[ANN] Avermore miner - optimized sgminer (AMD) fork for x16r/x16s/xevan(beta) - page 6.

equestrianbucking

newbie

Activity: 81

Merit: 0

It is really good to see someone stating the optimised AMD miner for the Raven.

pubmongrelT

newbie

Activity: 64

Merit: 0

You can set up this at regular AMDs if you have the 18.3.4 drives in your system.

MoNTE48

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

Quote from: KL0nLutiy1 on April 18, 2018, 04:53:11 PM

Did a fork of this miner https://github.com/KL0nLutiy/sgminer-gm-x16r, must be 1-2% faster

Hi, friend. I use Ubuntu (HiveOS).
You can compile your miner for linux? Big thank you!

tome3000

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: hammuh on April 29, 2018, 09:36:30 PM

Quote from: tome3000 on April 27, 2018, 12:55:32 PM

hi nice pepole
can someone help set a fail over for this ? . tried the folowing with no luck :

my bat : sgminer.exe --gpu-platform=2 --config failover.conf -w 64 -g 2 -X 256 --no-submit-stale
my conf :
{
"pools": [
{
"name": "Raven minepool",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://minepool.com:3636",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Raven Yiimp",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://yiimp.eu:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Mining Panda",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://miningpanda.site:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
}
],
"api-port": "4028",
"failover-only": true
}

Maybe try a password like "c=RVN"?

.

no still does not work any other idea?

wtfonly16

full member

Activity: 285

Merit: 105

only 5.5mh/s on 570.. two threads tried 64,96,128,256,512,768,896,1024 various restarts still same hashrate...

sometimes all dip to 3.9 for no reason at all...

Bwtmn7

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 10

Brian do you think you could optimize for Fiji because im only getting 5.5MH/s with OC at 1150 /500 no bios mod

LovellaSai

newbie

Activity: 89

Merit: 0

I am sincerely looking forward to using this as my new thing and it’ll be a good thing.

hammuh

jr. member

Activity: 41

Merit: 1

Quote from: tome3000 on April 27, 2018, 12:55:32 PM

hi nice pepole
can someone help set a fail over for this ? . tried the folowing with no luck :

my bat : sgminer.exe --gpu-platform=2 --config failover.conf -w 64 -g 2 -X 256 --no-submit-stale
my conf :
{
"pools": [
{
"name": "Raven minepool",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://minepool.com:3636",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Raven Yiimp",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://yiimp.eu:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Mining Panda",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://miningpanda.site:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
}
],
"api-port": "4028",
"failover-only": true
}

Maybe try a password like "c=RVN"?

pigseye

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: brianmct on April 27, 2018, 12:14:23 AM

Quote from: pigseye on April 26, 2018, 11:35:39 PM

Hi All,
Another question. I seem to get the highest and most consistent hash rate from 1.0. My hashrate for 1.1 is significantly lower than 1.0.

I've got a 12 card system with 6-580s, 3-570s, 2-480s, and a R9290.

I obviously do not use -g 2 because of the 12 cards but have tried different intensities from 64 to 512 and 1.0 comes out on top.

Any explanation?

Thanks!

1.1 and 1.0 should be identical when it comes to x16r/x16s; I just added xevan support for RX cards in 1.1.

Make sure when you're comparing hashrates you either average for a few hours, or use the --benchmark flag. X16R hashrates will vary a lot depending on the current block's hash sequence.

If you have 12 cards on the same rig, you can try splitting up the cards into two instances of Avermore (using the -d flag) to get around the 13-thread limit.

On the first instance of Avermore, run with -d 0,1,2,3,4,5 and on the second, run -d 6,7,8,9,10,11. This should allow you to run the miner with -g 2, which should get you better hashrates.

Let me know how it goes.

This is a great idea. Duh! I could have thought of that.

