How many hashes is it pulling at 970Mhz?
899Mhz Core and 1250Mhz gets 415KH/s
899Mhz Core and 1250Mhz gets 415KH/s
Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 330. (Read 1467474 times)
Wicked man... Im now getting a steady 760kh with that tweak... cant quite get 400 per card, but think thats due to latency with other people using my net too
How many hashes is it pulling at 970Mhz?
899Mhz Core and 1250Mhz gets 415KH/s
899Mhz Core and 1250Mhz gets 415KH/s
Hi,
Thanks for that info. I was playing with the clocks, if i pushed to 970 on my refference i was getting faster speeds than 900 but havnt tried it with my xfx board. I also realised that my cards were glitching if they were pushed beyond 1225 mem clock...
I was using 5870's last month. Each card was getting +400KH/s
Increase the worksize to 256
Concurrency 6144
Aggression 19 (if you are not using that computer)
Please note that most 5870 are hard limited to 900Mhz, if you go pass that, you will lose performance.
DONT try pushing it above 900Mhz, test it, you can see yourself. My 5870's were set to 899Mhz Core and 1299Mhz Memory. (Memory hard limit is 1300Mhz)
That way you can hit 415-430KH/s
Makes not difference what CPU you are using, just don't mine with the CPU at the same time, if you think you have to then make sure its not under 100% load, use less threads. Otherwise it will bottleneck your GPU's. I have 3 cards running on AMD Ultra Low Voltage u270. And 3 cards on Intel i7 setups, both get same hash rates, CPU usage is 1-3%
~R.H~
Thanks for that info. I was playing with the clocks, if i pushed to 970 on my refference i was getting faster speeds than 900 but havnt tried it with my xfx board. I also realised that my cards were glitching if they were pushed beyond 1225 mem clock...
Coblee
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
Hi
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
I was using 5870's last month. Each card was getting +400KH/s
Increase the worksize to 256
Concurrency 6144
Aggression 19 (if you are not using that computer)
Please note that most 5870 are hard limited to 900Mhz, if you go pass that, you will lose performance.
DONT try pushing it above 900Mhz, test it, you can see yourself. My 5870's were set to 899Mhz Core and 1299Mhz Memory. (Memory hard limit is 1300Mhz)
That way you can hit 415-430KH/s
Makes not difference what CPU you are using, just don't mine with the CPU at the same time, if you think you have to then make sure its not under 100% load, use less threads. Otherwise it will bottleneck your GPU's. I have 3 cards running on AMD Ultra Low Voltage u270. And 3 cards on Intel i7 setups, both get same hash rates, CPU usage is 1-3%
~R.H~
Coblee
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
Hi
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
I was using 5870's last month. Each card was getting +400KH/s
Increase the worksize to 256
Concurrency 6144
Aggression 19 (if you are not using that computer)
Please note that most 5870 are hard limited to 900Mhz, if you go pass that, you will lose performance.
DONT try pushing it above 900Mhz, test it, you can see yourself. My 5870's were set to 899Mhz Core and 1299Mhz Memory. (Memory hard limit is 1300Mhz)
That way you can hit 415-430KH/s
Makes not difference what CPU you are using, just don't mine with the CPU at the same time, if you think you have to then make sure its not under 100% load, use less threads. Otherwise it will bottleneck your GPU's. I have 3 cards running on AMD Ultra Low Voltage u270. And 3 cards on Intel i7 setups, both get same hash rates, CPU usage is 1-3%
~R.H~
Coblee
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
Im using atm 1 x 5870 refference and 1x 5870 xfx with an overclocked i3
i have more systems i want to add all being quad 5870 xfx cards.
atm i use agg 17 with 128 file size and concurrency set to 6000 something and 5 threads per gpu.
with my two cards im averaging 700kh but wish to up this to nearer 800.
my refference card is currenty clock at 970mhz with 1175 mem clock, and my xfx is 920 with 1200 mem clock.
i can push my xfx to 930 and mem of 1250 but i only get a couple of hours mining at a total of 800kh before is glitches out...
im thinking of switching to linux... any other ideas to tackle stability and increase kh?
Hi
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
Hi
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
What hardware are you using?
Increasing lookup gap, decreases the VRAM usage. Decreasing lookup gap increases the VRAM usage.
GPU Thread Concurrency also affects the VRAM usage.
Sharethreads, what ever you set it to, does't seem to affect your mining performance.
Aggression set to 19, is the fastest aggression setting I can use. Anything higher/lower performs worse.
But if you only have a one GPU, I do not recommend using that high aggression, you PC will become very unresponsive/slow.
~R.H~
Hi
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
My miners on my GPU are running well... I was wondering if someone could explain what the following are and what changes to speed, if any, they could make when changed:
1. GPU Thread Concurrency
2. Sharethreads
3. lookup gap
BTW Im using reaper v13
Thanks!
Coincidence?
I believe it is an intentionaly stimulated similarity
If you convert that do € or $ trough BTC fiat price, it will be even more interesting. LTC is running circles around BTC in volatility.
Coincidence?
I believe it is an intentionaly stimulated similarity
Nothing is ASIC hostile. Nothing.
Go read again the definition of ASIC please
Go read again the definition of ASIC please
It is my understanding that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, scrypt can be regarded as relatively ASIC-hostile.
Of course you could design a fast (relative to a desktop CPU/GPU) ASIC for scrypt, but because of the memory requirements of scrypt wouldn't it turn out to be way more expensive than a fast ASIC for, say, SHA-256?
It would be like saying "scrypt is computer hostile"...I do not mean "hostile" as in "an ASIC would be inefficient". That would be just ridiculous, and I'm sure we both agree on that point.
What I mean is, instead, that the transition to ASIC mining would bring a smaller speedup than it would for Bitcoin.
Suppose that for Bitcoin you spend X to build an ASIC and you get a speed ratio of Y relative to CPU model Z.
What I mean by "hostile" is that to get the same speed ratio relative to the same CPU model you would have to spend significantly more than X.
Quote
Why it should be more expensive?
Because the memory requirements of SHA-256 are virtually zero, and memory (the type of memory used for caches in particular) is not free.
Nothing is ASIC hostile. Nothing.
Go read again the definition of ASIC please
Go read again the definition of ASIC please
It is my understanding that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, scrypt can be regarded as relatively ASIC-hostile.
Of course you could design a fast (relative to a desktop CPU/GPU) ASIC for scrypt, but because of the memory requirements of scrypt wouldn't it turn out to be way more expensive than a fast ASIC for, say, SHA-256?
It would be like saying "scrypt is computer hostile"...Why it should be more expensive?
...
Edit: And now I think of it in addition to kano's link the Royal Canadian Mint is going with their own digital currency as well already so the competition is coming.
Yes if you read up about that one, they are also offering $50K in gold to the best payment solutions with their MintChipEdit: And now I think of it in addition to kano's link the Royal Canadian Mint is going with their own digital currency as well already so the competition is coming.
http://mintchipchallenge.com/
By then there will be all sorts of new crypto currencies, so who knows if Bitcoin will still be the primary digital currency for daily exchanges.
Most likely if history is any indication it usually is never the first mover to the market that maintains the dominant position unless backed by government methods of intervention like patents, mandating their use, that type of thing so as you say who knows.
Well, if history is any REAL indication, most people are
Meanwhile, a strong corporate funded campaign will be launched to smear crypto-currency as a tool for terrorists ,drug dealers and child pornographers.
Again, the brain washed masses will pat themselves on the back for calling you in, and the scum continue to rule our lives.
Man, talk about jaded.
True enough you left out not just the implication of criminal activity but the inevitable ban on btc that would come to make it a criminal activity brought to you by the same actors you list here.
Edit: And now I think of it in addition to kano's link the Royal Canadian Mint is going with their own digital currency as well already so the competition is coming.
Um ... you didn't know about this?
http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-cash-king-no-more-082544562.html
http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-cash-king-no-more-082544562.html
By then there will be all sorts of new crypto currencies, so who knows if Bitcoin will still be the primary digital currency for daily exchanges.
Most likely if history is any indication it usually is never the first mover to the market that maintains the dominant position unless backed by government methods of intervention like patents, mandating their use, that type of thing so as you say who knows.
Well, if history is any REAL indication, most people are
Meanwhile, a strong corporate funded campaign will be launched to smear crypto-currency as a tool for terrorists ,drug dealers and child pornographers.
Again, the brain washed masses will pat themselves on the back for calling you in, and the scum continue to rule our lives.
Man, talk about jaded.
By then there will be all sorts of new crypto currencies, so who knows if Bitcoin will still be the primary digital currency for daily exchanges.
Most likely if history is any indication it usually is never the first mover to the market that maintains the dominant position unless backed by government methods of intervention like patents, mandating their use, that type of thing so as you say who knows.
Coincidence?
[...]
Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).
Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.
Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.
Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).
Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.
Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.
You cannot inflate btc like you can with money those dollars are fake made up from thin air ie. they just turned the printing presses on nothing backs them. Now you can say nothing backs btc either but one thing you can be certain of is no more than 21M of them will be produced no printing press to turn on here to get more.
I think it will be enough for the next few decades. By then there will be all sorts of new crypto currencies, so who knows if Bitcoin will still be the primary digital currency for daily exchanges.
Also, I'd keep in mind that by then, a large portion of BTC will have been lost, so 2100 trillion will never really be in circulation.
Assuming no one ever breaks the encryption. It was said that everyone alive today will be dead by the time that happens
You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.
That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..
I think you're overestimating the general populace if you assume they're above "whole number bias".
Although, you could mask the decimal in the transaction software by simply calling 0.00000001 BTC as a whole unit of something else (like the satoshi or whatever), where you will eventually run into the issue of the lowest possible transaction, the way the dollar currency is limited to a minimum 1 cent transaction.
Let me try and work this muddle of zeros out into words.
21,000,000.00000000 can be divided into 2,100,000,000,000,000 whole units. That's 2.1 quadrillion, or 2100 trillion, or 2.1 million billion. In which case you're probably right, that seems enough to run the world on.
Even if you account for the lowest possible transaction being 1 cent instead of 1 Dollar, you now have 21 trillion individual units, each divisible into "cents".
If anything this "software mask" would paint Litecoin into a rather useless corner. And if Bitcoin institutions allow for instant transactions, the 2.5 minute blocks will do nothing better, except bloat the block chain history.
Puzzling
Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).
Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.
Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.
You cannot inflate btc like you can with money those dollars are fake made up from thin air ie. they just turned the printing presses on nothing backs them. Now you can say nothing backs btc either but one thing you can be certain of is no more than 21M of them will be produced no printing press to turn on here to get more.
You have to keep in mind that the 21 million BTC limit was a purely experimental value. In hindsight it is way too low to be used as a world-wide currency, which is why you need a much higher limit if you intend of having one that people will use on a daily basis.
That is a whole number bias if .00000001 btc were worth $1 then those 1 btc are now $10M multiply that by 21M and you have hell of a big number more than enough to run the world on..
I think you're overestimating the general populace if you assume they're above "whole number bias".
Although, you could mask the decimal in the transaction software by simply calling 0.00000001 BTC as a whole unit of something else (like the satoshi or whatever), where you will eventually run into the issue of the lowest possible transaction, the way the dollar currency is limited to a minimum 1 cent transaction.
Let me try and work this muddle of zeros out into words.
21,000,000.00000000 can be divided into 2,100,000,000,000,000 whole units. That's 2.1 quadrillion, or 2100 trillion, or 2.1 million billion. In which case you're probably right, that seems enough to run the world on.
Even if you account for the lowest possible transaction being 1 cent instead of 1 Dollar, you now have 21 trillion individual units, each divisible into "cents".
If anything this "software mask" would paint Litecoin into a rather useless corner. And if Bitcoin institutions allow for instant transactions, the 2.5 minute blocks will do nothing better, except bloat the block chain history.
Puzzling
Is 2100 trillion really enough? If the GDP of the US was 15 Trillion dollars last year, and each of those dollars is divisible by 100 cents, that's a lot of 'units' (more zero's then I care to write).
Wikipedia says the total money supply in circulation of the world was 4 trillion in 2008 which had doubled from 2 trillion only 6 years prior (and had doubled from only 1 trillion 12 years before that). They don't mention the current estimated money in circulation, one could perhaps guess that it's up to 8 trillion depending on how the recession has panned out.
Maybe our incredibly large number won't stay so incredibly large for as long as we might think.
Jump to: