Topic: ATTN Litecoin GPU Miners - Scrypt support for cgminer - page 18. (Read 175855 times)
I've noticed in reaper, if you tell it to run 5 threads it says it starting 10! Don't know if that has anything to do with it??
Yeah I'm not really sure why I can use 10240 on raper and not on this since they're structurally virtually the same kernels.
Getting 630kh/s now 
I don't get an increase in rejects with 4 threads, and I let it choose the default worksize for 7970 which is 64, not 256.
So i did some tweaking on my 3 7970's in cgminer, and i came up with these config settings..
--lookup-gap 2,2,2 --thread-concurrency 8192
,
"intensity" : "13,13,13",
"vectors" : "1,1,1",
"worksize" : "0,0,0",
"kernel" : "scrypt,scrypt,scrypt",
"gpu-engine" : "0-0,0-0,0-0",
"gpu-fan" : "100-100,100-100,100-100",
"gpu-memclock" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000,0.000,0.000",
"temp-cutoff" : "95,95,95",
"temp-overheat" : "85,85,85",
"temp-target" : "85,85,85",
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "120",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "4",
"log" : "1",
"queue" : "1",
"retry-pause" : "5",
"scan-time" : "60",
"scrypt" : true,
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"shares" : "0",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin"
}
On cgminer i'm getting 630kh/s per 7970 @1275/1600! Very good job guys! Just another 30kh/s and you be on-par with reaper!
EDIT: ok, thanks for the tip ckolivas! I now have 4 threads, but still a no go at 10240 concurrency.
--lookup-gap 2,2,2 --thread-concurrency 8192
,
"intensity" : "13,13,13",
"vectors" : "1,1,1",
"worksize" : "0,0,0",
"kernel" : "scrypt,scrypt,scrypt",
"gpu-engine" : "0-0,0-0,0-0",
"gpu-fan" : "100-100,100-100,100-100",
"gpu-memclock" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000,0.000,0.000",
"temp-cutoff" : "95,95,95",
"temp-overheat" : "85,85,85",
"temp-target" : "85,85,85",
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "120",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "4",
"log" : "1",
"queue" : "1",
"retry-pause" : "5",
"scan-time" : "60",
"scrypt" : true,
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"shares" : "0",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin"
}
On cgminer i'm getting 630kh/s per 7970 @1275/1600! Very good job guys! Just another 30kh/s and you be on-par with reaper!
EDIT: ok, thanks for the tip ckolivas! I now have 4 threads, but still a no go at 10240 concurrency.
Yes this definitely needs sdk2.6+
EDIT: and make sure you delete any .bins already generated with older SDKs if you upgrade.
EDIT: and make sure you delete any .bins already generated with older SDKs if you upgrade.
Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.
Try wget on the zip.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/zipball/newscrypt
Haha! I'm blind thanks.
OK got it compiled but no dice, anything over 2048 thread-concurrency throws gpu errors and fails, with 2048 it runs but has all rejects. This is with ubuntu 11.04 with 11.12 drivers and 2.4 sdk probably needs the latest driver/sdk or I just effed it up but it compiled with no errors, I already had reaper compiled and running on here, it seemed to run ok so I just thought I'd give it a shot.
I had concurrency problems but 12.6 and sdk 2.6 fixed them.
Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.
Try wget on the zip.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/zipball/newscrypt
Haha! I'm blind thanks.
OK got it compiled but no dice, anything over 2048 thread-concurrency throws gpu errors and fails, with 2048 it runs but has all rejects. This is with ubuntu 11.04 with 11.12 drivers and 2.4 sdk probably needs the latest driver/sdk or I just effed it up but it compiled with no errors, I already had reaper compiled and running on here, it seemed to run ok so I just thought I'd give it a shot.
Heh, thats funny. I've finished tweaking with exactly same results for 5770. Drop the voltage to 0.960v btw, it's stable for mine.
