NSGminer v0.9.2: The Fastest Feathercoin / NeoScrypt GPU Miner

ghostlander

@aciddude CGminer v3.7.8 is unmaintained, it’s OpenCL kernel is way too old. Me and Wolf0 have much faster kernels now. More fun to come ;)

AcidD

@ghostlander said:

@aciddude CGminer v3.7.8 is unmaintained, it’s OpenCL kernel is way too old. Me and Wolf0 have much faster kernels now. More fun to come ;)

Do you have any test settings I can try for my 280Xs ? right now i’m getting 205Kh/s per card but I swear I’ve seen people say they can get 400+ out of one R9 280X…

I’m using -g 2 -w 64 -I 13

ghostlander

@aciddude PM me your rig details, I’m sure we can work it out.

AcidD

@ghostlander said:

@aciddude PM me your rig details, I’m sure we can work it out.

Thanks dude, I sent you a chat on the FTC forum…since either i’m blind…or I cant see a PM function.

D

Wellenreiter

@aciddude Chat == PM ;)

AcidD

@Wellenreiter said:

@aciddude Chat == PM ;)

Ha ha, yes I kind of guessed this.

for anyone who cares…I used to have 2 miners hashing at 0.90 Mh/s with the new miner software from Ghostlander my total hashrate is now 2 Mh/s :-) the correct response is…“WOOOOP!”

does anyone have Lizhi’s p2pool details? we were skyping and he mentioned going to block version 3…I said I’d throw some hashing power his way but I cant find his pool details.

Wellenreiter

Normally you can find the p2pool nodes here: http://p2pool.neoscrypt.de/

Lizhi’s pool is in china and the IP address starts with 215.X.X.X

It seems to be offline at the moment.
The address for your miner would be 215.X.X.X:19327
User = <your wallet address>
Pass = <any>

There is no real difference for the miner, just the wallet running at the pool is able to use Block Version 3

Block version 3 is not enforced at the moment, as older versions of the client can’t use it.

Please deem the 0.9.5 and 0.11.X versions of the wallet/daemon as developer versions until one of them get’s a release flag on github and is annouced as release here. :D

FlatBlack

@aciddude said:

@Wellenreiter said:

@aciddude Chat == PM ;)

Ha ha, yes I kind of guessed this.

for anyone who cares…I used to have 2 miners hashing at 0.90 Mh/s with the new miner software from Ghostlander my total hashrate is now 2 Mh/s :-) the correct response is…“WOOOOP!”

does anyone have Lizhi’s p2pool details? we were skyping and he mentioned going to block version 3…I said I’d throw some hashing power his way but I cant find his pool details.

ayyyeeeeee, mate… always saw ur name at d pool ther…but never talkin…

hye ho then…

plus, d best thing is, it shows d current block we re workin and will be pay…is it right that, @ghostlander…?

ghostlander

@FlatBlack said:

plus, d best thing is, it shows d current block we re workin and will be pay…is it right that, @ghostlander…?

If you find it indeed :) If your share carries enough diff to solve a block, the miner says “Accepted FA384AFC04000000x0 Diff 873.249/2.000 BLOCK! OCL 1 pool 0”. If the pool doesn’t report this block as solved later, it steals from you.

AcidD

:sunglasses:

alt text

ghostlander

About 40K FTC received in donations, that’s about 0.3 BTC. Keep’em coming ;)

I’ve ordered a Gigabyte GTX 750 Ti (GV-N75TOC-2GI). Have got it today and testing now. I’m able to get 115KH/s at 1200MHz shaders or 133KH/s at 1400MHz shaders (~70% TDP). There are minor issues, but shares get solved just fine, no HW errors.

RIPPEDDRAGON

sending 800ish ftc for now to you, have my withdrawal addr set to you for now as well ;)

running at 3MH/s currently, hoping to add another 2.4 MH/s tonight Muhaha, lots of work though holy shhhh

AmDD

This is probably a dumb question, but can you explain the screen output? Its been awhile since I have used CG or BFGMiners.

Specifically the hash rate, there seems to be three per video card listed - what does each one represent?

ghostlander

@AmDD It’s in the README:

5s: A 5 second exponentially decaying average hash rate
avg: An all time average hash rate
u: An all time average hash rate based on actual accepted shares

The same per GPU.

AmDD

@ghostlander said:

@AmDD It’s in the README:

5s: A 5 second exponentially decaying average hash rate
avg: An all time average hash rate
u: An all time average hash rate based on actual accepted shares

The same per GPU.

I saw where it explained 5s and avg but didnt continue reading further where it mentions the columns. Thanks.

RIPPEDDRAGON

I used to run my miners with -c pools.conf and had multiple pools with failovers in that file, what is the syntax for this miner? I cant seem to get it to work with my pool file.

ghostlander

@RIPPEDDRAGON Let it write a config file and edit it. [S] and [W]

RIPPEDDRAGON

thanks, ill take a look when I get back tonight

Wolf0

Still not quite the fastest - I can reach just under (sometimes slightly above) 430kh/s on a 7950. Ghostlander’s latest result (his v7 Beta kernel) that he posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=712650.msg13611456#msg13611456 is 400kh/s on a 7990.

Now, there IS a big discrepancy with our clock speeds - I’m running 1100/1500 while he’s running 850/1250 - but there’s also a discrepancy on compute unit count: a 7950’s core has 28 compute units (CUs), while a 7970’s core (of which the 7990 has two of) has 32 CUs each. Because of this, and the face NeoScrypt as used in Feathercoin’s proof-of-work is compute-bound on current GPUs - NOT memory-bound, as is a common misconception, or at least, a good implementation should not be - on a 7970 (or R9 280X), NeoScrypt should have a 14.286% boost in hashrate over a 7950 (or R9 280).

For fun, before I lower my clocks and test again, I’ll estimate based on core clock speeds: My kernel should lose 29.412% speed at 850 core (I’ll drop the memclock, too, but I don’t think it’ll have much of an effect at all), which means my new hashrate on 7950 should turn out to be 303kh/s.

@ghostlander said:

I recall SGminer recommends to use xintensity. It isn’t guaranteed to deliver power of 2 thread numbers which is a must for my kernel. The classic intensity results in (2 ^ intensity) thread numbers which is fine.

I highly disagree that this is “fine” - assuming that means optimal. However, I haven’t patched in any xintensity support yet, so I’m still forced to use the very coarse-grained classic intensity as well.

Wolf0

I’m rather surprised - but not totally confused - by the results of my test. The clocks 850/1250 on 7950 result in a hashrate over 350kh/s on 7950 with my code. I wondered if there was a reason besides the heat (and therefore probably downvolting) that caused Ghostlander to pick those rather low clocks.