And how are you getting the cmd to read out the temperatures please?
This feature is linux only. the NVIDIA API doesn't support x86 builds.
Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 805. (Read 2347664 times)
This feature is linux only. the NVIDIA API doesn't support x86 builds.
hi all ...
quark results below ... based on intensity -i 22.9 as the only other commandline parameter ...
-------
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] quark.eu.nicehash.com:3345/ quark block 2694552
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27885 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28250 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27994 (T= 74C F= 68% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28159 (T= 78C F= 77% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:28] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28051 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:28] accepted: 523/523 (100.00%), 111754 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:29] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28195 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:30] accepted: 524/524 (100.00%), 111759 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:30] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28085 (T= 78C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:31] accepted: 525/525 (100.00%), 111760 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27842 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28003 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27949 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28085 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27924 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28033 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27817 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27845 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27542 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27680 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27616 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:47] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28087 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:48] accepted: 526/526 (100.00%), 111738 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27949 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:50] accepted: 527/527 (100.00%), 111743 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:53] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28036 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:53] accepted: 528/528 (100.00%), 111747 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:57] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27889 (T= 76C F= 71% C=13
-------
thats some heavy hash there ...
now for lyra2v2 ...
#crysx
quark results below ... based on intensity -i 22.9 as the only other commandline parameter ...
-------
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] quark.eu.nicehash.com:3345/ quark block 2694552
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27885 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28250 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27994 (T= 74C F= 68% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:25] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28159 (T= 78C F= 77% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:28] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28051 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:28] accepted: 523/523 (100.00%), 111754 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:29] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28195 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:30] accepted: 524/524 (100.00%), 111759 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:30] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28085 (T= 78C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:31] accepted: 525/525 (100.00%), 111760 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27842 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28003 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:40] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27949 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28085 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27924 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28033 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27817 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27845 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27542 (T= 76C F= 71% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27680 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:45] GPU #3: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27616 (T= 75C F= 67% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:47] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28087 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:48] accepted: 526/526 (100.00%), 111738 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27949 (T= 74C F= 67% C=1354/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:50] accepted: 527/527 (100.00%), 111743 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:53] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 28036 (T= 79C F= 77% C=1341/3304)
[2016-01-13 22:12:53] accepted: 528/528 (100.00%), 111747 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-13 22:12:57] GPU #2: GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 27889 (T= 76C F= 71% C=13
-------
thats some heavy hash there ...
now for lyra2v2 ...
#crysx
crysx
I noticed that your 980ti cards are close to 80c......do you think that will hurt the gpu?
Because I have mine set at max 75c......if not I could get an extra 1mh/s on quark on one of my cards
And how are you getting the cmd to read out the temperatures please?
Tks guys, I thought I missed something :-)
Just got all my rigs running top notch so I should have a donation for you in a few days with any luck.
I see BTC is up to 460$ at the moment, cashed most of mine in for xmas, so pretty low at the moment.
0.1 is worth 42.90
I see BTC is up to 460$ at the moment, cashed most of mine in for xmas, so pretty low at the moment.
0.1 is worth 42.90
Thanks for supporting opensource software.
never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
I get 15-16mhash with -w 64 -g 2 -X 640On the r9 280x
I was talking about the quark algo. -g 2 is the same as --gpu-threads 2
never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
I get 15-16mhash with -w 64 -g 2 -X 640
On the r9 280x
THREADING WITH CCMINER--
There was an attempt to use a threads per GPU command with CCminer, but it does not work well. the "-g" command works properly with sgminer,but not CCminer. --scrypr
If you guys can improve x11 or Ethereum that'd be worth some coin. Please consider targeting the big algos.
Neo is going to be up in the air till Cryptsy comes back or dies...
yeah come on devs get to work so we can profit from it. I demand superior x11 open source or I'm gonna troll this thread forever Neo is going to be up in the air till Cryptsy comes back or dies...
And 980 rig update, X11, Nicehash: 31480 Private vs 30450 v78 public
Also cards are at +111 GPU that is 1477 for G1 Gaming , 53 C and 1422 for GAMING 4G, 56C ( yes it is cold here, 5C )
So far no gain +111 over +105 GPUs..
Also cards are at +111 GPU that is 1477 for G1 Gaming , 53 C and 1422 for GAMING 4G, 56C ( yes it is cold here, 5C )
So far no gain +111 over +105 GPUs..
never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
I get 15-16mhash with -w 64 -g 2 -X 640
On the r9 280x
sp ... sent more btc.... that makes .1btc for your private kernal r78.
That should keep us good for a while.
That should keep us good for a while.
Thanks
More free hash is coming for the donators. X11,x13,x15 (working on release 2)I see BTC is up to 460$ at the moment, cashed most of mine in for xmas, so pretty low at the moment.
0.1 is worth 42.90
sp ... sent more btc.... that makes .1btc for your private kernal r78.
That should keep us good for a while.
That should keep us good for a while.
Thanks
More free hash is coming for the donators. X11,x13,x15 (working on release 2)
sp ... sent more btc.... that makes .1btc for your private kernal r78.
That should keep us good for a while.
That should keep us good for a while.
let me know if any of the equipment we have will suffice for testing for you ...
I don't know what you have but in general terms AES-NI is included in all Intel i series CPUs. Some of
the lower end pentiums may not have it. sse2 came in around core2 but I may be mistaken. I have
no idea about AMD CPUs.
Come join me in my new thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13542103
It seems now we urgently need faster x15 miner.
Ready to donate 0.01 btc for my poor gtx750)))
Coincidentally I'm working on a faster CPU miner for X algos that nearly doubles the X15 performanceReady to donate 0.01 btc for my poor gtx750)))
but noone wants to pay for a CPU miner. I'm not doing it to make money, I'm doing it because it's fun
and I'm learning something along the way. And if I ever get it finished I'll probably give it away.
I'd also be willing to tip in some BTC to you if you need that.
I'll keep that in mind. Things are progressing well. I'm not sure which CPU miners you are familiar with but I'm working
with darkcoin cpu miner 1.3 (elmad), cp3u (palmd) & cpuminer-multi (tpruvot )and taking the best from each. I've even
managed to improve on the current best in each algo (all X, quark, qubit). The other algos are either unstable or too
difficult for the moment. If you know of any other interesting CPU miners point them out to me. I'll take a look and see
if I can make use of them. Also if you (or anyone else) knows of other contributors to these programs not yet credited
let me know.
It has been quite a challenge. I've never done any c++ development before and no development at all for 10 years. I had a
hell of a time messing with the Makefile sources and #includes. I'm trying to tweak each algo some more. Some work better
inlined, others not, simple stuff for now. Everything focussed on AES for now.
By my own ad-hoc versioning I'm at beta2 (that goal reached since the first post). Maybe one more beta before I'm comfortable
sharing it privately. Then I'll start work on support for CPUs limited to sse2, then...
Should this be moved to a new thread?
I've used at some point almost every CPU miner software out there or tested it at some point. darkcoin cpu, cpuminer-multi for sure.
Not at my main testing rig so I'll have to take a look at the others CPU miners once I'm in the shop. I'll PM you with some details later.
Can't wait to test these, thanks for posting.
Done:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13542056
If you guys can improve x11 or Ethereum that'd be worth some coin. Please consider targeting the big algos.
Neo is going to be up in the air till Cryptsy comes back or dies...
Neo is going to be up in the air till Cryptsy comes back or dies...
It seems now we urgently need faster x15 miner.
Ready to donate 0.01 btc for my poor gtx750)))
Coincidentally I'm working on a faster CPU miner for X algos that nearly doubles the X15 performanceReady to donate 0.01 btc for my poor gtx750)))
but noone wants to pay for a CPU miner. I'm not doing it to make money, I'm doing it because it's fun
and I'm learning something along the way. And if I ever get it finished I'll probably give it away.
I'd also be willing to tip in some BTC to you if you need that.
I'll keep that in mind. Things are progressing well. I'm not sure which CPU miners you are familiar with but I'm working
with darkcoin cpu miner 1.3 (elmad), cp3u (palmd) & cpuminer-multi (tpruvot )and taking the best from each. I've even
managed to improve on the current best in each algo (all X, quark, qubit). The other algos are either unstable or too
difficult for the moment. If you know of any other interesting CPU miners point them out to me. I'll take a look and see
if I can make use of them. Also if you (or anyone else) knows of other contributors to these programs not yet credited
let me know.
It has been quite a challenge. I've never done any c++ development before and no development at all for 10 years. I had a
hell of a time messing with the Makefile sources and #includes. I'm trying to tweak each algo some more. Some work better
inlined, others not, simple stuff for now. Everything focussed on AES for now.
By my own ad-hoc versioning I'm at beta2 (that goal reached since the first post). Maybe one more beta before I'm comfortable
sharing it privately. Then I'll start work on support for CPUs limited to sse2, then...
Should this be moved to a new thread?
I've used at some point almost every CPU miner software out there or tested it at some point. darkcoin cpu, cpuminer-multi for sure.
Not at my main testing rig so I'll have to take a look at the others CPU miners once I'm in the shop. I'll PM you with some details later.
Can't wait to test these, thanks for posting.
same joblo ...
let me know if any of the equipment we have will suffice for testing for you ...
#crysx
First release will only support CPUs with AES-NI. I intend to put in a capabilities check to let users know if their
CPU won't cut it. Eventually, if I stay motivated, there will be three architectures supported AES_NI, SSE2,
and then everything else.
Here are some numbers on a i7-4790k, 4 cores, 8 threads, stock_clock, compared with the closest competition:
quark qubit x11 x13 x15
cpuminer-jdd 1080kh 1045kh 707kh 320kh 280kh
multi 395kh 168 160
minerd 680
cp3u 905
Neoscrypt is unchaged from cpuminer-multi. Most of the other algos are unstable.
I don't expect the numbers to change before release. I still need to try compiling on
Windows (yuk vcxproj) but if I have problems I won't hold up the test release.
I might have something for you by the weekend.
This is fun!
My 4x R9 270's are showing correctly at NiceHash in miner & there match.
That's because they use Xintensity of 64 as the default value. try to set it to 1024 or 2048
in the config.jason file change:
--xintensity 64
to
--xintensity 1024
or
--xintensity 2048
.....'
--xintensity 640 seems to work.
I'm using --xintensity 640 on x11
My 4x R9 270's are showing correctly at NiceHash in miner & there match.
That's because they use Xintensity of 64 as the default value. try to set it to 1024 or 2048
in the config.jason file change:
--xintensity 64
to
--xintensity 1024
or
--xintensity 2048
.....'
--xintensity 640 seems to work.
True, no sourcecode, but oh well, i don't care.
never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
You should care because when the miner says 20MHASH and the pool say 15MHASH you need to lower the intensity or fix the sourcecode.never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
hash was being diverted, not that any of the green team would do that.
The locally reported hash rate could also be fudged but monitoring network activity would coinfirm one way
or another.
I am using the sgminer binaries from the nicehash miner. With to high intensities the miner is reporting high numbers, but lower on the pool. I suspect it is a bug. Intensities below 640 seems to work, but the hashrate displayed in the miner is lower.
True, no sourcecode, but oh well, i don't care.
never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
You should care because when the miner says 20MHASH and the pool say 15MHASH you need to lower the intensity or fix the sourcecode.never tried 640 before. Will try that later (Ethereum is more profitable anyway)
hash was being diverted, not that any of the green team would do that.
The locally reported hash rate could also be fudged but monitoring network activity would coinfirm one way
or another.
I am using the sgminer binaries from the nicehash miner. With to high intensities the miner is reporting high numbers, but lower on the pool. I suspect it is a bug. Intensities below 640 seems to work, but the hashrate displayed in the miner is lower.
Jump to: