CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 937.

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: serg_25 on September 19, 2015, 11:09:20 AM

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)
I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

I have all the cards.. It's like the house of cards...

The lyra algoritm is already using bandwitdh. The -X doesn't make any difference

zTheWolfz

full member

Activity: 231

Merit: 150

Quote from: hashbrown9000 on September 19, 2015, 11:35:26 AM

submitted a pull request for fixing syslog output. Helps with kopiemtu's stats webpage and external LED displays created by @induktor.

Nice, computer porn! Thanks for sharing! Grin

myagui

legendary

Activity: 1154

Merit: 1001

About memory intensive algos: any brainiac tried a LUT approach yet? In short, reducing memory access and doing additional compute work instead... (IIRC, the prime example of this is with scrypt-jane, and possibly some other flavours in cudaminer).

ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can be replaced with computation.

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: ol92 on September 19, 2015, 11:18:51 AM

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

As far as I know memory access is the limiting factor and not bandwidth. Unfortunately tweaking memory timings is difficult though.

Quote from: pallas on September 19, 2015, 02:30:50 AM

"Time to submit a share" doesn't depend on diff.
Nor does time to compute. Higher diff just means "less likely to find a share but with more value", so statistically speaking there is no disadvantage in higher diff.

I know what I missed now and yeah, it shouldn't be a problem on modern pools.

hashbrown9000

sr. member

Activity: 427

Merit: 250

submitted a pull request for fixing syslog output. Helps with kopiemtu's stats webpage and external LED displays created by @induktor.

djm34

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1050

Quote from: ol92 on September 19, 2015, 11:18:51 AM

Quote from: Genoil on September 19, 2015, 10:20:17 AM

Quote from: ol92 on September 19, 2015, 07:43:21 AM

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

you'll gain a bit but not a lot.

ol92

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 255

Quote from: Genoil on September 19, 2015, 10:20:17 AM

Quote from: ol92 on September 19, 2015, 07:43:21 AM

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot?

On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda...

serg_25

newbie

Activity: 51

Merit: 0

SP_ what 750 ti card model you have? (Link on ebay/amazon please)

I have checked power consumptuon on my gigabyte card and at 1420core/3300 mem it get 44-45watt. But at that clock it can make only 4.6mh on lyra.
Also i checked with -X1 ... -X17 and found that power consumption differs only 1-2 watt.

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: ol92 on September 19, 2015, 07:43:21 AM

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH.

Cryptozillah

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 502

Quote from: crsminer on September 19, 2015, 08:23:46 AM

Quote from: Cryptozillah on September 19, 2015, 07:00:02 AM

Updated to r68 and lowered intensity to 22.9

What cards/clocks do you have?

With my Gigabyte's OC to 1400Mhz I get only 7,2Mh/s.

In those two rigs i have EVGA FTW cards.
7.2Mhs with Gigabyte cards are probably really good.

I have a Gigabyte Windforce 750Ti that hardly makes 6.8-6.9Mhs. And it is not stable there.

crsminer

jr. member

Activity: 64

Merit: 1

Quote from: Cryptozillah on September 19, 2015, 07:00:02 AM

Updated to r68 and lowered intensity to 22.9
http://i62.tinypic.com/28gyoty.png

What cards/clocks do you have?

With my Gigabyte's OC to 1400Mhz I get only 7,2Mh/s.

ol92

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 255

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate).

I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980.

ol92

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 255

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 12:53:07 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 10:39:14 AM

Quote from: pokeytex on September 18, 2015, 10:36:04 AM

Does anyone know what the whirlpoolx algo is like on ccminer?

On AMD my whirlpoolx miner does 670 Mh/s.
I tried ccminer some time ago on 970 and it was about 300 Mh/s, if I recall correctly.
I'd be glad to optimize ccminer like I did for AMD, but I see less and less interest in mining that algo, so I dropped the idea.

The whirlpoolx kernal is pretty fast already on the maxwell. But if you can make it faster, the same teqniques might be possible in x11 as well.

The 750ti does around 75MHASH. the 970 around 230MHASH

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

vnl is a rather good coin with some potential : with a GTX980 @650-700Mh/s it would be one of the most profitable coin to mine...
Right one, the miner is @300 for a GTX 980, which is not interesting in front of amd miners.

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

I've sent pull requests with code which prints additional nvml info (graphics clock and memory clock).
It's useful to detect throttling, among other things.
I'm not sure it works on all cards, I only have 970s, please test.

Cryptozillah

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 502

Updated to r68 and lowered intensity to 22.9

Vita1ico

full member

Activity: 155

Merit: 100

ccminer.exe -C -q -a quark -o stratum+tcp://quark.eu.nicehash.com:3345 -u 1MNsjDhAeubHqftyUiDnmUudiGkJcVsBmX -p x

what else want to add that there is less rejects ?

bcmog

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 05:38:55 AM

Quote from: bcmog on September 18, 2015, 02:18:33 AM

asus strix gtx750ti @ 1402/5202
quark, default settings
R67 12h@nicehash 6.83mh / zero rejects
R68 12h@nicehash 6.79mh / 0.18mh rejects

Try 12 hours with the parameter -i 22.9

R68 -i 22.9 12h@nicehash 6.98mh / nearly zero rejects

thanks!!

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

Quote from: bathrobehero on September 18, 2015, 04:49:43 PM

Talking about fixed diff only (as vardiff has other issues) and not just spamming the pool with tiny shares (>1 share/sec), the goal should be to avoid working on shares that take too long to submit before a new block is introduced on the network because in that case the work is being discarded and the miner starts to work on the next block from scratch. I think it matters a lot and in case of a slow sharerate you're going to see a very spiky hashrate graph with probably lower payouts and worse overall pool efficiency. Again, unless I miss something.

"Time to submit a share" doesn't depend on diff.
Nor does time to compute. Higher diff just means "less likely to find a share but with more value", so statistically speaking there is no disadvantage in higher diff.

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sp_ on September 18, 2015, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

Right now AMD does a lot better on hashing. At least Nvidia does better on Linux than Windows. Unfortunately I am on Windows.

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: pallas on September 18, 2015, 02:50:30 PM

Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).

Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh..
I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 937. (Read 2347664 times)