Topic: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable - page 46. (Read 67732 times)

we are getting some nice results ...

please keep the stats coming in ... we are VERY interested to hear from those guys with the 1050ti - and the 750ti ...

event tho we will only be supporting the larger cards from the next version on - we are still VERY interested to see how they will all go with the current incarnation of CWIgm ...

CWIgm-0.9.8 is coming along nicely ... so that is some good news ... a few more changes needed tho - so will have it ready soon ...

#crysx

Win 10 64 bit, 8x Gigabyty 1080Ti
Miner: 0.9.7.1

cwigm_x64 -a skunk -u user -p pass
pause


Cards set like this:

https://i.imgur.com/RcKmIWj.png

Results:

https://i.imgur.com/aHLRcQH.png

Faster then other miners.
Good work.

Asus GTX970 4GB, Win10x64, nvidia driver 384.94, card forced into P0 state, core +203 power 110. Palgin's mode gives me 17.9-18 MH/s, sp3 ~16.5-17,  yours ~18.8 - 19.4. i=0, this gives me most straight TDP line in Afterburner, otherwise it's very jumpy.

OS: Win 10 - 64 bit on both rigs

cwigm_x64 -a skunk -u username.worker -p x  --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff -d 0,1,2,3
pause

http://puu.sh/x292p/5487e2185a.png
http://puu.sh/x291j/f5be3f0fc3.png



cwigm_x64 -a skunk -u username.worker -p x  --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff -d 0,1,2,3,4,5
pause


http://puu.sh/x293b/f494bb7da2.png
http://puu.sh/x293n/341c8f5510.png

It looks like default intensity it's at 24 for each card.

I am very happy with the miner hashrate results ( about 5% over palgin ), but I am very unhappy with the LUCK of finding blocks since the hashrate of this pool is kinda low - I hope more and more miners will join this pool and my share results will help others as well.

Again, good job with this miner and all the work you guys are doing with this project.

great ...

the --lodiff parameter will be needed ... if you dont has massive hashrates - then it will be required ...

tanx for sharing the stats - would be great to see the specs of oc and the like ...

#crysx

Just to clarify, it is working well now. I was looking at the wrong pool before. Correct pool is http://pool.chainworksindustries.com/sigt/

I am getting about 28.5MH/s from my GTX1070 at stock settings. I don't see any improvements at higher mem frequencies.
3% increase over the palgin modded miner.

I am using the --lodiff setting, but I'm not sure if it is needed.

I tried without the -a skunk parameter and it gives "Error: no algorithm specified".

I am now running without the preset values and the hashrate is just about the same. So yea, they are not needed.

I am sending you my worker details in pm.

this miner is NOT coin specific ...

so PoS or not - the algo will remain - along with the others we implement ... and if anyone here knows me and how i work - then you will know that CWI works the same way ... timeframes are NOT for these developments - as they are finished when they are finished ...

which is why we dont believe in 'roadmaps' with unreliable timescales and timeframes - with deadlines that are unrealistic ...

we prefer 'plans' - so that it is more flexible and we can adhere and focus on the project - rather than concern ourselves with rushing and pushing bad development ... that goes with our coins and other projects also ...

BUT - tanx for sharing the figures and the tests ... could you state the specs and whether oc or not - which os - etc? ...

in fact - we may put up a small template with the test miners - so that you can just fill in the details and copy / paste that table / template here ... that way - we get to see what the specs are - which helps us and other miners - and you get to keep a record of what your stats also ...3

tanx again for the stats ...

#crysx

Tested x64 version yesterday, an increase of ~1.2 MH/s (compared with palgin's) on GTX970. Will test x32 version also.

When should we expect release, after POS?

hi pikatju ...

it seems you are forcing the -a parameter - when you dont need to ... there is only ONE algo in the miner currently - and that is skunk ...

also - those prior settings are not required for this miner from what i understand ... they are really only effective for sgminer - so you dont need to set those environment variables at all ... can anyone confirm this please? ...

pm me your worker details - and ill have a look into it ...

if you have not setup and account on the pool - as per the instructions in the README.txt file that comes with the miner - then thats the issue ...

#crysx

wont be for a while yet ...

a LOT more needs to be done in linux - as CWIgm is not opensource ...

#crysx

nice work ...

tho you can squeeze a little more out with adjustments ...

the next revision will have a little more optimized skunkhash algo - and tribus included ... CWIgm-0.9.8 will also have a number of changes to the console as well as changes in the parameters that you can set ... a number of internal systems will be started within the code also ( tuning - auto mining - and a few others ) ...

IF we finish what we need to - we will have the new version announced here in the coming days BEFORE it is uploaded to the link that all you awesome testers have ...

ALWAYS check the hash we publish in the second post of this thread - as that will confirm that the miner you have IS the correct miner ...

tanx for publishing your specs and results - it helps us a lot ...

#crysx

hi yslyung ...

i dont quite understand what you mean by using the server on the pool ...

we have been using the stratum-proxy and conversing with pfool for a very long time ... its this same software that was the backend for the Donate By Mining (DBM) project that i started a couple of years ago ... DBM is integrated into the development plans also - we just need to work on a few changes for the stratum-proxy ... one request which pfool started - but has not finished for us as he seems to have abandoned the project altogether and is not responding to any of our requests to further the development request we made ...

he is a really good dev - and a good guy ... but the stratum-proxy is left for dead currently ...

but there is hope - as we have looked at what it can provide if further developed ...

#crysx

I don't see my contribution on the pool!

using the .1 miner, -x64

setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100

cwigm_x64 -a skunk -u my.worker -p password -i=25
pause


[2017-08-05 13:41:35] GPU#0: ASUS GeForce GTX 1070, 27.95 MH/s
[2017-08-05 13:41:36] GPU#1: ASUS GeForce GTX 1070, 29.07 MH/s

1070's running at stock speed, 100% power

looking forward the linux version

Nice Miner - running Win 10, 11X 1070, 1x 1080.  Stable so far for about 2 hours.

Using 0.9.7.1
Current Overclocks (using afterburner):

1070's
75% power
Core +150
Mem +450
Fan 75%
Temps in the high 50's to low 60's

1080 FE
70% power
Core +50
Mem +150
Temps in the high 60's

[2017-08-04 22:23:46] GPU#0: GeForce GTX 1080, 31.85 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:23:50] GPU#2: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.43 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:23:50] GPU#4: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.52 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:23:50] GPU#3: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.75 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:23:50] GPU#1: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.44 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:23:50] GPU#5: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.12 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:24:18] [S/A/T]: 0/281/281 (diff 1.220), 165.97 MH/s yes!

[2017-08-04 22:22:31] GPU#0: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.53 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:43] GPU#4: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.53 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:43] GPU#2: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.43 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:44] GPU#1: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.43 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:44] GPU#5: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.13 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:45] GPU#3: Zotac GeForce GTX 1070, 26.76 MH/s
[2017-08-04 22:22:56] [S/A/T]: 0/282/282 (diff 0.943), 161.93 MH/s yes!

Will continue to optimize OC and report back on any stability issues.  Thanks for an interesting beta!

hey mate, can u test pfool server on your pool ? i tested it, works well with sgminer for amd but on ccminer dont work it says worker not authorized or some authentication failed.

will test further. it works well n plays nice with suprnova.

u can pm if u want, thx.

pm me with what cards you have and the operating system it will be used on ...

#crysx

hi helladave ...

what is being shown there is the network difficulty - and the share difficulty that the gpu has already processed ...

what you are describing is correct ... but its not from the miner - its from the pool stratum ...

we originally had the stratum retargeting the diff every 70seconds ...

what we found was that for the higher hashers that did NOT use the hidiff port ( 6000 ) and used the lodiff port ( 2000 ) instead - the shares streamed in and flooded the stratum ... now this was not necessarily the miners fault - as CWIgm had built in card / hash detection which was supposed to alleviate this ( even though it is an experimental 'feature' ) ... but due to the influx of miners all at once - the 70second retarget for change of diff was just too long ...

now the diff retarget is set at 25seconds ...

so what you are seeing is the stratum changing the diff with relation to how many shares are sent by the miner - in a time frame of 25seconds ... it will increase and decrease accordingly - and the longer you spend on the pool mining - the more accurate the stratum will be ... but as with all stratums - it will continue to fluctuate the diff to try and get a good share submission as an average ...

this doesnt mean you are losing out in anyway - it just simply means that the shares you are submitting are a higher difficulty - and as such take longer to process ...

in any case - the higher diff shares submitted - the better the chance of solving a block ... of course there does need to be a balance of share submission and difficulty of shares - and the stratum is a little quicker at doing that now ...

#crysx

So how is it possible to receive a muner for testing?