Forum Home
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular

    [Dev] NeoScrypt GPU Miner - Public Beta Test

    Technical Development
    52
    802
    574250
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • I
      insanid last edited by

      miner compiled by wolf? 4.2.2 so called 5.xx??

      im on win 7 64 bit . xi no use… i have no idea why

      No, I am not using the miner compiled by wolf0. I am using the sgminer-5.1.0-dev builds that are built by Nicehash.

      Use the sgminer I posted here to use the same one as me:

      https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/7780-neoscrypt-gpu-miner-public-beta-test/page-29#entry70031

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        slowhash Regular Member last edited by

        ^^ same build of SGminer that I have…

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          cisahasa last edited by

          i made some notepad work, we should get 50% of original scrypt hashrate when kernel is optimal

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bolt1909 last edited by

            Guys i use this miner

            I have included a sgminer-5.1.0-dev 7z file with all of the changes listed above here:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B06N0FYvyFgDeHBnTVEtR3BVN2c/view?usp=sharing

            and @majsta settings in my .bat file

            sgminer.exe -k neoscrypt --xintensity 3 --worksize 256 -g 2 -o xxxx:xxxx -u x -p x --thread-concurrency 8192 -d 0,1

            (280x+7950…3rd is 5850 and its off). 14.4 drivers, W7x64, 1000(gpu)/1500(mem) for both cards

            and you can see results v5vPf8Y.png

            edit:

            .bat file without --thread-concurrency got only HW…

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              slowhash Regular Member last edited by

              Well, after spending the afternoon screwing around with the xintensity, the best I could get was a bump up from 325k to 327k for the 290’s and a loss from 308k to 298k for the 290x’s.

              Back to straight intensities for me… (for now)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • A
                Alpha Wolf last edited by

                Glad to see some are finally take note about xIntensity I posted about way back in this thread. I have never use sgminer much at all

                and had pretty bad luck with it when I did test with it way back and since this went to neoscrypt so I didn’t put much time in trying to

                find a working version of sgminer that has xIntensity. I still have my old tweaked settings for all my AMD cards and will test those out

                soon and if there good to go I’ll post those to help others with the type of AMD cards I have on hand.

                I did try some testing with cgminer back a few weeks ago but didn’t have the neoscrypt kernel we have now to test with. ;-)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • I
                  insanid last edited by

                  Guys i use this miner

                  and @majsta settings in my .bat file

                  (280x+7950…3rd is 5850 and its off). 14.4 drivers, W7x64, 1000(gpu)/1500(mem) for both cards

                  and you can see results v5vPf8Y.png

                  edit:

                  .bat file without --thread-concurrency got only HW…

                  So you inspired me to test these settings on one of my mining rigs, which has a AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) and a AMD HD 7870 (Unknown). Here are the results:

                  Using previous settings:

                  Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) @ gpu-engine1100 gpu-memclock1500

                  I15 g1 w64

                  272 Kh/s

                  AMD HD 7870 (Unknown)

                  I15 g1 w64

                  115.6 Kh/s

                  Using new settings:

                  Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) @ gpu-engine1100 gpu-memclock1500

                  xI3 g2 w256 lookup-gap2 thread-concurrency8192

                  327.3 Kh/s

                  AMD HD 7870 (Unknown)

                  xI3 g2 w64 lookup-gap2 thread-concurrency8192

                  126 Kh/s

                  Hash Rate Summary:

                  Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix): +20.2%

                  AMD HD 7870: +9%

                  Sapphire Vapor-X 290x (Hynix): Takes a performance hit. Traditional intensity works better.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • C
                    cisahasa last edited by

                    solved!! used miner NOT compiled by wolf!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      cisahasa last edited by

                      I believe they are going off the actual DLL versions of the files, and not using the Catalyst version like most of us do. So when they say 14.2 it is probably Catalyst 14.6 RC2 or Catalyst 14.7 RC3.

                      yep, not talking about catalyst version, but actual driver version

                      AMD Catalyst 14.9 (14.201.1009)

                      now trying 14.9rc2, first look seems its fastest(like 0.5%)

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        slowhash Regular Member last edited by

                        So you inspired me to test these settings on one of my mining rigs, which has a AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) and a AMD HD 7870 (Unknown). Here are the results:

                        Using previous settings:

                        Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) @ gpu-engine1100 gpu-memclock1500

                        I15 g1 w64

                        272 Kh/s

                        AMD HD 7870 (Unknown)

                        I15 g1 w64

                        115.6 Kh/s

                        Using new settings:

                        Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix) @ gpu-engine1100 gpu-memclock1500

                        xI3 g2 w256 lookup-gap2 thread-concurrency8192

                        327.3 Kh/s

                        AMD HD 7870 (Unknown)

                        xI3 g2 w64 lookup-gap2 thread-concurrency8192

                        126 Kh/s

                        Hash Rate Summary:

                        Sapphire Reference AMD HD 7950 (Hynix): +20.2%

                        AMD HD 7870: +9%

                        Sapphire Vapor-X 290x (Hynix): Takes a performance hit. Traditional intensity works better.

                        That’s blazing fast! Just need to find those magic settings for the 290/290x now…

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • I
                          insanid last edited by

                          That’s blazing fast! Just need to find those magic settings for the 290/290x now…

                          The 290x is a bit of a mystery atm. Not quite sure why an AMD HD7950 can outperform it on neoscrypt.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • I
                            insanid last edited by

                            yep, not talking about catalyst version, but actual driver version

                            AMD Catalyst 14.9 (14.201.1009)

                            now trying 14.9rc2, first look seems its fastest(like 0.5%)

                            AMD hasn’t changed the OpenCL 1.2 DLLs from 14.6 Beta all the way to 14.11. I doubt there will be any speed improvements.

                            I take that back. They have changed the AMD OpenCL drivers; however, in my testing anything higher than 14.7 RC3, which uses the same OpenCL 1.2 1526.3 as 14.6 RC2, you will get HW errors trying to generate bins. This new kernel from wolf doesn’t appear to get any boost from newer drivers after the bins are created.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • C
                              cisahasa last edited by

                              file size is not same…

                              bins now created ok, no hw erros with 14.9-14.11 catalyst

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • I
                                insanid last edited by

                                file size is not same…

                                yeah the checksums aren’t going to match, most likely because they are re-signing the drivers on every release, which is going to end up with a different checksum every time even though versions are identical.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • I
                                  insanid last edited by

                                  file size is not same…

                                  bins now created ok, no hw erros with 14.9-14.11 catalyst

                                  You have to remove all amd opencl DLLs from the sgminer folder.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • C
                                    cisahasa last edited by

                                    using now dlls from 14.11

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • A
                                      Alpha Wolf last edited by

                                      Not seeing any magic dust in -x for neoscrypt like I did with scrypt mining with the testing I’ve done so far. :-

                                      Pair of R9 270 non X

                                      a4779539d85005903e12baecfec75149.png

                                      "xintensity" : "4,4",
                                      "vectors" : "1,1",
                                      "worksize" : "64,64",
                                      "thread-concurrency" : "8192,8192",
                                      "gpu-engine" : "1100,1100,",
                                      "gpu-memclock" : "1450,1450",
                                      "gpu-fan" : "75,75",
                                      "gpu-memdiff" : "0,0",
                                      "gpu-powertune" : "0,0",
                                      "gpu-vddc" : "0.000,0.000",
                                      "temp-cutoff" : "90,90",
                                      "temp-overheat" : "85,85",
                                      "temp-target" : "70,70",
                                      "api-mcast-port" : "4028",
                                      "api-port" : "4028",
                                      "expiry" : "1",
                                      "failover-only" : true,
                                      "gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
                                      "gpu-platform" : "0",
                                      "gpu-threads" : "2",
                                      "log" : "5",
                                      "neoscrypt" : true,
                                      "no-pool-disable" : true,
                                      "queue" : "0",
                                      "scan-time" : "1",
                                      "temp-hysteresis" : "3",
                                      "shares" : "0",
                                      "kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin",
                                      "device" : "0-1"
                                      

                                      ad98deffd78135c9572fb7a5132fde84.png

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • M
                                        majsta last edited by

                                        try --rawintensity 6144 or 5020 or 4096, play with similar values

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • A
                                          Alpha Wolf last edited by

                                          -I 14 with basic same settings as -xI 4 system has no lagged with -xI 4 very small amount with -I 14

                                          d91e83573de4987ac775d2b04f143954.png

                                          "intensity" : "14,14",
                                          "worksize" : "64,64",
                                          "kernel" : "neoscrypt",
                                          "lookup-gap" : "2",
                                          "thread-concurrency" : "8192",
                                          "shaders" : "0",
                                          "gpu-threads" : "2",
                                          "gpu-engine" : "1150,1150",
                                          "gpu-fan" : "65,65",
                                          "gpu-memclock" : "1475,1475",
                                          "gpu-memdiff" : "0",
                                          "gpu-powertune" : "0",
                                          "gpu-vddc" : "0.000",
                                          
                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • I
                                            insanid last edited by

                                            Not seeing any magic dust in -x for neoscrypt like I did with scrypt mining with the testing I’ve done so far. :-

                                            Pair of R9 270 non X

                                            a4779539d85005903e12baecfec75149.png

                                            "xintensity" : "4,4",
                                            "vectors" : "1,1",
                                            "worksize" : "64,64",
                                            "thread-concurrency" : "8192,8192",
                                            "gpu-engine" : "1100,1100,",
                                            "gpu-memclock" : "1450,1450",
                                            "gpu-fan" : "75,75",
                                            "gpu-memdiff" : "0,0",
                                            "gpu-powertune" : "0,0",
                                            "gpu-vddc" : "0.000,0.000",
                                            "temp-cutoff" : "90,90",
                                            "temp-overheat" : "85,85",
                                            "temp-target" : "70,70",
                                            "api-mcast-port" : "4028",
                                            "api-port" : "4028",
                                            "expiry" : "1",
                                            "failover-only" : true,
                                            "gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
                                            "gpu-platform" : "0",
                                            "gpu-threads" : "2",
                                            "log" : "5",
                                            "neoscrypt" : true,
                                            "no-pool-disable" : true,
                                            "queue" : "0",
                                            "scan-time" : "1",
                                            "temp-hysteresis" : "3",
                                            "shares" : "0",
                                            "kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin",
                                            "device" : "0-1"
                                            

                                            ad98deffd78135c9572fb7a5132fde84.png

                                            That’s not bad hash rates for a 270. From what I recall, 270 is very similar to 7850-7870. My 7950 got a 22% increase and 7870 got a 9% hash rate increase using similar settings as you. Obviously, all cards aren’t made equal, and some like these settings, and others don’t.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post