Author

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1059. (Read 2347601 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 502

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)


I had assumed the 970 TDP would be within the 145W Nvidia spec except if OCed. It seems that
assumption was way off. I didn't find an actual TDP spec for this card, just PSU and connector reqs.
Is it really 250W? This changes the balance of power (bad pun) and makes me wonder about the 980
rated at 165W.

I am by no means going to sit here and write as if I am an authority on this stuff.
However, I have taken note of something that I think deserves mention and discussion.

TDP is the term we all seem to use (myself included) to refer to and to determine the power consumption of a GPU.
But, TDP is  short for Thermal Design Power. Further definition is:
"TDP is the average power a device can dissipate when running real applications." (aka "normal" apps that an average user would run)

TDP, then, is NOT exactly equal to the device's maximum power consumption, nor is it necessarily measured at 100% load.

TDP is self-reported by manufacturers. It seems that several years ago, AMD & Intel used different percentages of processor loading to measure and report their CPU's TDP.
AMD used ~100% load and intel something like 80-85%. Well, intel's method seems to have become the norm.
This is what led to the definition of: average power dissipated when running "real applications."

So, under intense loading situations, a device can definitely consume more power and dissipate more heat than its TDP would indicate.
Of course, overclocking raises the amount of power consumed. And mining intensive algorithms certainly is not what would be called "real applications."

From http://www.cpu-world.com/Glossary/M/Minimum_Maximum_power_dissipation.html:
Quote
Maximum power dissipation is the maximum power dissipated by the CPU under the worst conditions - at the maximum core voltage, maximum temperature and maximum signal loading conditions.
Maximum Power dissipation is always higher than Thermal Design Power.

I believe that when mining the more intensive algos, these GTX 970 and 980 video cards are in fact consuming somewhat more power than their nvidia-stated TDP might indicate.

EDIT: Using an AC/DC clamp meter, I measured the actual current through the two 6-pin PCIe connectors on my stock BIOS Zotac GTX 970 w/ moderate overclock, while mining Quark algo with sp_mod release version 52.

One connector showed a relatively consistent 4.5A.
The other connector fluctuated between 2.5A and ~7A. I think it is safe to average it to 4.5A.

9A @ 12V = 108W + 75W (assumed) through the PCIe bus = 183 Watts

full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100
With SP's mod 52, do not use --diff parameter.   Prior versions you could on some algos.    
 
My thanks to all for the help troubleshooting.

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---

For my card on lyra2... sweet spot is intensity 17.  within 1 minute it reached 705K and slowly climbing... 16.5  took close to an hr to reach 705k.   
One thing I did notice is that @ 16.5 memory use was 1.2M. Above that memory is 2.7M. 
Edit:   spoke too soon... seems 16.5 is it.  17 has become unstable. lots of stales and reconnects.


Name of the game is fastest rate and how quickly it reaches it.   Smiley

got neoscrypt working on spmod52.   Got rid of the difficulty.  Now to tweak the intensity.


 




thats what we have done ...

all the intensities maxed out for our cards - gigabyte 750ti oc lp ...

i cant remember neoscrypt at the moment - but i will publish them all via the donation thread tomorrow ...

sleep soon for me for now ... Smiley ...

#crysx
full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100

For my card on lyra2... sweet spot is intensity 17.  within 1 minute it reached 705K and slowly climbing... 16.5  took close to an hr to reach 705k.   
One thing I did notice is that @ 16.5 memory use was 1.2M. Above that memory is 2.7M. 
Edit:   spoke too soon... seems 16.5 is it.  17 has become unstable. lots of stales and reconnects.


Name of the game is fastest rate and how quickly it reaches it.   Smiley

got neoscrypt working on spmod52.   Got rid of the difficulty.  Now to tweak the intensity.


 


legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)


I had assumed the 970 TDP would be within the 145W Nvidia spec except if OCed. It seems that
assumption was way off. I didn't find an actual TDP spec for this card, just PSU and connector reqs.
Is it really 250W? This changes the balance of power (bad pun) and makes me wonder about the 980
rated at 165W.
more or less same tdp as the 980 150w most likely (2x 6pin + pice alim)
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)


I had assumed the 970 TDP would be within the 145W Nvidia spec except if OCed. It seems that
assumption was way off. I didn't find an actual TDP spec for this card, just PSU and connector reqs.
Is it really 250W? This changes the balance of power (bad pun) and makes me wonder about the 980
rated at 165W.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  sounds like that if it isn't in sp release it is crap... (or not optimized or whatever...)

If gave you that impression it was not my intent. There are several reasons the focus is on SP. First it's his thread
about his release. It's also the most popular fork at the moment and the center of most of the discussion. It is
also my impression that it is the most complete open source version of ccminer and that optimizations,
new kernels, etc, written by other devs will be merged by SP. If there are other open source forks that have advantages
over SP's I am not aware of them. Even if there are I don't think it would be fair to SP to hijack his thread to
discuss another fork of ccminer at length.

However, I do take notice when SP posts that he has imported code from another dev. And I do visit the gits of
these devs to see what else they are up to.

same jo ...

delving into the other gits and compile the other fork versions for testing is a valuable tool for comparison ...

it is time consuming - but also gives a good indication as to whether the optimizations are at any one time ...

respect for devs is generally for MOST devs ... but use of any certain app - like ccminer - is based on its flexibility and optimization as well as its ease of use ( and ease of compile ) ...

we use a few different ccminer compiles - and always continue to compare ...

but ccminer-spmod does seems to be the most complete of the open source miners ...

we will still support the other devs in as much as we can do also Smiley ... and there is never any real intentional malice towards devs in general ...

not from us anyway Smiley ...

the latest of spmod commit is running on our farm at the moment - and running quite stable ...

#crysx
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  sounds like that if it isn't in sp release it is crap... (or not optimized or whatever...)

If gave you that impression it was not my intent. There are several reasons the focus is on SP. First it's his thread
about his release. It's also the most popular fork at the moment and the center of most of the discussion. It is
also my impression that it is the most complete open source version of ccminer and that optimizations,
new kernels, etc, written by other devs will be merged by SP. If there are other open source forks that have advantages
over SP's I am not aware of them. Even if there are I don't think it would be fair to SP to hijack his thread to
discuss another fork of ccminer at length.

However, I do take notice when SP posts that he has imported code from another dev. And I do visit the gits of
these devs to see what else they are up to.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer
DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K
SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K      
  sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K
testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings
Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit    
V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.

your quark numbers are way off. they should be around 6MHASH on the EVGA 750ti 300% faster than the numbers you get.

I measured by taking the accepted hash rate from the miner...
this is the command line ..... ccminer.exe  -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7919/ -O GKarB5:x -a quark -i 24

what parameters should I be using?


for quark - they are the exact parameters we use ...

for lyra2 - its obviously the parameters in the previous post ...

i can post the max settings ( and we really dont use much else but intensity -i setting ) if you prefer ...

no overclocks - no firmware tweaking - just straight v52 compile in fedora 20 x64 using cuda 6.5 ...

edit - 'That was it!!   Replaced the diff with intensity 16.5 and it's running steadily @ 700K' ...

glad that worked ... the optimizations that are 'stock' in this fork ( and others like tpruvot's fork ) are quite high intensities normally ...

so a little tweak factor for the card that you may have - could come out with a better result ...

#crysx
full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100
did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer

DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K

SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K      
  
sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K

Testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings

Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit    

V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.



thats strange how in v52 spmod lyra2 was bombing out ...


we had the tests run about an hour ago - and lyra was fine - same with quark and neoscrypt - x11 and x13 ...

x15 was running fine - but the nicehash stratum dropped the link - as it usually does on the us stratum ...

what settings did you use for lyra2 on v52? ... i have only the intensity parameter active -i 16.5 ( -i 22.5 is max but many cpu validation errors ) ...

#crysx

Have not used intensity just the difficulty....
ccminer.exe -a lyra2  -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7939/ -u GKarB5.nv1 -p x --diff 128"

I will try it with the intensity toggle....

we dont set the diff - as the ccminer seems to adjust accordingly on its own ...

./ccminer -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7939/ -O chrysophylax.donate:x -a lyra2 -i 16.5 ...

thats all thats used on the commandline ...

seems to run nicely on that setting alone ...

#crysx


That was it!!   Replaced the diff with intensity 16.5 and it's running steadily @ 700K
full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100
did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer
DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K
SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K     
  sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K
testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings
Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit   
V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.

your quark numbers are way off. they should be around 6MHASH on the EVGA 750ti 300% faster than the numbers you get.

I measured by taking the accepted hash rate from the miner...
this is the command line ..... ccminer.exe  -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7919/ -O GKarB5:x -a quark -i 24

what parameters should I be using?
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer

DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K

SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K      
  
sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K

Testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings

Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit    

V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.



thats strange how in v52 spmod lyra2 was bombing out ...


we had the tests run about an hour ago - and lyra was fine - same with quark and neoscrypt - x11 and x13 ...

x15 was running fine - but the nicehash stratum dropped the link - as it usually does on the us stratum ...

what settings did you use for lyra2 on v52? ... i have only the intensity parameter active -i 16.5 ( -i 22.5 is max but many cpu validation errors ) ...

#crysx

Have not used intensity just the difficulty....
ccminer.exe -a lyra2  -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7939/ -u GKarB5.nv1 -p x --diff 128"

I will try it with the intensity toggle....

we dont set the diff - as the ccminer seems to adjust accordingly on its own ...

./ccminer -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7939/ -O chrysophylax.donate:x -a lyra2 -i 16.5 ...

thats all thats used on the commandline ...

seems to run nicely on that setting alone ...

#crysx
full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100
did some testing with Lyra2 n Quark on 3 versions of modded ccminer

DJM34 VTC0.1    Lyra2: 477K-540K                   Quark 2147K-2482K

SP 1.5.1           Lyra2: 500K-580K                    Quark 2230K-2273K     
 
sp release 52:   Lyra2 only 1 accept for 590K      Quark 2116K-2366K

Testing time 5 minutes for each on the donate settings

Card is EVGA 750ti clock n memory  speed 1268M PCIE 2.0   OS Windows 8.1 64bit   

V52 was giving me lots of rejects from extranonce..  Now I recall reading in a sgminer thread that extranonce can cause the miner to show hash as failed but it most likely was accepted on the pool end.   The solution was to use a command line argument to turn off extranonce. something like --noextranonce.



thats strange how in v52 spmod lyra2 was bombing out ...


we had the tests run about an hour ago - and lyra was fine - same with quark and neoscrypt - x11 and x13 ...

x15 was running fine - but the nicehash stratum dropped the link - as it usually does on the us stratum ...

what settings did you use for lyra2 on v52? ... i have only the intensity parameter active -i 16.5 ( -i 22.5 is max but many cpu validation errors ) ...

#crysx

Have not used intensity just the difficulty....
ccminer.exe -a lyra2  -o stratum+tcp://donate-sp.granitecoin.com:7939/ -u GKarB5.nv1 -p x --diff 128"

I will try it with the intensity toggle....
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.


tanx for clarifying that Smiley ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx
considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  Grin

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess Smiley ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx
haven't noticed anything, haven't even had time to look at it...
now, Schleicher released a version, I haven't seen anyone saying it didn't compile (you just need to use the correct packages...)

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  make sounds that if it isn't in sp release it is crap...

hehehe ... thats funny ...

sp is great at what he does ... as you are at what you do - and the same with the other devs ...

sp even posted that he has incorporated tprovots last commit into this fork of ccminer - not to mention your optimization of neoscrypt in here also ...

if it wasnt for the fact that all the devs work with one another ( and i do read what goes on in irc - when i can ) - then i guess we wouldnt have the setup that it is today ...

so dont take offence to anything like that ...

its just that the farm does what it does - and i would like it to do something else ... in this case sia mining ...

due to the miner being what it is - its a pain ... at least for the moment ...

it wouldnt hurt to have a simplified ( which probably means a more complex miner and coding ) to mine sia AND have it as optimized as possible ...

i think wolf and pallas are the only two that i know of that have very high hashrates with the miner currently - and that because they put the massive amounts of work to optimize and improve the miner in its current incarnation ...

its just a pity it wasnt as simple as implementing an added algorithm to the existing ccminer / sgminer code ...

no offence intended in anyway ...

#crysx
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.


tanx for clarifying that Smiley ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx
considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  Grin

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess Smiley ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx
haven't noticed anything, haven't even had time to look at it...
now, Schleicher released a version, I haven't seen anyone saying it didn't compile (you just need to use the correct packages...)

sorry if I get offended easily but some comments around (not necessarily yours)  sounds like that if it isn't in sp release it is crap... (or not optimized or whatever...)
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.


tanx for clarifying that Smiley ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx
considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  Grin

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?

ok - so the siacoin has a completely different protocol altogether? ...

no wonder its in the state that its in - and not so easy to get compiled and running ...

whats wrong with the existing version? ... as in the existing miner for sia? ...

well - im sure you have noticed that its not as simple as directing the miner to just mine with a particular algo - like with ccminer ...

im not the only one that has had issues trying to get it running djm ...

as for compiling it - sheesh! ...

but an easy solo mine system with an optimized kernel would have been an easy fix ... which i guess you or wolf or sp or xxx dev would have come up with i guess Smiley ...

in any case - the project itself is quite good - which is why we havent mined it so far - just watched ...

#crysx
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.


tanx for clarifying that Smiley ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx
considering it uses completely different protocol: good luck with that  Grin

ps: What is wrong with the existing version ?
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.


tanx for clarifying that Smiley ...

i would be very interested if you do end up adding blake2b - as requested earlier - for mining sia ...

tanx again ...

#crysx
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
I haven't added Ziftr to my fork yet.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
Either. Both, if you can.

There you go (Tpruvot's latest release: ccminer-rel1.6.4-vc2013):

750 Ti (GV-N75TOC-2GI):
stock 1.02 mh/s at 58.6W
oc - 1.14 mh/s at 65.4W (+140/0 - 1293-1328mhz)

970 (GV-N970WF3OC-4GD - 250w OC edition instead of 145w):
stock - 2.75 mh/s at 187W
oc - 3.0 mh/s at 208W (+185/0 - 1501mhz)

780 Ti (GV-N78TOC-3GD):
stock - 2.0 mh/s at 237W
oc - 2.26 mh/s at 275W (+120/0 - 1204mhz)

Measured at the wall and while the cards are on a 1300W 80+ gold PSU, it's barely utilized so its efficiency is probably pretty terrible. Used my go to OC settings but it could probably go higher.

Thanks - I assumed Nvidia was doing far better than AMD on this one, but I wanted to check; good thing I did.

what parameters do you use for the commandline? ...

do you have spmod results? ...

tanx ...

#crysx

Did sp_ do ZR5? If so, I missed it.

i guess thats what i was asking ...

i couldnt see the algo anywhere in this fork ...

i thought maybe it was named another algo instead of -a ziftr ...

i must be too tired for this right now :| ...

#crysx
Jump to: