Topic: [ANN] TeamRedMiner v0.10.10 - Ironfish/Kaspa/ZIL/Kawpow/Etchash and More - page 85. (Read 211762 times)
April 20, 2019, 12:18:36 PM
FYI, I completed an evaluation between win10 driver 18.6.1 vs 19.4.2. Found no hashrate/power draw difference with TRM 0.4.4 miner. Evaluated on CNR algo only.
April 20, 2019, 12:04:14 PM
thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side
At stock mem timings it is a little surprising, and of course enough people can testify they are indeed hitting the poolside hash, meaning it’s not a systematic problem.
A few things that are interesting to know: what gpus do you run and what does the miner report for total avg: pool: a: r: hw:?
Yes, I am puzzled as well. I have no problems with CNR and v8 variants. Just TRTL. Miner reports 0 r and 0 hw. A lot of interleave messages though.
Anything to do with running a 12 card rig? April 20, 2019, 11:48:42 AM
Any tests for RX 570/580 with new version? Thanks
April 20, 2019, 06:27:02 AM
Anyone with Vega FE? What mem timings are you using?
April 20, 2019, 06:13:03 AM
If you guys has lower hashrate on poolside, try set to 890mv (on odnt), and gpu clock at 1050-1070mhz (on odnt) on hwinfo around 863-875mv, 1120mhz core, cn L20+20(vega56@bios64) cn L22+22(vega64)
Remember not every gpu have same setting, look on hwinfo64 for real status then set on overdrivetool depend each gpu
Then test about 7hr-24hr, actual hashrate vs poolside hashrate will be similiar, if you had some gpu running lower, tuning again ....
Remember not every gpu have same setting, look on hwinfo64 for real status then set on overdrivetool depend each gpu
Then test about 7hr-24hr, actual hashrate vs poolside hashrate will be similiar, if you had some gpu running lower, tuning again ....
April 20, 2019, 02:33:08 AM
why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool
15 minutes is just tooo low.
thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side
Well my vega 64 is just perfect. The pool HR in miner matches with the one reported in the pool with a minor difference.
Clocks : 1408/1100/875 in ODT : 1356/1100/850 in hwinfo
April 20, 2019, 01:10:44 AM
thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side
At stock mem timings it is a little surprising, and of course enough people can testify they are indeed hitting the poolside hash, meaning it’s not a systematic problem.
A few things that are interesting to know: what gpus do you run and what does the miner report for total avg: pool: a: r: hw:?
April 20, 2019, 12:52:28 AM
thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side
April 19, 2019, 06:42:14 PM
thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
now i try low static diff. thanks
@rednoW @Mashy81
April 19, 2019, 06:31:52 PM
why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool
you need at least 1 day testing to state this. Or use proxy with static low diff for faster testing April 19, 2019, 06:31:16 PM
why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool
Its only been running 12 minutes. Give it a bit longer
April 19, 2019, 06:25:35 PM
why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool
April 19, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
If you only see it now and then and your hashrate is high and nice, it’s doing its job, which is making sure the two threads don’t gravitate too much and coincide. The best way to verify it is to add —no_interleave=X where X is the gpu that you see the log for. Then, check your hashrate for that gpu. If it’s about the same or lower, you’re all good. If it’s clearly higher, continue to run with that argument.
Thank you! Yes, its mostly just at the beginning and only sometimes. But will check the interleave command.
April 19, 2019, 06:11:37 PM
I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
If you only see it now and then and your hashrate is high and nice, it’s doing its job, which is making sure the two threads don’t gravitate too much and coincide. The best way to verify it is to add —no_interleave=X where X is the gpu that you see the log for. Then, check your hashrate for that gpu. If it’s about the same or lower, you’re all good. If it’s clearly higher, continue to run with that argument.
April 19, 2019, 05:31:19 PM
I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.
Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?
April 19, 2019, 02:35:01 PM
With the TRM 4.4 release (cn_config 14*14) and timings set to: --CL 20 --RP 11 --RC 44 --RCDRD 12 --RCDWR 8 --RFC 250 --FAW 20 --RRDS 4 --RRDL 4 --RAS 32 --REF 7800
Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.
This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.
Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.
This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.
I wrote a long recipe-based tutorial included in the release for v0.4.4 (CN_MAX_YOUR_VEGA.txt). The last step in that document describes how to run tests to assess poolside hashrate. There is no simple way to run a quick benchmark test and assess the quality of hashing under a specific set of modded timings/clocks, although having a tool with known result sets would help to estimate the nr of hw errs faster. In the general case, it is way too easy to be fooled by randomness here though. So, my recommendation is to run the recommended test in that document using xmrig-proxy for 50k shares and then check the poolside hashrate reported in TRM. It might very well be that you need to dial down your modded timings to something less aggressive in the end, just like your previous tests indicate, but then I'd know you've ran a sufficient test to zoom in on the true poolside hashrate.
Cheers, K
April 19, 2019, 01:22:47 PM
With the TRM 4.4 release (cn_config 14*14) and timings set to: --CL 20 --RP 11 --RC 44 --RCDRD 12 --RCDWR 8 --RFC 250 --FAW 20 --RRDS 4 --RRDL 4 --RAS 32 --REF 7800
Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.
This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.
Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.
This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.
April 19, 2019, 11:17:39 AM
The star mode (*) is not for turtle, use the normal (+/-)
April 19, 2019, 11:07:11 AM
what is this? --CL 19 --RAS 30 --RCDRD 12 --RCDWR 6 --RC 44 --RP 13 --RRDS 5 --RRDL 5 --RTP 4 --FAW 18 --CWL 6 --WTRS 4 --WTRL 9 --WR 15 --WRRD 1 --RDWR 18 --REF 12800 --RFC 248
this is option for win10 or linux or both?
i test 0.4.4 vs 0.4.3 in trtl 3 hour
6*vega56 stock bios Hynix memory
identical option and L24+24
0.4.3= 108300hr 1090W from the wall
0.4.4= 109300hr 1088W from the wall
xcash with vega 56 samsung give identical hr on 043 and 044
this is option for win10 or linux or both?
i test 0.4.4 vs 0.4.3 in trtl 3 hour
6*vega56 stock bios Hynix memory
identical option and L24+24
0.4.3= 108300hr 1090W from the wall
0.4.4= 109300hr 1088W from the wall
xcash with vega 56 samsung give identical hr on 043 and 044
April 19, 2019, 10:35:10 AM
Is it better to flash vega 56 with 64 bios or stay with original one ( VEGA 56 reference BlowER ).
Some of them are already hard to get stable ( 1407clock /900 mem : 930 mV for the bad ones)
Some of them are already hard to get stable ( 1407clock /900 mem : 930 mV for the bad ones)
I’ve had all my ref V56 flashed to V64 for such a long time now, I honestly can’t say much about stock 56 bios with Samsung HBM.
I think you should try it though. The mem voltage is actually hardcoded in the bios, the names in eg OverdriveNTool are misnomers. The V64 bios drives mem with a higher voltage, so you might have a better (mem) experience. Just save the old bios and you can revert in a matter of minutes.
Jump to: