Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
CL_UNKNOWN_ERROR -1001
033.b12, win7
2xRx462, Rx562
Topic: [XMR] JCE Miner Cryptonight/forks, now with GPU! - page 16. (Read 90841 times)
could you give me the config you use, i blind-benched myself and found the speed to be the same. maybe the regression is in some specific cases only?
i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
edit: re-released with the optim restricted to smaller cards
i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
edit: re-released with the optim restricted to smaller cards
Overdriven config for my VEGA 64:
Code:
Name=Vega64Perf
GPU_P0=852;800;0
GPU_P1=991;900;0
GPU_P2=1084;900;0
GPU_P3=1138;900;0
GPU_P4=1150;900;0
GPU_P5=1202;900;0
GPU_P6=1212;905;0
GPU_P7=1408;915
Mem_P0=167;800;0
Mem_P1=500;800;0
Mem_P2=800;900;0
Mem_P3=1100;905
Fan_Min=3500
Fan_Max=4900
Fan_Target=70
Fan_Acoustic=2400
Power_Temp=80
Power_Target=0
Overdriven config for my VEGA 56:
Code:
Name=Vega56Perf
GPU_P0=852;800;0
GPU_P1=991;899;0
GPU_P2=1084;899;0
GPU_P3=1138;899;0
GPU_P4=1150;899;0
GPU_P5=1202;899;0
GPU_P6=1212;905;0
GPU_P7=1407;915
Mem_P0=167;800;0
Mem_P1=500;800;0
Mem_P2=800;899;0
Mem_P3=930;905
Fan_Min=3500
Fan_Max=4900
Fan_Target=70
Fan_Acoustic=2400
Power_Temp=80
Power_Target=0
JCE config:
Code:
[
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 0, "multi_hash":1920 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 0, "multi_hash":1920 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":1888 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 16, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta" : 4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":1888 },
]
JCE start bat:
Code:
jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe -o conceal.herominers.com:10361 -u ccx7KNbs8JQM3DL3HENXSCfqnQ3idKdAibZtrQDxCGZvJAutF8CdUihjUvmVyJ2f3VLnXhkrGnitZD15CnZPcNob5cxVVqER68+98eb09ea1d13e11a1ec94a3758d1c9669d2bb27b7344b04556f4a99eb7c92ad7.150000 -p x -c current_config.txt --any --variation 11 --mport 57866 --no-warmup
hoooo, just found why, another stupid bug i missed during my tests. the bad news it that fixing cancels the speed increase. so i just cancel this version for now. thanks a lot for the quick report. 
edit: i can restore the perf boost on small rx (550, 560) but didn't find yet for the big ones. rerelease of the b12 soon.
edit: re-released
edit: i can restore the perf boost on small rx (550, 560) but didn't find yet for the big ones. rerelease of the b12 soon.
edit: re-released
could you give me the config you use, i blind-benched myself and found the speed to be the same. maybe the regression is in some specific cases only?
i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
On my RX 580 8Gb cards b12 hangs all system after short period of time after launch mining... Returning to b11 solves problem... i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
could you give me the config you use, i blind-benched myself and found the speed to be the same. maybe the regression is in some specific cases only?
i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
edit: re-released with the optim restricted to smaller cards
i've just rebenched b6 and b7 and got almost the same speed. so i need your config and a confirmation the regression you observe is between b6 and b7
As a desperate attempt, a did a formal review between the b6 and b7 code and reverted, for Vega, all the differences.
If it doesn't fix, so i'm running out of ideas.
Online is the 0.33b12 GPU with that fix, and an extra little optim for all cards. I benched it to be ~0.2% within a range of -0.3% and +0.7%, so it should increase the hashrate, but it's so subtle that i'm not even sure the gain is positive.
edit: re-released with the optim restricted to smaller cards
I'm using 1x Vega 56 + 1x Vega 64 and with using 0.33b6 I got 7740 H/s on mining Conceal (Cryptonight Fast)
Since version 0.33b7 until the latest 0.33b10 I only get 5733 H/s on the same configuration.
Drivers: Adrenaline 18.6.1, Windows 10 x64
Since version 0.33b7 until the latest 0.33b10 I only get 5733 H/s on the same configuration.
Drivers: Adrenaline 18.6.1, Windows 10 x64
Thanks for the fast response but with the latest 0.33b11 I still only get 5746 H/s.
Quote
22:47:35 | Total: 3605.46 h/s - Max: 3609.52 h/s
22:49:43 | Effective net hashrate 3746.99 h/s
22:49:43 | Effective net hashrate 3746.99 h/s
fine, well it will converge to the theorical 99% but that's very good, the versions before had a regression about this.
I admit that all current miners, close source or not, are fair about their numbers, TeamRed, SRB, Cast, Xmrig... it makes comparisons easier. I still suspect Claymore to have provided wrong data on his later versions 10+, but this miner is now obsolete, no longer matters.
Online is the shameless undercover 0.33b11 re-release, with the GPU Lane -1 bug fixed, and a very little extra optim for Heavy/forks (may give you +1 h/s)
while i understood the bug, i cannot get why i didn't reproduce it once during all my tests...
GPU Lane -1 ??
woow, big bug, but i tested a lot and didn't encountered such, i probably missed one specific corner case.
i'll re-release with a hotfix.
otherwise, are the pool-side perf better?
ok found the bug, due to my new sync, the very first hash is an empty one, with value 0 and id 0. the diff being the inverse of the value, it's +inf, sent to the pool and rejected. not bad, just cosmetical, but very ugly.
woow, big bug, but i tested a lot and didn't encountered such, i probably missed one specific corner case.
i'll re-release with a hotfix.
otherwise, are the pool-side perf better?
ok found the bug, due to my new sync, the very first hash is an empty one, with value 0 and id 0. the diff being the inverse of the value, it's +inf, sent to the pool and rejected. not bad, just cosmetical, but very ugly.
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 455.12 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 454.73 h/s - Total GPU 0: 909.85 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 442.53 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 441.54 h/s - Total GPU 1: 884.06 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 447.45 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 447.95 h/s - Total GPU 2: 895.40 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 6: 458.01 h/s
22:47:35 | Hashrate GPU Thread 7: 458.16 h/s - Total GPU 3: 916.17 h/s
22:47:35 | Total: 3605.46 h/s - Max: 3609.52 h/s
22:48:42 | Pool sends a new Job.
22:48:47 | GPU 0: Temp: 48C - Fan: 54% -- Shares: Good: 95 Bad: 0
22:48:47 | GPU 1: Temp: 43C - Fan: 50% -- Shares: Good: 90 Bad: 0
22:48:47 | GPU 2: Temp: 48C - Fan: 55% -- Shares: Good: 90 Bad: 0
22:48:47 | GPU 3: Temp: 42C - Fan: 49% -- Shares: Good: 112 Bad: 0
...
22:49:43 | Currency BitTube (TUBE)
22:49:43 | Current pool Difficulty 212097
22:49:43 | Accepted Shares 377
22:49:43 | Total Hashes 46260303
22:49:43 | Miner uptime 3:25:46
22:49:43 | Effective net hashrate 3746.99 h/s
22:49:43 | Devices results - Shares Accepted/Ignored/Rejected - Net Hashrate
22:49:43 | * GPU 0 - 93/0/0 - 874.69 h/s
22:49:43 | * GPU 1 - 86/0/0 - 852.72 h/s
22:49:43 | * GPU 2 - 89/0/0 - 913.28 h/s
22:49:43 | * GPU 3 - 109/0/1 - 1106.29 h/s
POOL SIDE:
Hashrate 15m: 3.53 kH/sec
2h: 3.50 kH/sec 24h: 3.48 kH/sec (these 24hs include mining with the 0.33B8 version).
And look on pagefile size. You need it big size!
Testing heavy algo on b11 now. Speed became the same as in SRB miner... But eff.hashrate impressive for now. Almost 5 hours of test - eff.hashrate is almost equal to speed... Now waiting more time to test...
that's exactly what i expected: optimal effective, on par with srb. i don't say i'm better, i benched to be at +/- 0.2%, so i claim to be on par. Testing heavy algo on b11 now. Speed became the same as in SRB miner... But eff.hashrate impressive for now. Almost 5 hours of test - eff.hashrate is almost equal to speed... Now waiting more time to test...
GPU Lane -1 ??
woow, big bug, but i tested a lot and didn't encountered such, i probably missed one specific corner case.
i'll re-release with a hotfix.
otherwise, are the pool-side perf better?
ok found the bug, due to my new sync, the very first hash is an empty one, with value 0 and id 0. the diff being the inverse of the value, it's +inf, sent to the pool and rejected. not bad, just cosmetical, but very ugly.
woow, big bug, but i tested a lot and didn't encountered such, i probably missed one specific corner case.
i'll re-release with a hotfix.
otherwise, are the pool-side perf better?
ok found the bug, due to my new sync, the very first hash is an empty one, with value 0 and id 0. the diff being the inverse of the value, it's +inf, sent to the pool and rejected. not bad, just cosmetical, but very ugly.
Do you use fork=0 ? It's the auto detect algo setting. If not, do it. If yes, I don't know LoL
Mining bittube with the lastest version, I have a weird message when I launch the miner. I just started, and twice in a row this is what I get (I restarted the miner):
19:23:55 | Pool changes Difficulty to 133724.
19:23:55 | GPU 3 Thread 7 Lane -1 finds a Share, value 133724
19:23:55 | Stale Share that may be refused by the pool.
19:23:55 | Rejected by the pool in 33 ms.
19:23:55 | Message from the pool: Invalid job id
19:23:55 | Your first share was rejected, you probably need to change the fork
19:23:55 | with parameter --variation N, try different values for N in [1-18]
19:23:55 | until you find the one that works.
19:23:55 | Pool sends a new Job.
19:24:13 | GPU 2 Thread 5 Lane 325 finds a Share, value 133724
19:24:13 | Accepted by the pool in 90 ms.
19:24:24 | GPU 1 Thread 2 Lane 19 finds a Share, value 133724
19:24:24 | Accepted by the pool in 36 ms.
And all the next shares seem accepted.
19:23:55 | Pool changes Difficulty to 133724.
19:23:55 | GPU 3 Thread 7 Lane -1 finds a Share, value 133724
19:23:55 | Stale Share that may be refused by the pool.
19:23:55 | Rejected by the pool in 33 ms.
19:23:55 | Message from the pool: Invalid job id
19:23:55 | Your first share was rejected, you probably need to change the fork
19:23:55 | with parameter --variation N, try different values for N in [1-18]
19:23:55 | until you find the one that works.
19:23:55 | Pool sends a new Job.
19:24:13 | GPU 2 Thread 5 Lane 325 finds a Share, value 133724
19:24:13 | Accepted by the pool in 90 ms.
19:24:24 | GPU 1 Thread 2 Lane 19 finds a Share, value 133724
19:24:24 | Accepted by the pool in 36 ms.
And all the next shares seem accepted.
And look on pagefile size. You need it big size!
Testing heavy algo on b11 now. Speed became the same as in SRB miner... But eff.hashrate impressive for now. Almost 5 hours of test - eff.hashrate is almost equal to speed... Now waiting more time to test...
Testing heavy algo on b11 now. Speed became the same as in SRB miner... But eff.hashrate impressive for now. Almost 5 hours of test - eff.hashrate is almost equal to speed... Now waiting more time to test...
Look over Windows updates ? There is a big one this month. After the big reboot, 1-2 small. And run driver easy to update everything. Most of my crashes was don solved with that
13 cards, woow...
What coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
most of my rigs have 13amd or 11amd+8nvidiaWhat coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
v8 monero
crash after compiled all kernels
crash = windows blue screen and restart
13 cards, woow...
What coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
What coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
Also run --probe to look if there GPUs id are still assign to the right ones for your multihash. If it changed you might try to put a scratch pad from a 8gb card into a 4gb one.
JCE, got 12 :-) mining heavy right now. Always looking for newer projects that seem promising in the future (1-2-3 years)
13 cards, woow...
What coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
What coin/algo do you mine?
Does it crash at startup or after some time?
If at startup, at what step?
What is the crash message or the symptoms ?
I have stable config on b6 version for my rig (mix 550, 560, 470)
"gpu_threads_conf" :
[
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 9, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 9, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 10, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 10, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 11, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 11, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 12, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 12, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 13, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 13, "multi_hash":432 },
],
but b10 crashing with this config.
What do I need to change to adapt to the new version of the program?
"gpu_threads_conf" :
[
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 9, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 9, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 10, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 10, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 11, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 11, "multi_hash":944 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 12, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 12, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 13, "multi_hash":432 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 13, "multi_hash":432 },
],
but b10 crashing with this config.
What do I need to change to adapt to the new version of the program?
It's not about your GPU0 not working, but
OpenCL refused to allocate such a big buffer. Are all your GPU RX 8GB cards? The gpu order may be different in jce than in other miner, look at the gpu list displayed in green to see what GPU has what index. If you have a 4G card, it may be the GPU0.
Also, very possible is that your GPU0 is bound to your internal IGP, APU or motherboard GPU. JCE include Intel and AMD IGP/APU into its list, as GPU0. If that's the case, just skip it and number your GPU in the config starting from GPU1.
That choice i made to include Intel IGP in the list was a bad choice, sad.
Online is the 0.33h CPU Windows
Online is the 0.33b11 GPU Windows
About the last point, you may experience a peak hashrate on Heavy/forks a bit lower than b9/b10, but the pool-side effective will be a lot better, near 99%, fees deduced, which is the maximum. Same for v8.
This is a point where SRB improved recently while I regressed. I re-benched our both last versions and found we're on par on big RX heavy, pool-side. my b10 and before were slightly below.
The Vega on old algos (non-heavy) should be restored to b6 speed, but i didn't had time to test all combinations of cards and algos.
Quote
Allocating big 3328MB scratchpad for OpenCL Thread 4...
Couldn't create OpenCL Thread 4 Scratchpad on GPU 0
Error: CL_INVALID_BUFFER_SIZE
Couldn't create OpenCL Thread 4 Scratchpad on GPU 0
Error: CL_INVALID_BUFFER_SIZE
OpenCL refused to allocate such a big buffer. Are all your GPU RX 8GB cards? The gpu order may be different in jce than in other miner, look at the gpu list displayed in green to see what GPU has what index. If you have a 4G card, it may be the GPU0.
Also, very possible is that your GPU0 is bound to your internal IGP, APU or motherboard GPU. JCE include Intel and AMD IGP/APU into its list, as GPU0. If that's the case, just skip it and number your GPU in the config starting from GPU1.
That choice i made to include Intel IGP in the list was a bad choice, sad.
Online is the 0.33h CPU Windows
Quote
Little optim for Zen
FredCoin defaults to CN-Light v7
FredCoin defaults to CN-Light v7
Online is the 0.33b11 GPU Windows
Quote
Restored more speed regressed for old algos/old cards
Far better pool-side efficiency
Far better pool-side efficiency
About the last point, you may experience a peak hashrate on Heavy/forks a bit lower than b9/b10, but the pool-side effective will be a lot better, near 99%, fees deduced, which is the maximum. Same for v8.
This is a point where SRB improved recently while I regressed. I re-benched our both last versions and found we're on par on big RX heavy, pool-side. my b10 and before were slightly below.
The Vega on old algos (non-heavy) should be restored to b6 speed, but i didn't had time to test all combinations of cards and algos.
Jump to: