when I was mining with P2Pool (Bitcoin), it would send difficulty 1 shares to my local P2Pool node even though the P2Pool share difficulty is much higher.

Yes cgminer supports higher difficulty shares, which is why I've been trying to get BTC pools to start supporting it with all this faster hardware coming around. Ironically with LTC being much easier to mine difficulty 1 shares, the LTC pools needed to support higher difficulty shares first. P2pool however doesn't actually ask cgminer for higher difficulty shares, it asks for difficulty 1 shares and then internally decides if it's a "true share" based on the target difficulty it meets. It works either way, but cgminer uses less CPU so it makes much more sense to allow the mining software to do the testing. In the scrypt version of cgminer, it actually does the target difficulty even on the GPU for anything less than 4,294,967,295 where difficulty 1 shares on litecoin are only 65,535.

[Tittiez]

I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!

6850:
https://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png

5770:
https://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png

So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.


The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.

I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.

And it seems stable already.

[Bigal]

I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!

6850:
https://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png

5770:
https://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png

So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.


The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.

I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.

And it seems stable already.

I noticed the same thing on my 7970s anything up to 1000 on the memory hashes seem to increase, then from 1000 to around 1400 hashes fell some, then they got better above 1425 but using a lot more watts.

[-ck]

I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!

6850:
https://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png

5770:
https://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png

So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.


The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.

I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.

And it seems stable already.

Thanks

I'm pretty sure we'll need to create a database with suitable values. Every card seems to want something completely different. My 7970s really need all 1375MHz of memory or hashrate drops off. Ironically they seem to do the opposite with engine clock - there's a ceiling to how high the hashrate gets and then turning the engine up further doesn't speed things up any more.

[Graet]

I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!

6850:
https://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png

5770:
https://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png

So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.


The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.

I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.

And it seems stable already.

I noticed the same thing on my 7970s anything up to 1000 on the memory hashes seem to increase, then from 1000 to around 1400 hashes fell some, then they got better above 1425 but using a lot more watts.

<Graet> <conman> dont forget --gpu-memclock 1375 for the7970s
<Graet> * Graet adds
<Graet> <JWU42> why 1375 ?
<Graet> <conman> cause that's default memory speed
<Graet> <JWU42> scrypt likes higher mem>?
<Graet> <conman> yes very much so
<Graet> <JWU42> this is for LTC?

I followed this advice and am getting 586 from one and 600 from the other 7970 up from 450's. i haven't found going higher helped

[Bigal]

Here's are my settings, pools reported speed looks about what I'm seeing.

cgminer --scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 4 -I 13

12.6 drivers & sdk

7970 #1 @ 1.006v 1000/1000
7970 #2 @ .993v  1050/1000

~1100kh @ 465 watts at the plug




this is both 7970s @ 1125/1500 1.112v
~1195kh @ 650 watts at the plug




Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.

[Tittiez]

Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.

Try wget on the zip.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/zipball/newscrypt

[-ck]

Found a sweet spot with my 7970s. Memory 1375 Engine 1135. Increasing engine slows it down beyond that. There is definitely a relationship between engine and memory clock, scrypt settings and even motherboard speed. Assuming higher is better is not going to necessarily be true.

[Graet]

Found a sweet spot with my 7970s. Memory 1375 Engine 1135. Increasing engine slows it down beyond that. There is definitely a relationship between engine and memory clock, scrypt settings and even motherboard speed. Assuming higher is better is not going to necessarily be true.

++++
tried this and

[BCMan]

I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!

6850:
https://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png

5770:
https://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png

So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.


The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.

I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.

And it seems stable already.

Heh, thats funny. I've finished tweaking with exactly same results for 5770. Drop the voltage to 0.960v btw, it's stable for mine.

[Tittiez]

Heh, thats funny. I've finished tweaking with exactly same results for 5770. Drop the voltage to 0.960v btw, it's stable for mine.

Not on mine, but 1.0v is fine. (My card never liked low voltages )

Edit:

Nevermind, won't work with 1.0v either. Haha

My Asus 5770 came with a STOCK voltage of 1.25v, cgminer doesn't allow above 1.2 so its set to that while mining.

[Bigal]

Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.

Try wget on the zip.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/zipball/newscrypt

Haha! I'm blind thanks.

OK got it compiled but no dice, anything over 2048 thread-concurrency throws gpu errors and fails, with 2048 it runs but has all rejects. This is with ubuntu 11.04 with 11.12 drivers and 2.4 sdk probably needs the latest driver/sdk or I just effed it up but it compiled with no errors, I already had reaper compiled and running on here, it seemed to run ok so I just thought I'd give it a shot.