I will merge the original c code into the spreadcoin fork. the gpu finds a solution, it will be verified by the cpu. The current build have no verification done by the cpu.
Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1176. (Read 2347597 times)
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release.
tsiv: I started to merge your spread code in ccminer, but without testnet or a pool, its hard to finalize it...
I added the cpu part
https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/tree/spreadx11
i will rebase it on my final 1.5.2
That CPU code seems to be just the X11 part of the hash though, completely ignoring the miner signature and whole block hash? And yea, I know exactly how annoying it is to test when your only method of verification is actually solving a block. I ended up hard coding it to work on a static block of input data that I knew the correct hash for until I got the damn thing working
Well, more or less working apparently. Something I noticed about the throughput values and it kinda makes sense too: Multiples of SMM count seem to work best for the -x parameter. 5 for 750 Ti, 13 for 970, 16 for 980. Only have 750s and a 970 to test with but 20 or 15 for 750 Ti and 13 or 26 for 970 seem to work well.
Isn't that usually the case?
Makes sense to me, just never really crossed my mind before. Still most if not every bit of ccminer code seems to just use a more or less arbitrary numbers for throughput. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to always base it on SMM count one way or another.
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release.
tsiv: I started to merge your spread code in ccminer, but without testnet or a pool, its hard to finalize it...
I added the cpu part
https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/tree/spreadx11
i will rebase it on my final 1.5.2
Something I noticed about the throughput values and it kinda makes sense too: Multiples of SMM count seem to work best for the -x parameter. 5 for 750 Ti, 13 for 970, 16 for 980. Only have 750s and a 970 to test with but 20 or 15 for 750 Ti and 13 or 26 for 970 seem to work well.
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release.
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
I haven't got the email yet. Btw, both binaries and the source is being distributed?
Sorry don't know how to embed pics but anyone find blocks yet?
I am 0 for 3. http://s3.postimg.org/nrdjpvxkj/Rejected_blocks.png
EDIT: My first rejected block shows no yay or boo but the wallet did not accept it.
I am 0 for 3. http://s3.postimg.org/nrdjpvxkj/Rejected_blocks.png
EDIT: My first rejected block shows no yay or boo but the wallet did not accept it.
Yes, I was about to say the same thing. I had to wait about 6hrs for the first block, but it was also a booo. Don't think the current implementation is working. (at least for me)
It also seems my rig with 970s are able to use -x 22 on the original spreadminer and they're only down maybe 50-100khs compared to the first beta. Patiently waiting for the next release, but in the meantime...anyone get an excepted share with SP's release yet? Curious to find out if it works for some but not all.
Sorry don't know how to embed pics but anyone find blocks yet?
I am 0 for 3. http://s3.postimg.org/nrdjpvxkj/Rejected_blocks.png
EDIT: My first rejected block shows no yay or boo but the wallet did not accept it.
I am 0 for 3. http://s3.postimg.org/nrdjpvxkj/Rejected_blocks.png
EDIT: My first rejected block shows no yay or boo but the wallet did not accept it.
I am running factory stock OC 750ti and I get the best with -x 15. I could probably get more but I am also cpu mining with the cpu set to start/low with 3 of 6 cores.
i cant get this windows version to run under linux - no matter what i do ...
im still going to donate more as i appreciate the work that you have done anyway - but i would really appreciate if i could have one that will work under linux sp ...
#crysx
I am running factory stock OC 750ti and I get the best with -x 15. I could probably get more but I am also cpu mining with the cpu set to start/low with 3 of 6 cores.
-x 32 is good on the 980 card, but not so good on the 970 card. (100khash lower than with -x 12)
x 22 seems to be best for my G1 970s and I get about the same as jpouza. Haven't tried x 32 but I doubt that would run on mine. Everything is already really laggy.
-x 32 is good on the 980 card, but not so good on the 970 card. (100khash lower than with -x 12)
Sending out the spreadminer v1.0 now.
I am missing 3 email adresses. If you have donated 0.1. Send me a pm with your email adress.
I am missing 3 email adresses. If you have donated 0.1. Send me a pm with your email adress.
I didn't receive nothing....
Sent you PM again with e-mail adress...
same ...
#crysx
double as in -x 30? I was using -x 20 before and it was slower than not using -x
you have to try. If the old supported -x 20, this version will support -x 40 or more.
Try -x 20, -x 21, -x 22, x 23 up to 50 or until it crashes.....
Well it looks like at least the 750s crash at 23 and 22 doesn't give much improvement so I went back to 21 on them for stability. Will have to find out the limits of the 970s later. Thanks!
double as in -x 30? I was using -x 20 before and it was slower than not using -x
you have to try. If the old supported -x 20, this version will support -x 40 or more.
Try -x 20, -x 21, -x 22, x 23 up to 50 or until it crashes.....
I see you're still using Afterburner... How do you get memclocks to actually stay? Mine has never let me overclock the memory. If I used EVGA Precision I remember I could, but I switched when it wouldn't let me use multiple cards. Afterburner just seems weird to me. I upgraded to the new driver last night but it still thought it was the old one so I restarted it and got about 60 more khash per 970. I also got about 40khash more by not using the -x parameter. Not sure why, but setting any value in -x seemed to always be worse than the default. Anyways, my 970s are just over 4050 now but it seems GPU0 is 40 less which I'm guessing is due to heat even though they're really well ventilated. Oh well, progress is progress 
If you use the -x parameter in my version you can double the value since I support more -x (intensity).
Default for compute 52 is -x 15
Default for compute 50 is -x 12
double as in -x 30? I was using -x 20 before and it was slower than not using -x
I have Memory clocks +200. You should set them to +400Mhz if stable.
hum, I will adjust, thanks again sp_!
No benefits from memory clock, zero gain...strange.
What's your driver version?
I see you're still using Afterburner... How do you get memclocks to actually stay? Mine has never let me overclock the memory. If I used EVGA Precision I remember I could, but I switched when it wouldn't let me use multiple cards. Afterburner just seems weird to me. I upgraded to the new driver last night but it still thought it was the old one so I restarted it and got about 60 more khash per 970. I also got about 40khash more by not using the -x parameter. Not sure why, but setting any value in -x seemed to always be worse than the default. Anyways, my 970s are just over 4050 now but it seems GPU0 is 40 less which I'm guessing is due to heat even though they're really well ventilated. Oh well, progress is progress
Jump to: