Open Source XPM (Primecoin) GPU Miner & Pool xpmforall.org - page 47.

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: hoze on July 03, 2015, 03:03:40 PM

Quote from: eXtremal on July 03, 2015, 02:50:15 PM

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve Sad

For compare, R9 290:

Quote

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 550.495
Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 94.933 G
* iteration time: 5.799ms
* candidates per second: 1282165.428
* candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

No problem. I can make benchmark with gtx 750ti...

750ti

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 4 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
Using device 2 as GPU 2
Using device 3 as GPU 3
Compiling ...
Source: 236815 bytes
binsize = 1550311 bytes
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.000ms (526.344M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 260.000ms (516.222M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 230.000ms (0.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 285.001ms (0.460M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 139.810
Hash per iteration: 36.734 (0.000438 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.654

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.001ms (745.650M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 257.002ms (522.244M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 265.001ms (506.480M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 235.001ms (0.558M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 277.002ms (0.473M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 139.194
Hash per iteration: 38.797 (0.000462 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.667

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 250.000ms (536.871M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 212.001ms (633.100M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 262.001ms (512.279M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 230.000ms (0.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 280.000ms (0.468M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 140.985
Hash per iteration: 36.391 (0.000434 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.745

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836
GeForce GTX 750 Ti; 5 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.001ms (526.342M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 215.000ms (624.269M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 265.001ms (506.480M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 232.004ms (0.565M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 277.002ms (0.473M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 139.194
Hash per iteration: 37.313 (0.000445 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.561

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
OpenCL error: -54 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/benchmarks.cpp:836

irritant

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Sodium hypochlorite, acetone, ethanol

780ti

Code:

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 1 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Compiling ...
Source: 236814 bytes
binsize = 1457339 bytes
GeForce GTX 780 Ti; 15 compute units
square 320 bits: 95.020ms (1412.521M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 95.011ms (1412.655M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 81.012ms (1656.764M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 119.026ms (1127.634M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 99.012ms (1355.570M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 63.016ms (2.080M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 93.600ms (1.400M ops/sec)

 *** hashmod benchmark ***
 MHash per second: 294.142
 Hash per iteration: 38.094 (0.000454 %)
 Average hash multiplier size: 30.675

 *** sieve (check) benchmark ***
 * [OK] found candidates by CPU: 6999 by GPU: 7004
 * [OK] invalid candidates: 0
 * [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

 *** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
 * scan speed: 11.071 G
 * iteration time: 49.725ms
 * candidates per second: 148849.023
 * candidates per iteration: 7401.58 (3123.05 320bit, 4278.53 352bit)
 * 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.730/1

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: eXtremal on July 03, 2015, 02:50:15 PM

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve Sad

For compare, R9 290:

Quote

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 550.495
Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 94.933 G
* iteration time: 5.799ms
* candidates per second: 1282165.428
* candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

No problem. I can make benchmark with gtx 750ti...

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

hoze
Thanks.
I see that HD6xxx cards require whole kernel optimization, not only sieve Sad

For compare, R9 290:

Quote

square 320 bits: 40.524ms (3312.055M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 49.931ms (2688.064M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 48.891ms (2745.244M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 60.490ms (2218.842M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 38.432ms (3.410M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 47.956ms (2.733M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 550.495
Hash per iteration: 37.938 (0.000452 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.712

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 8077 by GPU: 8082
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 94.933 G
* iteration time: 5.799ms
* candidates per second: 1282165.428
* candidates per iteration: 7435.11 (2711.41 320bit, 4723.70 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.574/1

HD5970 shows good results on Fermat test, only 3.5 times slower than R9 290.

I also intrest in benchmarks of old GeForce GTX 6xx/7xx cards, 980Ti and Fury X

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: hoze on July 03, 2015, 01:54:15 PM

yes...give me few min.

5970

found platform[0] name = 'AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing'
Found 4 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
prepare_adl success
GPU 0 iAdapterIndex 0 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_20421002&REV_00_6&215
5A4DD&0&00400018A iBusNumber 8 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 1 iAdapterIndex 1 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_20421002&REV_00_6&300
44ABD&0&00400010A iBusNumber 4 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 2 iAdapterIndex 3 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00_6&24B
9C14F&0&00200010A iBusNumber 3 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 3 iAdapterIndex 6 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_689C&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00_6&2CA
02E4B&0&00200018A iBusNumber 7 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002
strAdapterName AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series
GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 1 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 2 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 3 AMD Radeon HD 5900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
set_powertune(0, -1) failed.
set_powertune(1, -1) failed.
set_powertune(2, -1) failed.
set_powertune(3, -1) failed.
Cypress; 20 compute units
square 320 bits: 140.000ms (958.698M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 135.001ms (994.198M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 165.000ms (813.441M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 170.001ms (789.511M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 190.001ms (706.405M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 125.000ms (1.049M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 155.001ms (0.846M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 137.483
Hash per iteration: 38.891 (0.000464 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.627

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 3454 by GPU: 3459
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 14.080 G
* iteration time: 39.098ms
* candidates per second: 93912.251
* candidates per iteration: 3671.82 (1422.21 320bit, 2249.61 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.632/1

Cypress; 20 compute units
square 320 bits: 125.000ms (1073.742M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 135.000ms (994.205M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 160.001ms (838.856M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 160.000ms (838.861M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 175.000ms (766.958M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 125.001ms (1.049M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 165.000ms (0.794M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 136.957
Hash per iteration: 39.063 (0.000466 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.673

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 2897 by GPU: 2903
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 14.082 G
* iteration time: 39.094ms
* candidates per second: 91983.829
* candidates per iteration: 3596.00 (1628.66 320bit, 1967.34 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.828/1

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: hoze on July 03, 2015, 01:54:15 PM

yes...give me few min.

2 x 6970

Found 2 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
prepare_adl success
GPU 0 iAdapterIndex 0 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_6718&SUBSYS_0B001002&REV_00_4&31
4D47F&0&0018A iBusNumber 2 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002 str
dapterName AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
GPU 1 iAdapterIndex 6 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_6718&SUBSYS_0B001002&REV_00_4&3B
5DC7D&0&0010A iBusNumber 1 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002 str
dapterName AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
GPU 1 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series hardware monitoring enabled
Cayman; 24 compute units
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 180.000ms (745.654M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 240.001ms (559.238M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 210.000ms (639.132M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 290.000ms (462.820M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 175.000ms (0.749M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 225.001ms (0.583M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 189.707
Hash per iteration: 37.172 (0.000443 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.740

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 4408 by GPU: 4416
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 21.224 G
* iteration time: 25.938ms
* candidates per second: 143378.743
* candidates per iteration: 3718.89 (1578.58 320bit, 2140.31 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.738/1

Cayman; 24 compute units
square 320 bits: 200.000ms (671.089M ops/sec)
square 320 bits: 195.000ms (688.296M ops/sec)
multiply 320 bits: 255.000ms (526.344M ops/sec)
square 352 bits: 225.000ms (596.523M ops/sec)
multiply 352 bits: 300.000ms (447.392M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 320 bits: 190.000ms (0.690M ops/sec)
Fermat tests 352 bits: 240.000ms (0.546M ops/sec)

*** hashmod benchmark ***
MHash per second: 189.239
Hash per iteration: 37.641 (0.000449 %)
Average hash multiplier size: 30.589

*** sieve (check) benchmark ***
* [OK] found candidates by CPU: 3566 by GPU: 3570
* [OK] invalid candidates: 0
* [OK] CPU/GPU candidates difference: 0

*** sieve (performance) benchmark ***
* scan speed: 21.097 G
* iteration time: 26.094ms
* candidates per second: 141230.969
* candidates per iteration: 3685.25 (1473.55 320bit, 2211.70 352bit)
* 320bit/352bit ratio: 0.666/1

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

yes...give me few min.

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Quote from: hoze on July 03, 2015, 01:19:42 PM

Yes... Ati 5970 only 2.8 cpd Undecided

, 6970 ~2cpd

Can you run benchmarks (xpmclient -b) and post results for 5970 and 6970 cards ?

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Yes... Ati 5970 only 2.8 cpd Undecided

, 6970 ~2cpd

markoniko

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

Anyone tried older 6xxx and 5xxx card's with new beta miner?

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Quote from: hoze on July 02, 2015, 12:41:05 PM

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 6 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
Using device 2 as GPU 2
Using device 3 as GPU 3
Using device 4 as GPU 4
Using device 5 as GPU 5
Compiling ...
Source: 236814 bytes
binsize = 1585831 bytes
OpenCL error: -30 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/xpmclient.cpp:1027

Post more information - OS, GPUs, driver version, your config.txt (if it was changed).

hoze

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

found platform[0] name = 'NVIDIA CUDA'
Found 6 devices
Using device 0 as GPU 0
Using device 1 as GPU 1
Using device 2 as GPU 2
Using device 3 as GPU 3
Using device 4 as GPU 4
Using device 5 as GPU 5
Compiling ...
Source: 236814 bytes
binsize = 1585831 bytes
OpenCL error: -30 at /HDD/build/projects/xpmclient/xpmclient/xpmclient.cpp:1027

Any help ??

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Quote from: CoffeeCat

Can you explain with is different with this build? I tried it and I'm getting slower performance than with the previous version. I'm running 14.4 drivers. Thanks.

What GPU you use and how much CPD you see?
Can you run benchmarks (xpmclient -b) with versions 9.4.1 and 10.0?

GeForce GTX 750Ti results:

Quote

[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108085 fermat=92557/sec cpd=1.74/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 1369x 7ch(29/0/7) 154x 8ch(3/0/0) 13x 9ch(0/0/0) 3x 10ch(1/0/0)
Work received: height=1136229 diff=10.940961 latency=44ms
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 2
Share accepted.
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 3
Share accepted.
[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108085 fermat=93735/sec cpd=1.76/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 1371x 7ch(29/0/7) 154x 8ch(3/0/0) 13x 9ch(0/0/0) 3x 10ch(1/0/0)

XPM mining with 750Ti can be profitable after optimizations, if performance reaches 4+ CPD.. I think, it possible

CoffeeCat

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Version 10.0beta with NVidia support available: https://www.dropbox.com/s/elfyuy2dvknb0s5/xpmclient_v10.0beta.tar.gz?dl=0
Miner not optimized for NV cards now, mining XPM using it may not be profitable, wait speedups in next versions.

GTX980 results on linux with 352.21 drivers.

Quote

[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108715 fermat=306775/sec cpd=6.11/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 5x 7ch(0/0/0) 1x 9ch(0/0/0)
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 1
Share accepted.
GPU 0 found share: 7-ch type 2
Share accepted.
Work received: height=1130852 diff=10.931094 latency=364ms
[GPU 0] T=-1C A=-1% E=0 primes=0.108641 fermat=307713/sec cpd=6.09/day
(ST/INV/DUP): 7x 7ch(0/0/0) 1x 9ch(0/0/0)

For AMD upgrade from stable 9.4.1 version not need

xgtele

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 250

Your server is great!

Quote from: eXtremal on June 19, 2015, 03:16:32 AM

Quote from: xgtele on June 18, 2015, 10:54:24 AM

why xpmforall.org server is re-starting very frequently? This makes our workers less efficient.

Because a blockchain synchronization problem when pool node works a long time with a very high block rate. Without restarting other miners (such as ypool) get too much orphans it's not good for primecoin network.
With periodic restarting your workers lost about 0,1% XPM / day, not much?

ogima

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: eXtremal on June 19, 2015, 05:00:12 AM

Quote

Port 6666 is open. Telnet connected.

Miner also use ports 60000-60007.

On this computer all ports are open. Xpmclient started for the first time.

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Quote

Port 6666 is open. Telnet connected.

Miner also use ports 60000-60007.

ogima

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: eXtremal on June 19, 2015, 04:24:55 AM

Quote from: ogima on June 19, 2015, 04:01:31 AM

After starting the xpmclient_v9.4.1 hanging message: Connecting to frontend: xpmforall.org:6666 and nothing happens

Port 6666 is closed at your network, check firewall.

Port 6666 is open. Telnet connected.

eXtremal

sr. member

Activity: 2106

Merit: 282

👉bit.ly/3QXp3oh | 🔥 Ultimate Launc

Quote from: ogima on June 19, 2015, 04:01:31 AM

After starting the xpmclient_v9.4.1 hanging message: Connecting to frontend: xpmforall.org:6666 and nothing happens

Port 6666 is closed at your network, check firewall.

Topic: Open Source XPM (Primecoin) GPU Miner & Pool xpmforall.org - page 47. (Read 110186 times)