I'll give it a try tonight and get back to you. Thanks!

tome3000

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

hi nice pepole
can someone help set a fail over for this ? . tried the folowing with no luck :

my bat : sgminer.exe --gpu-platform=2 --config failover.conf -w 64 -g 2 -X 256 --no-submit-stale
my conf :
{
"pools": [
{
"name": "Raven minepool",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://minepool.com:3636",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Raven Yiimp",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://yiimp.eu:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
},
{
"name": "Mining Panda",
"nfactor": "10",
"algorithm": "x16r",
"quota": "1;stratum+tcp://miningpanda.site:3666",
"user": "RFBMCANQkBpd6KRiTFizuf59TCZNUv8GbC.VegaFrontier",
"pass":
}
],
"api-port": "4028",
"failover-only": true
}

CryptoDocker

jr. member

Activity: 122

Merit: 1

Quote from: brianmct on April 27, 2018, 01:22:39 AM

Quote from: CryptoDocker on April 27, 2018, 12:27:01 AM

brianmct any chance you can give us the commands to manually update Avermore in Hive OS to the newer version? Would like to help test it but im terrible in linux

I wrote up a guide for how to manually update Avermore in HiveOS here.

Your the best! Thanks for that

brianmct

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 51

Quote from: CryptoDocker on April 27, 2018, 12:27:01 AM

brianmct any chance you can give us the commands to manually update Avermore in Hive OS to the newer version? Would like to help test it but im terrible in linux

I wrote up a guide for how to manually update Avermore in HiveOS here.

CryptoDocker

jr. member

Activity: 122

Merit: 1

brianmct any chance you can give us the commands to manually update Avermore in Hive OS to the newer version? Would like to help test it but im terrible in linux

brianmct

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 51

Quote from: pigseye on April 26, 2018, 11:35:39 PM

Hi All,
Another question. I seem to get the highest and most consistent hash rate from 1.0. My hashrate for 1.1 is significantly lower than 1.0.

I've got a 12 card system with 6-580s, 3-570s, 2-480s, and a R9290.

I obviously do not use -g 2 because of the 12 cards but have tried different intensities from 64 to 512 and 1.0 comes out on top.

Any explanation?

Thanks!

1.1 and 1.0 should be identical when it comes to x16r/x16s; I just added xevan support for RX cards in 1.1.

Make sure when you're comparing hashrates you either average for a few hours, or use the --benchmark flag. X16R hashrates will vary a lot depending on the current block's hash sequence.

If you have 12 cards on the same rig, you can try splitting up the cards into two instances of Avermore (using the -d flag) to get around the 13-thread limit.

On the first instance of Avermore, run with -d 0,1,2,3,4,5 and on the second, run -d 6,7,8,9,10,11. This should allow you to run the miner with -g 2, which should get you better hashrates.

Let me know how it goes.

pigseye

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Hi All,
Another question. I seem to get the highest and most consistent hash rate from 1.0. My hashrate for 1.1 is significantly lower than 1.0.

I've got a 12 card system with 6-580s, 3-570s, 2-480s, and a R9290.

I obviously do not use -g 2 because of the 12 cards but have tried different intensities from 64 to 512 and 1.0 comes out on top.

Any explanation?

Thanks!

pigseye

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: 4ward on April 26, 2018, 03:24:39 AM

Quote from: pigseye on April 26, 2018, 01:02:32 AM

Hi Brian,
Great miner.

Question, What does the -w 64 command do? Should we be adjusting this or do you have guidelines on how to adjust it for max hash rate?

Thanks

its worksize, and and it might give you different results with different numbers (can try 128 / 256), but in general 64 usually works best for most algos on amd

Thanks for the tips!

4ward

member

Activity: 473

Merit: 18

Quote from: pigseye on April 26, 2018, 01:02:32 AM

Hi Brian,
Great miner.

Question, What does the -w 64 command do? Should we be adjusting this or do you have guidelines on how to adjust it for max hash rate?

Thanks

its worksize, and and it might give you different results with different numbers (can try 128 / 256), but in general 64 usually works best for most algos on amd

pigseye

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Hi Brian,
Great miner.

Question, What does the -w 64 command do? Should we be adjusting this or do you have guidelines on how to adjust it for max hash rate?

Thanks

brianmct

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 51

Quote from: 4ward on April 25, 2018, 03:59:59 AM

Quote from: brianmct on April 25, 2018, 03:45:32 AM

Quote from: 4ward on April 24, 2018, 10:53:06 AM

strange, but I actually get lower rates with 1.2 on RX480 8G with Uber 3.1 mem timings
(running with -g 2 -w 64 -X 256 --benchmark)

X16r Avermore-1.1 8.4 mh
X16r Avermore-1.2 7.743 mh

X16s Avermore-1.1 8.366 mh
X16s Avermore-1.2 7.711 mh

Interesting. Can you compare the Hamsi kernel hashrates between 1.1 and 1.2? (run with --benchmark-sequence=BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB). It's possible some of the changes I made caused regressions in cards other than the RX580.

exits immediately when I use --benchmark-sequence=anything (even 0123456789ABCDEF) in both 1.1 and 1.2

edit:
I also noticed that I'm hitting the thermal card power limit and it starts throttling
in 1.1 the GPU clock gets throttled to ~1200Mhz and temperature stays around 80c, so it can probably reach even higher speeds with better cooling
in 1.2 the GPU clock is ~1300Mhz and temperature is ~75c

580 is basically the same card, with slightly higher clocks, so should perform similarly

I'll take a look into why --benchmark-sequence isn't working on Windows.

I did some testing on my test rig, and the results are weird.

The Hamsi kernel, when benchmarked by itself (i.e. repeated 16 times), is indeed 35% faster on 1.2 compared to 1.1 (4.2 MHs -> 5.7 MHs). Also, when I benchmark the rest of the algos (0123456789ACDEF), the hashrates are the same between the two versions (as expected, since the only change was with the Hamsi kernel).

However, when I test running all of the algos (0123456789ABCDEF), v1.1 is indeed slightly faster than v1.2 (7.9 MHs vs 7.7 MHs). I'm a bit stumped right now on why this would be the case. So anyways; if you're getting better results on v1.1, then stick with that version for now. I'll see if I can get a patch to v1.2 to address this issue.

All tests were done with -g 2 -w 64 -X 64, by the way. Found this to be the optimal xIntensity on my RX580. When running with -X 256, v1.2 did beat out v1.1 (7.1 MHs vs 6.8 MHs), but both were slower than with -X 64.

4ward

member

Activity: 473

Merit: 18

Quote from: brianmct on April 25, 2018, 03:45:32 AM

Quote from: 4ward on April 24, 2018, 10:53:06 AM

strange, but I actually get lower rates with 1.2 on RX480 8G with Uber 3.1 mem timings
(running with -g 2 -w 64 -X 256 --benchmark)

X16r Avermore-1.1 8.4 mh
X16r Avermore-1.2 7.743 mh

X16s Avermore-1.1 8.366 mh
X16s Avermore-1.2 7.711 mh

Interesting. Can you compare the Hamsi kernel hashrates between 1.1 and 1.2? (run with --benchmark-sequence=BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB). It's possible some of the changes I made caused regressions in cards other than the RX580.

exits immediately when I use --benchmark-sequence=anything (even 0123456789ABCDEF) in both 1.1 and 1.2

edit:
I also noticed that I'm hitting the thermal card power limit and it starts throttling
in 1.1 the GPU clock gets throttled to ~1200Mhz and temperature stays around 80c, so it can probably reach even higher speeds with better cooling
in 1.2 the GPU clock is ~1300Mhz and temperature is ~75c

580 is basically the same card, with slightly higher clocks, so should perform similarly

Topic: [ANN] Avermore miner - optimized sgminer (AMD) fork for x16r/x16s/xevan(beta) - page 6. (Read 23075 times)