Pages:
Author

Topic: X16R - RVN - Miner head to head test log - page 3. (Read 7659 times)

jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
Great overview, much appreciated.
As far as I can see nevermore miner was only used in one benchmark series and wasn't doing that bad. Do you keep an eye on it as future improvements could be promising?

Brian has been busy focusing on Team Red, with Avermore. If he decides to release a meaningful update to Nevermore, I'll definitely test it again.
member
Activity: 336
Merit: 15
Great overview, much appreciated.
As far as I can see nevermore miner was only used in one benchmark series and wasn't doing that bad. Do you keep an eye on it as future improvements could be promising?
full member
Activity: 1179
Merit: 131
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

Your first commit was May 3rd, the beta of enemy 1.09 was released May 5th.

Did he steal your code, I have no clue.
Did you steal code to make your "private" miner? absolutely.

is enemy 1.09 the fastest miner that doesn't cost 0.5BTC? sure seems like it.

and stop spreading FUD.. you know as well as anyone, that most mining software can trigger anti virus warnings

Unless I am missing something, this sp-mod doesn't cost anything, is open source, and has no dev-fee.  I have no clue how fast it is compared to z-enemy, but you have to give some credit where it is due.
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
Enemy 1.09a Pool / Stratum Difficulty Testing:

For this test I used a single 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances. All three mining instances were balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool.

All three instances have intensity set to 21, GPU target power set to 100%, no overclocking.

The instances/rig are managed by Awesome Miner, which restarts the miners for various reasons, based on rules I set.

The plan is to do two rounds of testing, each round lasting approximately 10-12hrs, at the conclusion of each round I'll rotate the miner to a new instance, until each miner has had a chance to run on each instance. I'll also normalize the results to averaged blocks found per round.

Miner tested:
Enemy 1.09a - 1% dev fee

Testing:
  • Variable Diff / pool set diff
  • d=40 (1/2 of my avg hash | i.e. divide hash by 2)




Results:

Round 1 - Duration: 645 minutes - 155 Blocks found

  • [Instance 1] Normalized: 120.73 RVN | Raw: 131.32 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link
  • [Instance 2] Normalized: 127.36 RVN | Raw: 138.53 RVN - d=40 Pool Link

Round 2  - Duration: 632 minutes - 130 Blocks found

  • [Instance 1] Normalized: 127.81 RVN | Raw: 116.60 RVN - d=40 - Pool Link
  • [Instance 2] Normalized: 121.28 RVN | Raw: 110.64 RVN - Var Diff - Pool Link



FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1
*
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.

Your first commit was May 3rd, the beta of enemy 1.09 was released May 5th.

Did he steal your code, I have no clue.
Did you steal code to make your "private" miner? absolutely.

is enemy 1.09 the fastest miner that doesn't cost 0.5BTC? sure seems like it.

and stop spreading FUD.. you know as well as anyone, that most mining software can trigger anti virus warnings
legendary
Activity: 1510
Merit: 1003
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.
You are liar again.  enemy 1.09 v5 has no kernel improvements comparing to 1.09 v1 . Only stratum and devfee part was updated and some minor bug fixed. That gives additional boost.
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.

1 week ago there was no enemy 1.09 miner right? This is because after I started to publish my opensource improvements, enemy copied my work and included it into his miner for a 5% boost. I have added a few percent on sp-mod #4, so it should be faster than 1.08. opensource, free and without a virus.
newbie
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
my computer reported that 1.09  have win64.trojan.miner.Sxxs.     but not in 1.05-1.08.
what should I do?
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
but you need to run each round for 12 hours, if not the comparison is not fair. You run 2 rounds 9 hours and 1 round 12 hours. 12 hours is not enough to make a good prediction.

why is 12hrs the magical number? why not 24 or 48, when is enough enough to see a pattern?

look at the posted graphs, the outcome is generally decided after as little as 4-6 hours.



Instead of X16r, you shoudl compare the x16s algo.

I'm not an altruistic miner, I mine to make a profit. There's nothing nearly as profitable as RVN [x16r] on [x16s], with the exception of PGN for a few hours  every ~5 days when their difficulty nose dives. If you want to sponsor a test on x16s, I'll take your BTC and run it for how ever long you'd like.



sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not
Because they where busy mining the devfee. (switching pools, missing profits)

And yet, even with 1% dev mining, enemy 1.08 and 1.09 came out ahead in testing.



newbie
Activity: 91
Merit: 0
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected.

but you need to run each round for 12 hours, if not the comparison is not fair. You run 2 rounds 9 hours and 1 round 12 hours. 12 hours is not enough to make a good prediction.

Instead of X16r, you shoudl compare the x16s algo.

sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not

Because they where busy mining the devfee. (switching pools, missing profits)
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4


You can't cherry pick a round and declare victory.

The reason I do three rounds, with each miner running on an instance one time, is that the rig has a mix of 1080Ti cards, and as much as I've done to balance the instances so that they hash the same, they're not identical and some differences are to be expected.

Analyzing the weighted and normalized performance of the three instances, Instance 1 and 2 performed within 1% of each other, Instance 3 performed 3-4% better than the other two.

Also, towards the beginning of round three, ravenminer experienced a DDOS attack. This resulted in two things. testing was paused for approximately 2 hours, and sp-mod was credited with two very small blocks that the other miners were not. (a total of 0.243 RVN)






Full Test Results

FINAL Normalized Average Results

#1
*
full member
Activity: 1148
Merit: 132
what u need to do is create an optimized miner for opencl

I would willing switch all my rx cards and vegas if an rx 580 with optimal mem
straps was not basiclly btween a 1050ti and a 1060 lol
member
Activity: 413
Merit: 17
in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4

Release already the full binary with a dev fee, we don't mind it as long as it's the fastest miner available.
Since Enemy 1.09 is way faster than your public version, we'll simply use it instead of yours.
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
in round #3 spmod-git3 was faster than enemy 1.08

now you can try spmod-git4

https://github.com/sp-hash/suprminer/releases/tag/spmod-git4
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
jr. member
Activity: 274
Merit: 1
jr. member
Activity: 99
Merit: 8
Round 2 of Enemy 1.09 BETA 5 Vs. Enemy 1.08 Vs. sp-mod git3 results are in
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36628995

After 2 rounds:


Normalized Average Results

#1
*
newbie
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
Hi, I have some quick question  Grin 1 of my mining rig have 6x gtx 1060 3gb and computer have normal cpu and 4 gb ram and 60gb swap file but on normal slow hdd so I was curious which -i was be better for this specific rig  for mining raven with the new enemy 1.09, when I have slow swap file no quick swap file on ssd, so does matter -i 19, -i 20, -i 21, -i 21.5 or it does not matter or which is best ? Thanks for answer  Grin Grin Grin

Wrong thread. This is not topic to ask advice, but for testing.


Well, I sorry that its not correct topic but it was only curiosity and above that topic on this specfic question dosnt exist so, and I test the new program so  this is also the case of this topic i run my rig 12 hour on -i 21 without instability.
Pages:
Jump to:
© 2020, Bitcointalksearch.org