Topic: [ANN] cudaMiner & ccMiner CUDA based mining applications [Windows/Linux/MacOSX] - page 959. (Read 3426921 times)
February 02, 2014, 08:20:59 PM
I noticed that the autotune does not take -L into consideration anymore, am I correct?
February 02, 2014, 08:10:58 PM
it was on windows
The problem is that my gettimeofday() does not have the best accuracy on Windows. This is why I chose to measure for 50ms minimum.
Autotune is affected by nVidia's boost feature unfortunately. I wish an application could turn it off momentarily.
February 02, 2014, 07:37:19 PM
I posted a 2014-02-02 release. I did not have a lot of time for testing. In case anything is
seriously broken, I might post some update (hotfix).
For those using the github version so far, please note the change in the kernel letters.
upper case T,K,F -> scrypt and low N-factor scrypt jane coins
lower case t,k,f -> high N-factor scrypt-jane coins
you can still use the previous kernel names X,Y,Z if you so please.
autotune will use the lower case kernels for scrypt-jane with high N-factor automatically.
However the threshold may not be chosen optimally. So please experiment and override
the autotune to find which one is actually better.
Note that the upper case letters T and K now select the high register count kernels
submitted by nVidia. This matters if you used T or K kernel configs in your Yacoin mining
scripts so far -> switch to t and k.
Mining through N-factor changes should not lead to crashes or validation errors now, but
the speed might not be optimal after the change. Best to re-tune the kernel afterwards.
Christian
seriously broken, I might post some update (hotfix).
For those using the github version so far, please note the change in the kernel letters.
upper case T,K,F -> scrypt and low N-factor scrypt jane coins
lower case t,k,f -> high N-factor scrypt-jane coins
you can still use the previous kernel names X,Y,Z if you so please.
autotune will use the lower case kernels for scrypt-jane with high N-factor automatically.
However the threshold may not be chosen optimally. So please experiment and override
the autotune to find which one is actually better.
Note that the upper case letters T and K now select the high register count kernels
submitted by nVidia. This matters if you used T or K kernel configs in your Yacoin mining
scripts so far -> switch to t and k.
Mining through N-factor changes should not lead to crashes or validation errors now, but
the speed might not be optimal after the change. Best to re-tune the kernel afterwards.
Christian
February 02, 2014, 07:36:28 PM
15 mio. here 
Are you solominig or on a pool, to get this result?
pool. No luck solo'ing this coin at all.
February 02, 2014, 06:18:52 PM
Edit: I'm up there in the VIP section with cbuchner1 now:
Congratulations!
15 mio. here
Are you solominig or on a pool, to get this result?
February 02, 2014, 04:51:07 PM
With build 114, using the 12/18 dll's, I get lower performance to the tune of a couple hundred khash.
Waiting for release
Waiting for release
February 02, 2014, 04:50:20 PM
hi sorry to but in , but im new to mining! ive got a gtx650 that im trying to mine with i think its working on guiminer but i wanted to try cudaminer my problem is in the cmd interface i type in cudaminer.exe -0 http://127.0.0.1:8332 -u madmick.1 -p x but i get a message saying something about the worker name and code -1! can you help?
the IP address 127.0.0.1 is useable only for solo mining, unless you run your own pool and web server on your home PC...
the first option should be passed with lower case o
-o http://127.0.0.1:8332
you would have to use the options rpcport=8332 and rpcuser=madmick.1 and rpcpassword=x and server=1 in the wallet's .conf file to use these settings on Solo mining. This password is too weak and unsafe though.
February 02, 2014, 04:46:08 PM
hi sorry to but in , but im new to mining! ive got a gtx650 that im trying to mine with i think its working on guiminer but i wanted to try cudaminer my problem is in the cmd interface i type in cudaminer.exe -0 http://127.0.0.1:8332 -u madmick.1 -p x but i get a message saying something about the worker name and code -1! can you help?
February 02, 2014, 04:43:25 PM
got it up to 450 now 
On the December release I get 630 on my EVGA superclocked 780Ti's.
February 02, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
it was on windows
February 02, 2014, 04:36:14 PM
I was playing a bit with the autotune code and I think I found what cause all the strange results we might get in script.
It seems to be due to the time over which the average khash/s is calculated (50ms).
At first, I increased it to 500ms and I saw that the power was gradually increasing between 75% and 120% (the limit I choose in overclocking) for each line and at the next line of the config table was starting again at 75% up to 120% for 32
This means that it was just impossible to compare each numbers.
So then, I decreased the time that time to 0.01 and now everything is kept at more or less the power level (there are still a few spike). However I am now able to get meaningfull number (or least they can be compared between each other) and the autotune seems to be more reliable (and 5x time faster)
It seems to be due to the time over which the average khash/s is calculated (50ms).
At first, I increased it to 500ms and I saw that the power was gradually increasing between 75% and 120% (the limit I choose in overclocking) for each line and at the next line of the config table was starting again at 75% up to 120% for 32
This means that it was just impossible to compare each numbers.
So then, I decreased the time that time to 0.01 and now everything is kept at more or less the power level (there are still a few spike). However I am now able to get meaningfull number (or least they can be compared between each other) and the autotune seems to be more reliable (and 5x time faster)
was this on Windows or on Linux?
February 02, 2014, 04:33:47 PM
I was playing a bit with the autotune code and I think I found what cause all the strange results we might get in script.
It seems to be due to the time over which the average khash/s is calculated (50ms).
At first, I increased it to 500ms and I saw that the power was gradually increasing between 75% and 120% (the limit I choose in overclocking) for each line and at the next line of the config table was starting again at 75% up to 120% for 32
This means that it was just impossible to compare each numbers.
So then, I decreased the time that time to 10ms and now everything is kept at more or less the power level (there are still a few spike). However I am now able to get meaningfull number (or least they can be compared between each other) and the autotune seems to be more reliable (and 5x time faster)
It seems to be due to the time over which the average khash/s is calculated (50ms).
At first, I increased it to 500ms and I saw that the power was gradually increasing between 75% and 120% (the limit I choose in overclocking) for each line and at the next line of the config table was starting again at 75% up to 120% for 32
This means that it was just impossible to compare each numbers.
So then, I decreased the time that time to 10ms and now everything is kept at more or less the power level (there are still a few spike). However I am now able to get meaningfull number (or least they can be compared between each other) and the autotune seems to be more reliable (and 5x time faster)
February 02, 2014, 04:29:08 PM
Any idea why the gpu clock and the V drop when I use 2 cards at the same time while when i use them one by one they stay the same?
February 02, 2014, 04:02:26 PM
280k solo mining lmao
February 02, 2014, 04:00:39 PM
Edit: I'm up there in the VIP section with cbuchner1 now:
Congratulations!
15 mio. here
February 02, 2014, 03:24:24 PM
got it up to 450 now
February 02, 2014, 03:03:19 PM
@tacojohn: Known issue, talked about a few pages back. Blame CUDA 5.5 and just run 1 instance per card.
If you don't mind being half as fast as a 660
Edit: I'm up there in the VIP section with cbuchner1 now:
is 115 khash on nfactor 9, 780TI ok?
If you don't mind being half as fast as a 660
Edit: I'm up there in the VIP section with cbuchner1 now:
February 02, 2014, 02:57:43 PM
is 115 khash on nfactor 9, 780TI ok?
February 02, 2014, 02:54:58 PM
Can anyone help me?
Windows 7 64-bit.
GTX670 SLI.
X86 works fine, but X64 binary crashes my drivers.
I get 570KH/s with this configuration, but...the page shows someone with the same 670's as me(FTW EDITIONS), getting 648, even though I am using the same settings, and a higher overclock.
#7 on the list
7 2014-01-03 GeForce GTX 670 x2 (SLI) EVGA FTW 2x2048 Windows 7 Ultimate 2013-12-18 32 bit (x86) 648.00 331.93 +100 +320 140 99 100 70 340 1.36 K7x32 -i 0 -C 1 -m 1 -H 1 Ness SLI, each card OC'ed individually
Windows 7 64-bit.
GTX670 SLI.
X86 works fine, but X64 binary crashes my drivers.
I get 570KH/s with this configuration, but...the page shows someone with the same 670's as me(FTW EDITIONS), getting 648, even though I am using the same settings, and a higher overclock.
#7 on the list
7 2014-01-03 GeForce GTX 670 x2 (SLI) EVGA FTW 2x2048 Windows 7 Ultimate 2013-12-18 32 bit (x86) 648.00 331.93 +100 +320 140 99 100 70 340 1.36 K7x32 -i 0 -C 1 -m 1 -H 1 Ness SLI, each card OC'ed individually
February 02, 2014, 02:49:55 PM
I have 4 GPUs plugged into one system. When I run one process per GPU, I get very stable results. When I let cudaminer spawn threads to simultaneously drive 2 or more GPUs, I get sporadic cpu validation errors and about a 50% rejection rate from the pool.
Anybody else seeing this generally?
I'm running the head revision, 64-bit linux.
Anybody else seeing this generally?
I'm running the head revision, 64-bit linux.
Jump to: