[ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner - page 126.

Nik4691

sr. member

Activity: 352

Merit: 250

Quote from: Marvell1 on October 19, 2016, 12:43:12 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 19, 2016, 07:50:43 AM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 19, 2016, 05:17:22 AM

here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):

fx-8320e:

Thanks, those are the results I expected. Next release i will drop the btver1 build and recommend AMD users choose the Intel build
with the same features.

trying to run this miner on my desk top but I crashes right away

I have and dual core Pentium g4400 cpu (Sandy bridge)

cpuminer-core-avx2 -a zcoin -o stratum+tcp://xzc.pool.mn:2428 -u user -p x

any help ?

No AVX2 or even AVX for this processor.
Use the cpuminer-corei7.exe kenel.

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: Marvell1 on October 19, 2016, 12:43:12 PM

trying to run this miner on my desk top but I crashes right away

I have and dual core Pentium g4400 cpu (Sandy bridge)

cpuminer-core-avx2 -a zcoin -o stratum+tcp://xzc.pool.mn:2428 -u user -p x

any help ?

Read the readme, Sandybridge doesn't support avx2.

Marvell1

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1102

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: joblo on October 19, 2016, 07:50:43 AM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 19, 2016, 05:17:22 AM

here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):

fx-8320e:

Thanks, those are the results I expected. Next release i will drop the btver1 build and recommend AMD users choose the Intel build
with the same features.

trying to run this miner on my desk top but I crashes right away

I have and dual core Pentium g4400 cpu (Sandy bridge)

cpuminer-core-avx2 -a zcoin -o stratum+tcp://xzc.pool.mn:2428 -u user -p x

any help ?

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 19, 2016, 05:17:22 AM

here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):

fx-8320e:

Thanks, those are the results I expected. Next release i will drop the btver1 build and recommend AMD users choose the Intel build
with the same features.

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):

fx-8320e:

lyra2re:

aes-avx: 396kh/s
corei7-avx: 412kh/s
core-avx-i: 411kh/s

lyra2rev2:

aes-avx: 539kh/s
corei7-avx: 568kh/s
core-avx-i: 568kh/s

cryptonight (8 threads):

aes-avx: 229h/s
corei7-avx: 228h/s
core-avx-i: 229h/s

cryptonight (7 threads):

aes-avx: 231h/s
corei7-avx: 230h/s
core-avx-i: 229h/s

a10-6800k:

lyra2re:

aes-avx: 311kh/s
corei7-avx: 314kh/s
core-avx-i: 317kh/s

lyra2rev2:

aes-avx: 344kh/s
corei7-avx: 364kh/s
core-avx-i: 364kh/s

cryptonight (4 threads):

aes-avx: 48h/s
corei7-avx: 47h/s
core-avx-i: 47h/s

cryptonight (3 threads):

aes-avx: 56h/s
corei7-avx: 58h/s
core-avx-i: 58h/s

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 05:33:43 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 05:28:41 PM

What options? I will try to build it with those optoins on my Intel and see if it works well on your AMD.

you can compile with: "-maes -mavx", this results an a binary with sse2, aes and avx support (none of my amd cpus has avx2)

ill gladly test it

on a side note: benchmark of lyra2z was broken in ocminers miner and yours as well, are you planning on fixing it or just wait till mpt (or whatever the new zcoin algo is named) gets released?

I'll build one and pm you the link. It should be the same as corei7-avx or core-avx-i.

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

also i just remembered the mysterious bug/error where cpuminer-opt would crash in my lxc containers with a buffer overflow, its not happening anymore, seems it was indeed some lxc or kernel related issue

edit: it might also be related to me not catching the stdout/stderr when spawning cpuminer-opt as a child process, anyways its working now Cheesy

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 05:28:41 PM

What options? I will try to build it with those optoins on my Intel and see if it works well on your AMD.

you can compile with: "-maes -mavx", this results an a binary with sse2, aes and avx support (none of my amd cpus has avx2)

ill gladly test it

on a side note: benchmark of lyra2z was broken in ocminers miner and yours as well, are you planning on fixing it or just wait till mpt (or whatever the new zcoin algo is named) gets released?

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 04:24:26 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 03:53:25 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 02:58:02 PM

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

My intent is to do something similar but continue to compile on architecture boundaries instead of cherry picking features.
If I ignore the manufacturer differences there are 4 levels I want to support: SSE2, +AES, +AVX, +AVX2. Unfortunately
Westmere doesn't have its own compile arch defined but is SSE4.1+AES. I am targetting redundant builds one at a time.

For AMD I'm relying on your advice of what special AMD builds would be useful, meaning there isn't a compatible Intel
build with the same critical features. I would also need to be able to build it which could be an issue.

For now I'm targetting btver1. Any reason to keep it?

for cryptonight the difference between a native amd compile and a generic "-maes -mavx" compile is minimal, like sub 10 H/s

for lyra2re the difference was (afaik) larger, however all other compiles packaged resulted in even worse performance

for zcoin the difference is not observable

as a conclusion best amd compile is native, and after that a generic with -m flags

I can't build native for any AMD arch, that's why I want to know which don't have an equivalent Intel build.

yes i know there is no native compile, best compile for my fx and a6/a10 cpus was a generic compile (after native), every one of the intel compiles was slower than the generic one

What options? I will try to build it with those optoins on my Intel and see if it works well on your AMD.

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 03:53:25 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 02:58:02 PM

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

My intent is to do something similar but continue to compile on architecture boundaries instead of cherry picking features.
If I ignore the manufacturer differences there are 4 levels I want to support: SSE2, +AES, +AVX, +AVX2. Unfortunately
Westmere doesn't have its own compile arch defined but is SSE4.1+AES. I am targetting redundant builds one at a time.

For AMD I'm relying on your advice of what special AMD builds would be useful, meaning there isn't a compatible Intel
build with the same critical features. I would also need to be able to build it which could be an issue.

For now I'm targetting btver1. Any reason to keep it?

for cryptonight the difference between a native amd compile and a generic "-maes -mavx" compile is minimal, like sub 10 H/s

for lyra2re the difference was (afaik) larger, however all other compiles packaged resulted in even worse performance

for zcoin the difference is not observable

as a conclusion best amd compile is native, and after that a generic with -m flags

I can't build native for any AMD arch, that's why I want to know which don't have an equivalent Intel build.

yes i know there is no native compile, best compile for my fx and a6/a10 cpus was a generic compile (after native), every one of the intel compiles was slower than the generic one

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 03:53:25 PM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 02:58:02 PM

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

My intent is to do something similar but continue to compile on architecture boundaries instead of cherry picking features.
If I ignore the manufacturer differences there are 4 levels I want to support: SSE2, +AES, +AVX, +AVX2. Unfortunately
Westmere doesn't have its own compile arch defined but is SSE4.1+AES. I am targetting redundant builds one at a time.

For AMD I'm relying on your advice of what special AMD builds would be useful, meaning there isn't a compatible Intel
build with the same critical features. I would also need to be able to build it which could be an issue.

For now I'm targetting btver1. Any reason to keep it?

for cryptonight the difference between a native amd compile and a generic "-maes -mavx" compile is minimal, like sub 10 H/s

for lyra2re the difference was (afaik) larger, however all other compiles packaged resulted in even worse performance

for zcoin the difference is not observable

as a conclusion best amd compile is native, and after that a generic with -m flags

I can't build native for any AMD arch, that's why I want to know which don't have an equivalent Intel build.

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 02:58:02 PM

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

My intent is to do something similar but continue to compile on architecture boundaries instead of cherry picking features.
If I ignore the manufacturer differences there are 4 levels I want to support: SSE2, +AES, +AVX, +AVX2. Unfortunately
Westmere doesn't have its own compile arch defined but is SSE4.1+AES. I am targetting redundant builds one at a time.

For AMD I'm relying on your advice of what special AMD builds would be useful, meaning there isn't a compatible Intel
build with the same critical features. I would also need to be able to build it which could be an issue.

For now I'm targetting btver1. Any reason to keep it?

for cryptonight the difference between a native amd compile and a generic "-maes -mavx" compile is minimal, like sub 10 H/s

for lyra2re the difference was (afaik) larger, however all other compiles packaged resulted in even worse performance

for zcoin the difference is not observable

as a conclusion best amd compile is native, and after that a generic with -m flags

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 02:58:02 PM

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

My intent is to do something similar but continue to compile on architecture boundaries instead of cherry picking features.
If I ignore the manufacturer differences there are 4 levels I want to support: SSE2, +AES, +AVX, +AVX2. Unfortunately
Westmere doesn't have its own compile arch defined but is SSE4.1+AES. I am targetting redundant builds one at a time.

For AMD I'm relying on your advice of what special AMD builds would be useful, meaning there isn't a compatible Intel
build with the same critical features. I would also need to be able to build it which could be an issue.

For now I'm targetting btver1. Any reason to keep it?

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

joblo, regarding compiling, is there anything up against replacing the windows compiles with "-march=" by compiles with just the extensions added (-msse2/-maes/-mavx/-mavx2) like nicehash does it for their compiles? would boil the resulting bins down to essentially 3 or 4 and the right one can easily be identified

cheers

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: darun123 on October 18, 2016, 09:51:38 AM

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 08:47:24 AM

Quote from: darun123 on October 18, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

Me again, something was clearly the older cpu 1156 and 1366 do not provide anything more than hs with older miner such as the fx processors have not improved anything if someone has a solution thank you in advance

Pleas provide the command line and program output.

cpuminer-btver1 -a lyra2z -o stratum+tcp://xzc.suprnova.cc:5595 -u darun.darun -p 1 --hide-diff

You were already told AMD perfoms poorly. And don't hijack another user's conversation.

darun123

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: joblo on October 18, 2016, 08:47:24 AM

Quote from: darun123 on October 18, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 05:30:31 AM

Quote from: mikhan on October 18, 2016, 12:00:45 AM

tried cpuminer-xzc, it shows weird (?) 220-230 kh/s hashrate but a pool shows about 60-70 h/s, 48 threads

are you referring to ocminers cpuminer-xzc or cpuminer-opt by joblo?

please share the parameters used to start the miner for further debug, might just be a wrong algo specified

Me again, something was clearly the older cpu 1156 and 1366 do not provide anything more than hs with older miner such as the fx processors have not improved anything if someone has a solution thank you in advance

Pleas provide the command line and program output.

cpuminer-btver1 -a lyra2z -o stratum+tcp://xzc.suprnova.cc:5595 -u darun.darun -p 1 --hide-diff

joblo

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1114

Quote from: darun123 on October 18, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 05:30:31 AM

Quote from: mikhan on October 18, 2016, 12:00:45 AM

tried cpuminer-xzc, it shows weird (?) 220-230 kh/s hashrate but a pool shows about 60-70 h/s, 48 threads

are you referring to ocminers cpuminer-xzc or cpuminer-opt by joblo?

please share the parameters used to start the miner for further debug, might just be a wrong algo specified

Me again, something was clearly the older cpu 1156 and 1366 do not provide anything more than hs with older miner such as the fx processors have not improved anything if someone has a solution thank you in advance

Pleas provide the command line and program output.

darun123

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: felixbrucker on October 18, 2016, 05:30:31 AM

Quote from: mikhan on October 18, 2016, 12:00:45 AM

tried cpuminer-xzc, it shows weird (?) 220-230 kh/s hashrate but a pool shows about 60-70 h/s, 48 threads

are you referring to ocminers cpuminer-xzc or cpuminer-opt by joblo?

please share the parameters used to start the miner for further debug, might just be a wrong algo specified

Me again, something was clearly the older cpu 1156 and 1366 do not provide anything more than hs with older miner such as the fx processors have not improved anything if someone has a solution thank you in advance

felixbrucker

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: mikhan on October 18, 2016, 12:00:45 AM

tried cpuminer-xzc, it shows weird (?) 220-230 kh/s hashrate but a pool shows about 60-70 h/s, 48 threads

are you referring to ocminers cpuminer-xzc or cpuminer-opt by joblo?

please share the parameters used to start the miner for further debug, might just be a wrong algo specified

mikhan

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: joblo on October 17, 2016, 11:49:48 PM

Quote from: mikhan on October 17, 2016, 11:35:16 PM

@joblo,
is it normal to have 11-12 h/s on double e5-2690v3 (2x 12cores x 2threads)? tried different amount of threads, 48,12,24 etc
also cpu usage is only 14-15% in taskmanager

at cryptonight algo it got 750 h/s (48 threads)

Read back a page or 2, another user had issues with dual xeons.

default run (no -t option) shows 48 threads so both cpus are in game

Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner - page 126. (Read 444040 times)