Topic: NSGminer v0.9.4: The Fastest NeoScrypt GPU Miner - page 25. (Read 221755 times)

500KH/s on a reference R9 280X is nearly what I get now by optimising my v6 kernel. I think it can do more. That's for vector Salsa, ChaCha and BLAKE2s. Scalar are -10KH/s.



EDIT: Updated the screen shot with a longer run time.

ANN: If anyone wants NVIDIA OpenCL support in NSGminer with optimisations and hardware monitoring, donate to the addresses in the OP and post to this thread. The target is 0.5 BTC to cover the hardware cost at least.

In future you should advice these coin devs on their algos cuz quite often they fail on their own.

A memory intensive algo being compute strained lol 

Try copying it from any other miner.

Well, BLAKE2S_COMPACT is just an option which doesn't do any good now apart of reducing compiled kernel size. NSGminer is a fork of BFGminer v2.10.14 last updated 2 years ago. Although there was no ASIC related code which I would have to remove otherwise. There are also a few good things not found in CGminer/SGminer. I have rewritten many parts anyway to make it really work rather than just work. For example, SGminer displays incorrect block hashes, bogus network diff and the best share, share diff is inflated by 16, maybe solo mining is still broken. diff1 for NeoScrypt (and Scrypt, too) is 0.00024414 of the BTC diff1, that's nBits = 0x1E0FFFF0 big endian which gets decompressed to this uint256 target:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000FFFF00000x0

SGminer lost one most significant zero for some arcane reason. I guess it was also bad in the initial CGminer port to NeoScrypt. Divide this by a share hash/target to get the share diff. That's why all share diffs are 16x higher than actual.

I run NSGminer in lxterminal usually with a cron powered watchdog script, though I don't recall it crashing. Maybe it needs an update in this area to make X happy.

haha no i test only for me

I'm reading your whitepaper now, because I'm really curious about something...

What exactly was your goal when creating Neoscrypt? You list GPU/ASIC computation costs (or lack thereof) seemingly in a bad light - yet you haven't made Neoscrypt actually resistant to such.

You also state "A single instance of NeoScrypt utilises (N + 3) * r * 128 bytes of memory space, i.e. 32.75 Kb, in series mode or (2 * N + 3) * r * 128 bytes, i.e. 64.75Kb, in parallel mode." This is technically correct because you didn't say Neoscrypt *requires* this much, only that it *utilizes* that much - which in the case of your implementation is quite true. But you don't make a case for it being memory-hard in the paper, so I'm assuming that wasn't a design goal?

give me the kernel for test

It is indeed. 32GB of DDR3 in the case of the 290X and Fury... Odd.

you changed the kernel?

let run longer for ghost miner you will get a very good perfomance

No, it wouldn't run at all, which is why I reported it. Reason being it wasn't getting work, reason being stupid pool backend being down.

EDIT: How are you running intensity 16 and 17? Not even my 290X or Fury will enqueue the kernel with that setting.

Well, we can make a much better progress if you upload your work somewhere to take a closer look. I'm very flexible on NSGminer and can do things SGminer will not in order to keep compatibility with their bunch of various algos and kernels. NSGminer isn't my private project, you can also commit your changes.

While optimising for GCN, I also try not to break support for VLIW. For example, this kernel is about 2x faster than yours on the VLIW5 & VLIW4 hardware. I admit most miners are on GCN now, but it's a good thing to keep the older hardware useful.

I haven't seen any real improvement on vector BLAKE2s, though I have added it as a feature.


Could you switch to vector code for Salsa and ChaCha to see if it makes a positive difference on GCN with the 15.x drivers?


FASTKDF_COMPACT 1 also seems to improve performance a little on GCN. Maybe SALSA_UNROLL_LEVEL and CHACHA_UNROLL_LEVEL are better if set to 3 like previously instead of 4.

Tried to use it, but this one complains about libcurl not supporting stratum+tcp, and if I remove it, the miner just tries http...

EDIT: Sorry, I'm an idiot; my test pool is down, but their website is up...

Yeah, that makes sense.  Lot's of ways to represent success. 

Here's what I got with your new Windows 64 miner, all GPU voltages at 1.2, I used Sapphire HD 7970s (Hynix), and your recommended configuration:


I rebooted the rig between each test and deleted the existing .bin file.  I didn't use any type of driver cleaner utility.
I achieved the following after 5 minutes of mining from various AMD drivers when placed in your miner's folder:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 15.7.1 (stock installation on rig):

[08:20:20] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:226.3 u:316.5 KH/s | A:24 R:0 HW:0 WU:18.1/m
[08:20:20] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:230.4 u:184.6 KH/s | A:14 R:0 HW:0 WU:10.6/m
[08:20:20] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:226.7 u:224.2 KH/s | A:17 R:0 HW:0 WU:12.8/m
[08:20:20] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:226.9 u:158.3 KH/s | A:12 R:0 HW:0 WU:9.1/m

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 14.12:

[08:29:23] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:239.2 u:228.7 KH/s | A:18 R:0 HW:0 WU:13.1/m
[08:29:23] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:239.4 u:282.5 KH/s | A:21 R:0 HW:0 WU:16.2/m
[08:29:23] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:239.2 u:228.7 KH/s | A:17 R:0 HW:0 WU:13.1/m
[08:29:23] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:239.6 u:336.3 KH/s | A:25 R:0 HW:0 WU:19.2/m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 14.9:

[08:13:28] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:379.2 u:459.8 KH/s | A:37 R:0 HW:0 WU:26.3/m
[08:13:28] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:378.2 u:410.1 KH/s | A:33 R:0 HW:0 WU:23.5/m
[08:13:28] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:378.6 u:360.4 KH/s | A:29 R:0 HW:0 WU:20.6/m
[08:13:28] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:378.4 u:298.2 KH/s | A:24 R:0 HW:0 WU:17.1/m

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 14.7rc3:

[09:11:02] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:370.1 u:409.0 KH/s | A:31 R:0 HW:0 WU:23.4/m
[09:11:02] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:370.7 u:277.1 KH/s | A:21 R:0 HW:0 WU:15.9/m
[09:11:02] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:370.1 u:303.5 KH/s | A:23 R:0 HW:0 WU:17.4/m
[09:11:02] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:371.1 u:422.2 KH/s | A:32 R:0 HW:0 WU:24.2/m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 14.6:

[08:51:58] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:368.9 u:290.3 KH/s | A:22 R:0 HW:0 WU:16.6/m
[08:51:58] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:369.0 u:395.9 KH/s | A:30 R:0 HW:0 WU:22.7/m
[08:51:58] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:368.9 u:382.7 KH/s | A:29 R:0 HW:0 WU:21.9/m
[08:51:58] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:368.3 u:435.5 KH/s | A:33 R:0 HW:0 WU:24.9/m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD 14.4:

[08:42:44] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:351.1 u:255.0 KH/s | A:19 R:0 HW:0 WU:14.6/m
[08:42:44] OCL1                | 5s:  0.0 avg:351.3 u:241.6 KH/s | A:18 R:0 HW:0 WU:13.8/m
[08:42:44] OCL2                | 5s:  0.0 avg:351.1 u:308.7 KH/s | A:23 R:0 HW:0 WU:17.7/m
[08:42:44] OCL3                | 5s:  0.0 avg:350.9 u:295.3 KH/s | A:22 R:0 HW:0 WU:16.9/m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so that was for a rig of 4 HD 7970s, all Hynix memory.  Next I tested the 14.9 drivers on
4 Gigabyte Windforce R9 280x GPUs, all Elpida.  They wouldn't start with I 16, so I bumped them
down to I 15.

AMD 14.9 at I=15:

[09:36:18] OCL0                | 5s:  0.0 avg:374.0 u:284.6 KH/s | A:22 R:0 HW:0 WU:16.3/m
[09:36:18] OCL1                | 5s:361.6 avg:374.9 u:271.7 KH/s | A:21 R:0 HW:0 WU:15.5/m
[09:36:18] OCL2                | 5s:361.7 avg:374.0 u:323.5 KH/s | A:25 R:0 HW:0 WU:18.5/m
[09:36:18] OCL3                | 5s:361.4 avg:373.9 u:258.8 KH/s | A:20 R:0 HW:0 WU:14.8/m

That looks like comparable output for Hynix memory but at lower intensity.


==============================================================================

Now I will test Wolf0's neoscrypt.cl and .bin from the most recent Nicehash miner bin folder with sgminer-5-0-1, xI=2. gpu-threads=2, 1000/1500:


280x Elpida, with Wolf0's neoscrypt kernel with AMD 14.7rc3 drivers I get:

[09:53:00] GPU0                | (5s):403.8K (avg):424.4Kh/s | A:2496 R:0 HW:0 WU:403.230/m
[09:53:00] GPU1                | (5s):406.7K (avg):426.6Kh/s | A:2432 R:0 HW:0 WU:399.363/m
[09:53:00] GPU2                | (5s):406.3K (avg):425.7Kh/s | A:1728 R:0 HW:0 WU:253.722/m
[09:53:00] GPU3                | (5s):405.3K (avg):425.6Kh/s | A:2048 R:0 HW:0 WU:331.606/m


And going back to the HD7970 cards with 14.7rc3 drivers I get:

[09:57:30] GPU0                | (5s):407.0K (avg):417.7Kh/s | A:2368 R:0 HW:0 WU:373.366/m
[09:57:30] GPU1                | (5s):408.4K (avg):419.9Kh/s | A:2368 R:0 HW:0 WU:380.408/m
[09:57:30] GPU2                | (5s):410.5K (avg):419.4Kh/s | A:1856 R:0 HW:0 WU:291.159/m
[09:57:30] GPU3                | (5s):406.9K (avg):416.4Kh/s | A:2368 R:0 HW:0 WU:387.625/m


So, in summary, from the perspective of this dead-end user, it seems that for the moment Wolf0's kernel and .bin file from the most recent Nicehash miner bin folder and AMD 14.7rc3 drivers has the better hashrate.

Also, I cannot explain the apparent discrepancy in sgminer's accepted as compared to nsgminer's accepted.  I assume that there is a factor of 100 somewhere.

Looks very good. Have you tweaked the kernel settings or left the defaults there?

That's for HD7990, dual Tahiti, downvolted and downclocked to 850/1250. I have no HD7950, though most people o/c them from 800/1250 to 1000/1500 or higher where they perform like a single GPU of my HD7990, so 350KH/s should be achievable. HD7970 (R9 280X) delivers 380 to 450KH/s depending on overclock and memory (Elpida sucks, Hynix wins).

You can run more than one wavefront concurrently while using scratch regs - I'm doing it now - but the cause of this issue isn't FastKDF's complexity, I think, it's the stupid accesses. Since VGPRs on GCN are 4 bytes wide, it shits itself trying to keep the data in regs while you access it in such a misaligned fashion - so it dumps it to global.

I have run some tests and it seems the GCN cards are more comfortable with scalar Salsa and ChaCha. The AMD compiler optimises them better. For example, I get 680KH/s with vector and 690KH/s with scalar on 14.6. By default, the v6 kernel uses scalar for GCN and vector for VLIW5 and VLIW4. You can edit the kernel to run tests with different settings. Are you on Crimson or 15.11?