Not on mine, but 1.0v is fine. (My card never liked low voltages 
)Edit:
Nevermind, won't work with 1.0v either. Haha
My Asus 5770 came with a STOCK voltage of 1.25v, cgminer doesn't allow above 1.2 so its set to that while mining.
I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
Heh, thats funny. I've finished tweaking with exactly same results for 5770. Drop the voltage to 0.960v btw, it's stable for mine. 6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
Found a sweet spot with my 7970s. Memory 1375 Engine 1135. Increasing engine slows it down beyond that. There is definitely a relationship between engine and memory clock, scrypt settings and even motherboard speed. Assuming higher is better is not going to necessarily be true.
++++tried this and
Found a sweet spot with my 7970s. Memory 1375 Engine 1135. Increasing engine slows it down beyond that. There is definitely a relationship between engine and memory clock, scrypt settings and even motherboard speed. Assuming higher is better is not going to necessarily be true.
Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.
Try wget on the zip.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/zipball/newscrypt
Here's are my settings, pools reported speed looks about what I'm seeing.
cgminer --scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 4 -I 13
12.6 drivers & sdk
7970 #1 @ 1.006v 1000/1000
7970 #2 @ .993v 1050/1000
~1100kh @ 465 watts at the plug
this is both 7970s @ 1125/1500 1.112v
~1195kh @ 650 watts at the plug
Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.
cgminer --scrypt --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 4 -I 13
12.6 drivers & sdk
7970 #1 @ 1.006v 1000/1000
7970 #2 @ .993v 1050/1000
~1100kh @ 465 watts at the plug
this is both 7970s @ 1125/1500 1.112v
~1195kh @ 650 watts at the plug
Anyone have a ubuntu 11.04 x64 build? I'd like to try it out on my 5870s and 5850s but can't figure out the commands for git to clone the tree.
I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
I noticed the same thing on my 7970s anything up to 1000 on the memory hashes seem to increase, then from 1000 to around 1400 hashes fell some, then they got better above 1425 but using a lot more watts.
I followed this advice and am getting 586 from one and 600 from the other 7970 up from 450's. i haven't found going higher helped
I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
Thanks 6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
I'm pretty sure we'll need to create a database with suitable values. Every card seems to want something completely different. My 7970s really need all 1375MHz of memory or hashrate drops off. Ironically they seem to do the opposite with engine clock - there's a ceiling to how high the hashrate gets and then turning the engine up further doesn't speed things up any more.
I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
I noticed the same thing on my 7970s anything up to 1000 on the memory hashes seem to increase, then from 1000 to around 1400 hashes fell some, then they got better above 1425 but using a lot more watts.
I found some REALLY interesting results with my 6850 and my 5770!
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
6850:
http://i.imgur.com/fZgEk.png
5770:
http://i.imgur.com/ti0Cr.png
So, the memory clock on the 6850 had no effect on my hashrate (at least at those high settings)! I set it down to 500 and the hashrate didn't change. Now I wasn't paying attention to the share count, but it seemed to be sending as much as it should be.
Overclocking the memory of a 6850 reduces hashrate.
Likes worksize 128.
The 5770 isn't like that. Higher memory doesn't change hashrate, but lower memory clock lowers it.
Two threads pulled an extra few kh/s.
A concurrency of somewhere in 3000s is what your looking for, for the 5770.
Likes worksize 256.
I'll do more testing later, but I'm happy with my results. This is amazing, great work ckolivas.
And it seems stable already.
ckolivas, could you also set a user-definable parameter to adjust the difficulty needed for submitting a share?
Instead of reading off the difficulty from the pool? I guess so... but not right now.Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that each pool sends its difficulty requirement to the miner. Just when I was mining with P2Pool (Bitcoin), it would send difficulty 1 shares to my local P2Pool node even though the P2Pool share difficulty is much higher.
any one got more than 360 kh/s on 5870 on windows 7
Jump to: