Still no Linux version ? 
OP/Dev is AWOL - last post to this thread was Dec 30th.
Topic: hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap - page 5. (Read 30774 times)
February 10, 2018, 04:41:46 PM
OP/Dev is AWOL - last post to this thread was Dec 30th.
February 10, 2018, 04:27:41 PM
Still no Linux version ?
February 10, 2018, 09:50:40 AM
is it possible to config hsrminer to run on GTX 1030 ?
i've tried and get ton of rejected shared and then disconnected
i've tried and get ton of rejected shared and then disconnected
February 09, 2018, 10:14:20 AM
Reported hashrate means nothing. Run both miners in parallel using the same cards and different wallets and then compare the results.
That's precisely what I did a few pages back and reported in this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.29675722
I've been advised that I should have used pool-reported average hashrate for 24 hours instead of payout, and I finally understand why, but in the above test I did run both miners concurrently on the same pool but pointed to different wallet addresses so only a difference in average luck per share would cause a difference in payout, besides average hashrate, of course.
February 09, 2018, 10:08:37 AM
I take my words back, for a long distance your fork is faster
My friend tested here on 1080ti and fork faster than excavator
My friend tested here on 1080ti and fork faster than excavator
February 09, 2018, 09:51:44 AM
exavator Version 1.4.3 alpha NVIDIA this version faster than yours, and this is the truth
If you would take a look at my screenshots you would notice that Excavator build I've used for benchmark is 4511 - it's exactly Excavator 1.4.3 Alpha from 02.02.2018. Anyway if Excavator is faster for your rig - it's okay but your message is pointless as a) you haven't provided any screenshots with comparison and just repeat words "faster" and "truth", b) everyone can just try every miner themselves and choose what is best for them.
February 09, 2018, 08:16:52 AM
neoscrypt, KlausT faster than this shit 
disagree here, based on my observation KlausT is slower, for about 5%for example Klaust for my GTX 1080ti on PL80 and +50 core/150 mem pushes 1.68-1.71kh/s
while with the same settings, HSR miner produce 1.8-1.82 kh/s
Reported hashrate means nothing. Run both miners in parallel using the same cards and different wallets and then compare the results.
February 09, 2018, 08:13:26 AM
neoscrypt, KlausT faster than this shit
disagree here, based on my observation KlausT is slower, for about 5%for example Klaust for my GTX 1080ti on PL80 and +50 core/150 mem pushes 1.68-1.71kh/s
while with the same settings, HSR miner produce 1.8-1.82 kh/s
February 09, 2018, 07:12:24 AM
@Mr.Spider703 dear one even Excavator dev admit speed is not top one & they need to tune better & main problem of excavator is stability ... but what ever use what ever you like & believe is best for you ... there are discussion there github dev place already about this with feedback & all what a well informed person need
Oh thanks. but I'm not that much about it, I have a program with a self-switching and at what distances the excavator wins. about the fact that the maid pointed to problems with stability honestly did not know, then I try to use this fork. sorry if someone offended February 09, 2018, 07:08:40 AM
@Mr.Spider703 dear one even Excavator dev admit speed is not top one & they need to tune better & main problem of excavator is stability ... but what ever use what ever you like & believe is best for you ... there are discussion there github dev place already about this with feedback & all what a well informed person need
February 09, 2018, 06:59:14 AM
yes, your miner is fast, but excavator is faster on neoscript
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
we are starting to compare apples to oranges here, but anyway I never was able to get higher hashrate on neoscrypt with Excavator. I gave it try again today, default settings benchmark from NiceHash miner 2.0.1.10 for single MSI GTX Gaming X 1070 pl90%/+100core/+400mem - result is 1241 kh/s. If I manually run Excavator from cuda91 folder - it gives more, about 1276 kh/s. But it is still way behind Nsrminer_neoscrypt_fork (even normal priority version) - 1322 kh/s.
You can see full hashrate compare of ccminer klaust, excavator and hsrminer_neoscrypt_fork at the 1st msg in my topic under Hashrate compare tag.
February 09, 2018, 03:57:05 AM
yes, your miner is fast, but excavator is faster on neoscript
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
we are starting to compare apples to oranges here, but anyway I never was able to get higher hashrate on neoscrypt with Excavator. I gave it try again today, default settings benchmark from NiceHash miner 2.0.1.10 for single MSI GTX Gaming X 1070 pl90%/+100core/+400mem - result is 1241 kh/s. If I manually run Excavator from cuda91 folder - it gives more, about 1276 kh/s. But it is still way behind Nsrminer_neoscrypt_fork (even normal priority version) - 1322 kh/s.
You can see full hashrate compare of ccminer klaust, excavator and hsrminer_neoscrypt_fork at the 1st msg in my topic under Hashrate compare tag.
February 08, 2018, 10:20:49 PM
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
I second this
Check my fork, guys. New version is just out, API improved, palgin's bug with -d option fixed and more.
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
^^^ Excavator beats both hsr as well the fork.
February 08, 2018, 10:14:01 PM
just use klaust, this ccminer only show faked hash & no more updates
klaust runs like shit on my gear, and has the same quantity of "faked hash" or w/e it is you're on about.
February 08, 2018, 08:54:27 PM
just use klaust, this ccminer only show faked hash & no more updates
February 08, 2018, 02:10:05 PM
neoscrypt, KlausT faster than this shit
February 08, 2018, 07:48:56 AM
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
I second this
Check my fork, guys. New version is just out, API improved, palgin's bug with -d option fixed and more.
your - 3.13 Mh
excavator - 3.3 Mh
tested on 3*1060 and 1*1080
simple version
February 08, 2018, 07:14:34 AM
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
I second this
Check my fork, guys. New version is just out, API improved, palgin's bug with -d option fixed and more.
February 08, 2018, 05:31:18 AM
So, I did the test I mentioned earlier in the thread.
I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.
I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%
I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.
I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds
The reported hash rates from each miner were :
KlausT : 1480 kH/s
hsrminer: 1790 kH/s
During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:
KlausT: 0.07451398 QBIC
hsrminer: 0.07188344 QBIC
One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited
) and created the graph below.
The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.
https://ibb.co/cSv9im
While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.
I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.
I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%
I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.
I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds
The reported hash rates from each miner were :
KlausT : 1480 kH/s
hsrminer: 1790 kH/s
During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:
KlausT: 0.07451398 QBIC
hsrminer: 0.07188344 QBIC
One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited
) and created the graph below.The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.
https://ibb.co/cSv9im
While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.
I'm sorry but there is a VITAL piece of information you are missing. QBIC is completely unreliable source to try to benchmark against because it is always under nicehash attacks. Hashrates can go from 1ghs on a pool to 20/30 even 160 I have seen.
But why is that a parameter? If I am running both miners towards the same pool at the same time they should have the same basic preconditions right?
Aren't more or less all neoscrypt coins mined by Nicehash?
February 08, 2018, 02:52:15 AM
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
if he uses open source parts from ccminer in his closed software he must open his code, too.
Not only binary, then he must give the source for all.
just my two cents...
Strong word "must". No, he/they don't "must" do anything. There is no obligation.
Ah, should they do it? Sure. But it is entirely their choice.
I'm just happy that it works and I have more miners to choose from.
Of course there are bugs, what software doesn't have bugs after all?
I'm sure they will fix them as much as possible and as soon as they can.
Can you do it better? Then why didn't you do it until now, make a better alternative?
Jump to: