System Requirement: Main Memory >=2GB, Video memory >=1.5GB. Less memory may work, this is to be tested. NVDIA cards that support at least SM 3.0 is required, view this page to find whether a NVDIA cards support it or not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
kernel_protoshares launch failed: invalid device function
PTS GPU Miner 0.1a beta 2014-01-09 by z.
Modified from jhProtominer (v0.1e).
=======================================
Launching miner...
Using 512 megabytes of memory per thread
Using 1 threads
Connected to server using x.pushthrough(xpt) protocol
xpt: Logged in with PhMJAUXox43NWQmUcyj5FHNHxjYA7VBter
New block data - height: 40835 tx count: 0
kernel_protoshares launch failed: invalid device function
collisions/min: 0.0000 Shares total: 0
collisions/min: 0.0000 Shares total: 0
collisions/min: 0.0000 Shares total: 0
collisions/min: 0.0000 Shares total: 0
No offence, but why post it with a newbie account...
No offence, but why post it with a newbie account...
with 0 tax ...... so weired
No offence, but why post it with a newbie account...
with 0 tax ...... so weired
Perhaps after bigger fish. Running a binary file from an unknown source is probably the most dangerous thing you can do. At the very least I'd only run this binary on a computer with a throw-away Windows install connected to a completely separate network from my other machines and then only if I felt this binary would return a substantial profit vs other avenues.
If you're getting something for free you'd otherwise need to pay for you're not the customer you're the product.
No offence, but why post it with a newbie account...
with 0 tax ...... so weired
Perhaps after bigger fish. Running a binary file from an unknown source is probably the most dangerous thing you can do. At the very least I'd only run this binary on a computer with a throw-away Windows install connected to a completely separate network from my other machines and then only if I felt this binary would return a substantial profit vs other avenues.
If you're getting something for free you'd otherwise need to pay for you're not the customer you're the product.
I gotta agree with this.
Screw reverse-engineering this. I am not going to try to patch it to mine to some other address--I had thought of establishing a donation address that way, to fund developing an open-source Windows compile (for example by mining five percent of the time to the donation address), but I'm not going to bother. And I am not going to run this executable.
If someone very expert with reverse-engineering/computer forensics wants to make sure this executable does nothing malicious, and/or patch it to mine to a donation address for the purpose I mention, I'd welcome that.
About my nickname: This (abc123) is the only account I have on this site, I registered it only to search posts on this bbs about 50 days ago, and I doesn't think that I will post a topic one day then. Now, I think abc123 is a very rare nickname, which can't be get on most site, so I decide to use it.
hope GPU Miner Windows 64bit binary version get out!!!Almost all mining work is done on GPU in my miner, so the mining efficiency of the 64bit binary version is same with 32bit's. As all x86-64 Windows system support 32bit exe file, the release of 64bit binary version makes no sense but to increase confusion. I will release the x86-64 exe file in my new version of this miner. You can test it by yourself then.
hoping for a sm2.1 version as my gtx 550 can't work on this...Today I am busy doing other things unrelated to coins. I will try to do this when I received the cards I booked.
If you're getting something for free you'd otherwise need to pay for you're not the customer you're the product.So if I opt to download a movie that was released on DVD instead of paying for it from Amazon, then I have become that DVD?!
If you're getting something for free you'd otherwise need to pay for you're not the customer you're the product.So if I opt to download a movie that was released on DVD instead of paying for it from Amazon, then I have become that DVD?!
I see your point. I think it's a sweeping statement and there are exceptions to the rule but on the whole - I think you've got some ground there. :) Especially when it comes to commercial entities offering normally paid-for services gratis.If you're getting something for free you'd otherwise need to pay for you're not the customer you're the product.So if I opt to download a movie that was released on DVD instead of paying for it from Amazon, then I have become that DVD?!
If you do the right kind of drug you may feel that way :D [size=78%]. [/size]
Google doesn't provide folks Gmail for free out of the goodness of their heart. They're scraping keywords from email to sell targeted ad opportunities. You're not their customer you're their product they sell to advertisers. You can extend that concept to just about everything of value you get for "free".
Usually harmless, sometimes nefarious. I just feel it's worth trying to understand the motivation behind someone giving me something for "free". Especially someone offering up a binary for folks to run as their first post :).
In the case of your downloaded movie: someone had to take the time to rip it, encode it, and publish it. Why would they do this? Perhaps the reason is as simple as they hate the MPAA, and frankly that's not hard, and feel their work is taking money out of MPAA's pocket. In that case you're no so much the product but the tool but the bottom line is they didn't do it for you and the cost is that if enough revenue is lost in this fashion less movies will be produced. Unlikely, but that's just the first scenario I came up with in the 30 seconds I've thought about the cost of your "free" movie. The adage gets a bit stretched when it comes to digital theft; especially if you never planed to buy the movie if you couldn't down load it...but I'm sure some folks download vs bought.
[I see your point. I think it's a sweeping statement and there are exceptions to the rule but on the whole - I think you've got some ground there. :) Especially when it comes to commercial entities offering normally paid-for services gratis.
Ha absolutely.[I see your point. I think it's a sweeping statement and there are exceptions to the rule but on the whole - I think you've got some ground there. :) Especially when it comes to commercial entities offering normally paid-for services gratis.
Agreed. Like most clever sayings (I got that one from one of those demotivational posters, I'm not that clever) it's best not to think too much on it :).
The adage gets a bit stretched when it comes to digital theft; especially if you never planed to buy the movie if you couldn't down load it...but I'm sure some folks download vs bought.
ATI/Radeon version possible?
And,
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." HDT
i can get this to connect to ypool.net no problem but for the life of me can't get it connected to 1gh.com.
any ideas?
i keep getting:
connected to server using x.pushtrough(xpt) protocol
xptserver_recievedata(): packet exeeds 2mb size limit
connectio to server lost
Using 512 megabytes of memory per thread
cudaMalloc failed 3!
GT220 sp 48 512M
win7 64
cudaMemcpu failed!
. After error speed stay slowly less than 2 times, but GPU memory is used.I have an error with miner. After 1-2 hour it calledI don't know the reason for this now. It should be "cudaMemcpy failed". Maybe because hardware error?Code: [Select]cudaMemcpu failed!
. After error speed stay slowly less than 2 times, but GPU memory is used.
My GPU is ASUS GeForce GTX 760 1006Mhz PCI-E 3.0 2048Mb 6008Mhz 256 bit
Where there may be an error?
IS there a problem with x64 version of windows?
I don't know the reason for this now. It should be "cudaMemcpy failed". Maybe because hardware error?
It seems not only cudaMemcpy failed, but also the following cudaFree failes.I don't know the reason for this now. It should be "cudaMemcpy failed". Maybe because hardware error?What kind of harware error it maybe? I overclock my GPU, maybe that is reason?
It's strange. I have 880 cpm and miner uses 690 mb memory GPU. After lose speed with error it's mine, but slowly, and use memory like before losing
Gforce GT630It seems that you are trying to connect pool (IP:Port) that don't support xpt protocol.
Don't use wide memory bus version miner core on CUDA
Connected to server using x.pushthrough(xpt) protocol
xptServer_receiveData(): Packet exceeds 2mb size limit
Connection to server lost - Reconnect in 21 seconds
Gforce GT630It seems that you are trying to connect pool (IP:Port) that don't support xpt protocol.
Don't use wide memory bus version miner core on CUDA
Connected to server using x.pushthrough(xpt) protocol
xptServer_receiveData(): Packet exceeds 2mb size limit
Connection to server lost - Reconnect in 21 seconds
My Quadro k2000 got 240 cpm. Is this speed normal?Yes, as Quadro k2000 has only 384SP and 128 bit memory bus, for comparison, GTX 660 Ti has 1344SP and 192 bit memory bus.
My Quadro k2000 got 240 cpm. Is this speed normal?Yes, as Quadro k2000 has only 384SP and 128 bit memory bus, for comparison, GTX 660 Ti has 1344SP and 192 bit memory bus.
It seems not only cudaMemcpy failed, but also the following cudaFree failes.I don't know the reason for this now. It should be "cudaMemcpy failed". Maybe because hardware error?What kind of harware error it maybe? I overclock my GPU, maybe that is reason?
It's strange. I have 880 cpm and miner uses 690 mb memory GPU. After lose speed with error it's mine, but slowly, and use memory like before losing
Maybe display driver crash happen, and you ignore the prompt.
Try to set your GPU to it's default frequency.
Also, 0.3 reports virus, but version 0.2 did not report virusUPX is a software to compress exe file. I use it on both versions of PtsGPUz you mentioned, the compress option of v0.3 is set to higher to get more compression ratio. This may be the reason why v0.3 is detected to be "(Suspicious) - DNAScan". I claim that there is no virus, and the miner will only connected to public mining pool (yPool and rPool) and the address you input in command line, no personal information gathered.
See here https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/ced9b7ad268fa116de2dde4e4cd0e8465a240f8916f37fc4e8185df67dda232f/analysis/
CAT-QuickHeal (Suspicious) - DNAScan 20140114
Malwarebytes Packer.ModifiedUPX 20140114
I'm sure this is just a false positive, but do you know why 0.2 and 0.3 have different detection for virus?
Again, thank you for your great miner, I am just curious.
use wide memory bus version miner core on cuda deviceNo, this only means that the miner choose to use different version of kernel function in it in order to optimize the performance.
i need other version? use 0.3x
Interesting, o well.Tesla is expensive, as there is no need for double precision calculation in PTS GPU miner, it will get just same performance with game level card with same numbers of SP, memory bus width and frequency.
Any idea how a Tesla M2090 or Tesla m2070Q would perform?
SP = 1664Yes, I think the performance will be around 1000 CPM.
Memory bus = 384 bit
Memory Frequency = 3700 mhz
Shaders = 512
Clock = 1301 mhz
Disregard price, how well would it perform in PTS mining? ~1000 CPM?
PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp
PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz
Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h
PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn
PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW
Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM
Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe
PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ
Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr
PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS
SP = 1664Yes, I think the performance will be around 1000 CPM.
Memory bus = 384 bit
Memory Frequency = 3700 mhz
Shaders = 512
Clock = 1301 mhz
Disregard price, how well would it perform in PTS mining? ~1000 CPM?
From what I can tell after unpacking it and quickly taking a look, is that upon start-up it chooses one of these addresses at randomCode: [Select]PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp
PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz
Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h
PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn
PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW
Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM
Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe
PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ
Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr
PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS
I haven't been able to see how it "donates" shares yet but I'll take another look later, it might create a new thread that is mining just for the author.
.data:00410464 DonateAddresses dd offset aPrmzjoyjtnwquv ; DATA XREF: _main+49Dr
.data:00410464 ; "PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS"
.data:00410468 dd offset aPaf3afiunis3zy ; "Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr"
.data:0041046C dd offset aPionw3qyrpcymw ; "PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ"
.data:00410470 dd offset aPg9fcf5e38r53n ; "Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe"
.data:00410474 dd offset aPdioyxkd7qrzrc ; "Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM"
.data:00410478 dd offset aPklad7rm3fdb8x ; "PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW"
.data:0041047C dd offset aPkwsurnglcb1v3 ; "PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn"
.data:00410480 dd offset aPs7f21ppz45dez ; "Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h"
.data:00410484 dd offset aPyvhpx1t3fh3ty ; "PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz"
.data:00410488 dd offset aPqjerkmdjzqsu6 ; "PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp"
v24 = rand() % 10;
RandomDonateAddress = DonateAddresses[v24];
but seems it is not used anywhere (tested for 2 hours with memory/hw breakpoints)
From what I can tell after unpacking it and quickly taking a look, is that upon start-up it chooses one of these addresses at randomCode: [Select]PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp
PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz
Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h
PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn
PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW
Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM
Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe
PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ
Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr
PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS
I haven't been able to see how it "donates" shares yet but I'll take another look later, it might create a new thread that is mining just for the author.
confirm, disasm result:Code: [Select].data:00410464 DonateAddresses dd offset aPrmzjoyjtnwquv ; DATA XREF: _main+49Dr
but seems it is not used anywhere (tested for 2 hours with memory/hw breakpoints)
.data:00410464 ; "PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS"
.data:00410468 dd offset aPaf3afiunis3zy ; "Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr"
.data:0041046C dd offset aPionw3qyrpcymw ; "PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ"
.data:00410470 dd offset aPg9fcf5e38r53n ; "Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe"
.data:00410474 dd offset aPdioyxkd7qrzrc ; "Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM"
.data:00410478 dd offset aPklad7rm3fdb8x ; "PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW"
.data:0041047C dd offset aPkwsurnglcb1v3 ; "PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn"
.data:00410480 dd offset aPs7f21ppz45dez ; "Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h"
.data:00410484 dd offset aPyvhpx1t3fh3ty ; "PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz"
.data:00410488 dd offset aPqjerkmdjzqsu6 ; "PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp"
v24 = rand() % 10;
RandomDonateAddress = DonateAddresses[v24];
holy crap - just got flashes of old school assembly, toiling away for hours and hours in a dark workroom... I thought I'd seen the last of memory registers for one lifetime.From what I can tell after unpacking it and quickly taking a look, is that upon start-up it chooses one of these addresses at randomCode: [Select]PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp
PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz
Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h
PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn
PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW
Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM
Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe
PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ
Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr
PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS
I haven't been able to see how it "donates" shares yet but I'll take another look later, it might create a new thread that is mining just for the author.
confirm, disasm result:Code: [Select].data:00410464 DonateAddresses dd offset aPrmzjoyjtnwquv ; DATA XREF: _main+49Dr
but seems it is not used anywhere (tested for 2 hours with memory/hw breakpoints)
.data:00410464 ; "PrMZjoyjtnwquvV87YDTEdqnXBqMQGuSwS"
.data:00410468 dd offset aPaf3afiunis3zy ; "Paf3aFiuNiS3ZYofKfFrbSRTfKPc5j1pkr"
.data:0041046C dd offset aPionw3qyrpcymw ; "PionW3qyRPcymWVuajtHHjaXJ3zMPaYsEZ"
.data:00410470 dd offset aPg9fcf5e38r53n ; "Pg9FCF5e38r53NjYKAH9MRGaFEhQRR6YZe"
.data:00410474 dd offset aPdioyxkd7qrzrc ; "Pdioyxkd7qRzrCTyTVamRAkYG5bJyo5raM"
.data:00410478 dd offset aPklad7rm3fdb8x ; "PkLaD7RM3FDb8XNJ8ikLwVowvURkaZddSW"
.data:0041047C dd offset aPkwsurnglcb1v3 ; "PkwSUrNgLcB1v3YHVKdtm9dEsMNYST5GAn"
.data:00410480 dd offset aPs7f21ppz45dez ; "Ps7f21PPZ45DEZFmzubq3HrvVm6GSer52h"
.data:00410484 dd offset aPyvhpx1t3fh3ty ; "PYvhPx1t3fh3tYqCm2fUtSJoXJRKCzfMwz"
.data:00410488 dd offset aPqjerkmdjzqsu6 ; "PqjeRKMDJZqSU6abycnpZ4hymit98Wnsxp"
v24 = rand() % 10;
RandomDonateAddress = DonateAddresses[v24];
You can see the address being loaded here, and then shortly after at the CALL EDI is when it is launching some new threads.
(http://i.imgur.com/V0eec1b.png)
I do not mind donating 20% of the mining to you, as long as you state clearly in the program that such donation exists. Not like the other existing miners which state donations when the program is launched, your software does not show such message, making us believe your software is free of tax. I think this is not right or honest. I find your software is easy to use, and I suggest you add the information in the program (not only in the readme file) to clarify donations.This will be added in next version of this miner. Now the 3th line of my post is capitalized and in red.
I do not mind donating 20% of the mining to you, as long as you state clearly in the program that such donation exists. Not like the other existing miners which state donations when the program is launched, your software does not show such message, making us believe your software is free of tax. I think this is not right or honest. I find your software is easy to use, and I suggest you add the information in the program (not only in the readme file) to clarify donations.This will be added in next version of this miner. Now the 3th line of my post is capitalized and in red.
Any idea why i can not run it on Amazon? It gives an error. Does it support Tesla?What error?
Now 20% is clearly stated."A small portion...", a small portion isn't 20% though is it? You should clearly state there is a 20% tax on earnings if you use this miner.I do not mind donating 20% of the mining to you, as long as you state clearly in the program that such donation exists. Not like the other existing miners which state donations when the program is launched, your software does not show such message, making us believe your software is free of tax. I think this is not right or honest. I find your software is easy to use, and I suggest you add the information in the program (not only in the readme file) to clarify donations.This will be added in next version of this miner. Now the 3th line of my post is capitalized and in red.
Now 20% is clearly stated."A small portion...", a small portion isn't 20% though is it? You should clearly state there is a 20% tax on earnings if you use this miner.I do not mind donating 20% of the mining to you, as long as you state clearly in the program that such donation exists. Not like the other existing miners which state donations when the program is launched, your software does not show such message, making us believe your software is free of tax. I think this is not right or honest. I find your software is easy to use, and I suggest you add the information in the program (not only in the readme file) to clarify donations.This will be added in next version of this miner. Now the 3th line of my post is capitalized and in red.
my version has a 3% fee ATM
my version has a 3% fee ATM
your version also fails via a quadro 5800, with same generic memory error 'cudaMemcpy failed!'
modified version 0.3 with less donates (20% -> 5%) and only one donation pool - http://www.multiupload.nl/QQQ4NFRNPLI have download this modified version and test it preliminarily, find it is ok. But still, use it at your own risks.
modified binary: PtsGPUz0.3_lessdonate.exe is protected against analyze
How this is possible that 480 have around 1030, when my 680 have 995-1000 and only 612MB (from MSI afterburner) VRAM works.The memory bus width of GTX 680 is 256 bit, while GTX 480 is 384 bit. So GTX 480 may get slight higher performance.
collisions/min: 1065.5970 Shares total: 47
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.5000
collisions/min: 1064.6135 Shares total: 47
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.5000
collisions/min: 1063.7899 Shares total: 47
gtx480 win7 64bit i3-2130 v0.3b
=============================
collisions/min: 1063.1238 Shares total: 47
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.4000
New block data - height: 42642 tx count: 0
collisions/min: 1062.6130 Shares total: 47
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.5000
collisions/min: 1062.6987 Shares total: 47
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.5000
collisions/min: 1063.4457 Shares total: 47
New block data - height: 42643 tx count: 1
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 5.5000
collisions/min: 1064.1855 Shares total: 47
The memory bus width of GTX 680 is 256 bit, while GTX 480 is 384 bit. So GTX 480 may get slight higher performance.
My ASUS GTX760-DC2OC-2GD5 get 1040 cpm with config 1200/7000 ! Amazing! Like 780!
On my 680 CMP is lower than on normal version...
Are u fuckin serious!?Your average payout in the long run does not depend on pool total CPM. Of course the dumber ones are free to trade their total payout for reduced variance.
You have the fastest CUDA miner, faster than 1GH and you can mine on YPOOL! Not shitty 1GH pool. where block found rate is lame low so profits too.
In future ofc it should be lower, but for now when devs jusy made amazing job he should get premium.
But anyway, does someone tried this version?
@edit
Scanned, no viruses.
On my 680 CMP is lower than on normal version...My ASUS GTX760-DC2OC-2GD5 get 1040 cpm with config 1200/7000 ! Amazing! Like 780!
You mean like 680 or 770...
(http://www.fotopu.com/image/511157)
(http://www.fotopu.com/img/1/511157-3.jpg) (http://www.fotopu.com/image/511157)
GTX760 1250/7600 1120CPM
(http://www.fotopu.com/image/511157)
(http://www.fotopu.com/img/1/511157-3.jpg) (http://www.fotopu.com/image/511157)
GTX760 1250/7600 1120CPM
Cudamemcpy failed ... :(
Been using this 0.3b for about one day. I've some problems. At first the speed was 1600CPM but this morning i found the speed was reduced to 800CPM.
My hardware is GTX780Ti
P.S This soft is very nice
Been using this 0.3b for about one day. I've some problems. At first the speed was 1600CPM but this morning i found the speed was reduced to 800CPM.I have the same problem ,because of Cudamemcpy failed
My hardware is GTX780Ti
P.S This soft is very nice
Been using this 0.3b for about one day. I've some problems. At first the speed was 1600CPM but this morning i found the speed was reduced to 800CPM.I have the same problem ,because of Cudamemcpy failed
My hardware is GTX780Ti
P.S This soft is very nice
My hardware is GTX580 At first the speed was 1200CPM
asus failed 1250/7600 ?
Is it possible to solo-mine with this miner? Can I, for example, point the miner to my own wallet?No support for solo-mining directly now. I am sorry that this work is on low priority.
680 gtx vram +500 (effective 7GHz the same like stock 770) GPU clock at 1202 MHz. Started mined minute ago and now have around 1350. AMAZING JOB MAN! Fee still 6%?Yes, still 6%.
PtsGPUz0.3c - ESET NoD 7.0 found Win32/Packed.NoobyProtect.GYes, software protection tool used in this version. It is safe.
On my 680 CMP is lower than on normal version...
strange, my results:
PtsGPUz v0.3c now released.
Main change log:
PtsGPUz v0.3c (2014-01-21):
1. Performance increased about 15% for card like GTX 660 Ti.
2. PtsGPUz0.3c.exe is protected from being analyzed by tools.
MD5 of PtsGPUz0.3c.exe: 729750e43eafa77e43c5cb2e034b7109
Net performance list:
GeForce GTX 660 Ti, 1344SP, 192bit, 1.5GB: 880 collisions/minute;
GeForce GTX 660 OEM, 1152SP, 192bit, 1.5GB, double cards: 1610 collisions/minute, 290 Watt whole machine;
GeForce GTX 560 OEM, 384SP, 320bit, 2.5GB, double cards: 1450 collisions/minute, 300 Watt whole machine.
GeForce GTX 480, 480SP, 384bit, 1.5GB: 1030 collisions/minute, 290 Watt whole machine.
SP = 1664
Memory bus = 384 bit
Memory Frequency = 3700 mhz
Shaders = 512
Clock = 1301 mhz
memory size = 4GB
My tesla m2090 is only getting about 600 CPM on both 0.3c and 0.3b. Do you think that the code could be more optimized to use a tesla or is this what I can expect from this card?In my opinion, the performance that can be archived for GTX 580 or Tesla m2090 should be at least ~1100cpm, but it isn't. I don't know why...
I have two tesla m2090 and both of them do about 600 or 650 CPM. So the hardware isn't bad or anything.Thank you. It could be my miner's fault. I am considering to buy a 3GB version of GTX 580 to see why cudaMemcpy failed.
Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the issue?
On my 680 CMP is lower than on normal version...
strange, my results:
I was using my GTX 780 on my gaming machine, w/ top of the line RAM, mobo, CPU, etc... w/o even overclocking it, it would get ~9.2 rounds per second... when I moved it to one of my old miner machines (though it isn't too bad, it's on a 680i SLI mobo, dual core e6850.. possibly the 2GB RAM?) it was only getting about 8 rounds per second
I guess that could be some of the difference
btw, would an 8800gtx be worth digging out of a storage shed for this? or would it be something like 200-300 or less?
GTX 690 very low
PTS GPU Miner PtsGPUz v0.3c 2014-01-17 by z.
Modified from jhProtominer (v0.1e yPool.net).
Fee rate 6%.
=================================================
Launching miner...
Using 2 threads
CUDA device 0 memory bus width: 256 bits.
CUDA device 0 memory free: 1618 MB, total: 2048 MB.
CUDA device 1 memory bus width: 256 bits.
CUDA device 1 memory free: 551 MB, total: 2048 MB.
Connected to server using x.pushthrough(xpt) protocol
xpt: Logged in with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New block data - height: 43923 tx count: 0
collisions/min: 210.0000 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 0.8000
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 0.9000
collisions/min: 240.0000 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 1.0000
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 1.1000
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
collisions/min: 270.0000 Shares total: 1
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 1.1000
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 1.0000
collisions/min: 266.2500 Shares total: 2
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 1.1000
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 0.9000
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
collisions/min: 303.0000 Shares total: 3
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
collisions/min: 332.5000 Shares total: 5
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 1.5000
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 0.9000
Share found! (BlockHeight: 43923)
collisions/min: 353.5714 Shares total: 6
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 1.0000
Rounds per second for GPU 1: 1.0000
I know of one issue for sure. My m2090 has 5375 MB of ram, but the miner only detects 4GB. Furthermore, nvidia-smi reports that the miner only actually uses 572 MB of the video card ram.The memory usage is designed 500~600MB in card with compute capability 2.0. To use more memory on my GTX 480 can't increase performance. The reason why Tesla m2090 only gets half of the anticipated performance remains unknown. Thank you.
Does that help ABC123?
me either, 2 gpu on 1 graphics card is very slow because the 2 gpu switch load very frequently, total work load is very lowThank you, guobacoo and badfox, for report the performance of double GPU on one card may be very low.
E:\Downloads\PtsGPUz0.3c\PtsGPUz0.3c>PtsGPUz0.3c.exe -o http://ypool.net:10034 -
u oddworld.cuda -p xyz -t 1 -d 0
PTS GPU Miner PtsGPUz v0.3c 2014-01-17 by z.
Modified from jhProtominer (v0.1e yPool.net).
Fee rate 6%.
=================================================
Launching miner...
Using 1 threads
CUDA device 0 memory bus width: 384 bits.
CUDA device 0 memory free: 4006 MB, total: 4016 MB.
Use wide memory bus version miner core on CUDA device 0.
Connected to server using x.pushthrough(xpt) protocol
xpt: Logged in with oddworld.cuda
New block data - height: 44127 tx count: 7
collisions/min: 771.4286 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 2.4000
collisions/min: 624.0000 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 3.3000
collisions/min: 646.9565 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 3.4000
collisions/min: 654.1935 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 3.3000
collisions/min: 615.3846 Shares total: 0
collisions/min: 622.9787 Shares total: 0
Rounds per second for GPU 0: 3.4000
^CTerminate batch job (Y/N)?
abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?I have two tesla m2090 and both of them do about 600 or 650 CPM. So the hardware isn't bad or anything.Thank you. It could be my miner's fault. I am considering to buy a 3GB version of GTX 580 to see why cudaMemcpy failed.
Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the issue?
Is it runs at 600 to 650 CPM initially, or only after cudaMemcpy failed?
abc123, below is the output for mining on the m2090. Normally I run without the "-t" and "-d" flag, but I have another nvidia GPU so I wanted to isolate the tesla card. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the m2090 speed?Thank you again.
abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?What version of GTX 580 do you use? Video memory size?
it's ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5Gabc123, below is the output for mining on the m2090. Normally I run without the "-t" and "-d" flag, but I have another nvidia GPU so I wanted to isolate the tesla card. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the m2090 speed?Thank you again.abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?What version of GTX 580 do you use? Video memory size?
abc123, below is the output for mining on the m2090. Normally I run without the "-t" and "-d" flag, but I have another nvidia GPU so I wanted to isolate the tesla card. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the m2090 speed?Thank you again.abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?What version of GTX 580 do you use? Video memory size?
2. PtsGPUz0.3c.exe is protected from being analyzed by tools.
ASUS 760 0.3c version 1160 cpm.my 760 1200/7600 1250cpm
ASUS 760 0.3c version 1160 cpm.my 760 1200/7600 1250cpm
use 0.3c fee3
ASUS 760 0.3c version 1160 cpm.my 760 1200/7600 1250cpm
use 0.3c fee3
How did you get your 760 OC memory that high? I am around 6700 right now. did you need to bump the voltage?
ASUS 760 0.3c version 1160 cpm.my 760 1200/7600 1250cpm
use 0.3c fee3
ASUS 760 0.3c version 1160 cpm.my 760 1200/7600 1250cpm
use 0.3c fee3
How you do it? I only have cudamemcpy failed :(
I think 0.3c is not optimized for gtx780tiSM 3.5 code generation will be added in next version. This may increase the exe file size.
with gtx760, arCUDAminer 1.0c can get less than 1000 cpm, while ptsGPU0.3c can get 1100+
with gtx780ti, arCUDAminer 1.0c can get 1900+ cpm, but ptsGPU can only get about 1720 cpm.
will you check this, @abc123?
abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?PtsGPUz0.3c has been tested on ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G, dirver vision 331.82, Win7 x64 SP1 for hours. No cudaMemcpy failed occor.
it's ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G
dirver vision 332.21
WIN7 X64 whith sp1
I think 0.3c is not optimized for gtx780tiSM 3.5 code generation will be added in next version. This may increase the exe file size.
with gtx760, arCUDAminer 1.0c can get less than 1000 cpm, while ptsGPU0.3c can get 1100+
with gtx780ti, arCUDAminer 1.0c can get 1900+ cpm, but ptsGPU can only get about 1720 cpm.
will you check this, @abc123?abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?PtsGPUz0.3c has been tested on ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G, dirver vision 331.82, Win7 x64 SP1 for hours. No cudaMemcpy failed occor.
it's ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G
dirver vision 332.21
WIN7 X64 whith sp1
The performance is ~1125 collisions/min. Have you overclocked your card? Does the power supplier powerful enough? Does the temperature of GPU core in normal range?
abc123 Can you modify the miner to auto restart when it’s display cudaMemcpy failed, before this ploblem is solved?PtsGPUz0.3c has been tested on ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G, dirver vision 331.82, Win7 x64 SP1 for hours. No cudaMemcpy failed occor.
it's ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 1.5G
dirver vision 332.21
WIN7 X64 whith sp1
in file
PtsGPUz v0.3c (2014-01-21), 2.50MB, MD5: cd48298831689962c549f43deaa008cf
have virus >:(
i scan by nod32
any guys have tried for gtx 590? how is the performance?bad
Hi abc123!Not supported now, it will prompt: "Invalid share, Reason: unknown-work" after a short run at pts.1gh.com.
Does your miner support pts.1gh.com? they added xpt protocol.
Which version of jhProtominer did you take as a base for your miner? Or, about what date did you check it out from github?Hi abc123!Not supported now, it will prompt: "Invalid share, Reason: unknown-work" after a short run at pts.1gh.com.
Does your miner support pts.1gh.com? they added xpt protocol.
Based on jhProtominer v0.1e, 2013-11-23.Which version of jhProtominer did you take as a base for your miner? Or, about what date did you check it out from github?Hi abc123!Not supported now, it will prompt: "Invalid share, Reason: unknown-work" after a short run at pts.1gh.com.
Does your miner support pts.1gh.com? they added xpt protocol.
I have built jhProtominer github commit from 2013-11-23 (bc32c370) and it appears to work just fine. Did all shares from your miner get rejected when you were testing or only some?Based on jhProtominer v0.1e, 2013-11-23.Which version of jhProtominer did you take as a base for your miner? Or, about what date did you check it out from github?Hi abc123!Not supported now, it will prompt: "Invalid share, Reason: unknown-work" after a short run at pts.1gh.com.
Does your miner support pts.1gh.com? they added xpt protocol.
Dev said 5%, in exe it shows 3%.... anyway, from 0.3c fee 3% version 1425 have now 1390, so I'm waiting for modded verrsion to real 3% dev fee.Wait, Dev said +5% ? ;D
Dev said 5%, in exe it shows 3%.... anyway, from 0.3c fee 3% version 1425 have now 1390, so I'm waiting for modded verrsion to real 3% dev fee.Uploaded version 0.4 with 3% fee - https://mega.co.nz/#F!gU1w2IBb!AFDn0wMejWAh2uwBUHx3rw
my gtx 780 went from 1750 collisions/m (OC) to 1400 with new versionThe performance of GTX 780 on version 0.4 and version 0.3c shoud be no difference. Use old version if you found the performance of newer version is lower.
was thinking it may be a RAM issue so i put in 2 more GB, so it has 4 GB now.. still same thing
share invalid : data time overflow <---- this is the error. Please help .using 7970 win os 7.0 64bitThis meas that your system time is incorrect.
my gtx 780 went from 1750 collisions/m (OC) to 1400 with new versionThe performance of GTX 780 on version 0.4 and version 0.3c shoud be no difference. Use old version if you found the performance of newer version is lower.
was thinking it may be a RAM issue so i put in 2 more GB, so it has 4 GB now.. still same thing
Any news?Hi abc123!Not supported now, it will prompt: "Invalid share, Reason: unknown-work" after a short run at pts.1gh.com.
Does your miner support pts.1gh.com? they added xpt protocol.
Any news?The same problem appears when I run CPU miner jhProtoming 0.1e. So it may because the compatibility between xpt versions.
hi, i have AMD Radeon HD7870 with 2GB memoryStrange. Is your main memory >=2GB ? Page file >=4GB ?
why dispaly "fails on allocate memory "
Hi everybody, I'm a full newbie and I just started in the mining...You can see it when you longin in yPool.net.
But I've tested the Miner on my 2x GTX580 system. It work very fine (around 2300-2400 cpm), thank you!
But now, I don't know exactly how to have a proof or verification of the mined PTS. Where can I see it?
Is it only at the end of the block? So after the ~47000 shares created?
I would appreciate you tell me a little more ... thank you very much!
Thank you abc123 ;)http://mrx.im/pts.php?cpm=10000
So I think I 've minig in the wind..! Because I have no account yet.
Concretely (because I haven't found a PTS minig profitability calculator!) if I mine now at ~ 10.000cpm, how can I hoped PTS per day?
Also, it is more profitable to mine in pool or solo?
Thank you for all! Regards
Could anyone tells me that is this Miner Able to mine coins like MMC MTC XPM?No, it is for PTS only just now.
I have a problem; I can't seem to connect to beeeeer's PTS pool, the miner stops responding then.Seems beer use a different protocol. Only 3 pools the author mentioned on the top post are avaliable with this miner.
Hello, i have try your miner and i see your minner connect on 54.238.185.113, i want to know what is this connexion please. Thank you.It is pts.rPool.net
Hello, i have try your miner and i see your minner connect on 54.238.185.113, i want to know what is this connexion please. Thank you.It is pts.rPool.net
Why im connected on pts.rPool.net when i mining on ypool ?Miner fee (develpoer fee) is 5%, it is send to ypool.net and one of pts.rpool.net or ptspool.com randomly.
Hi, abc123Thanks for your report.
I am using GTX 690 for pts. I reported one issue here by my experience. The 0.3c and 0.4 version could not work properly for GTX690 which based on what I found, the 2nd GPU only has 700 Mb RAM occupied, while 0.3b version works properly, i.e., both GPUs take 1.2-1.3 Gb ram and give me 2100 cpm.
I am here just wondering if you have chance to optimize the performance like GTX 690 (I believe 590 should face same issue) which has 2 GPUs on one board. It will be appreciated.
hi abc123, i get one problem that the miner runs on Win8.1 64bit physical machine with hyper-v service, and it shows an error "sorry, this application cannot run under a virtual machine " why?Thanks for your report. This may due to the wrong setting when I pack the miner, I am sorry for this. Try PtsGPUz v0.3b before new version release.
@abc123,There is no changes for Nvidia cards in version 0.4b and 0.4c.
Any changes for SM 3.0 Nvidia cards like the 770? If not, do you think there will be any more significant performance increases for these cards?
Hello.Please use version 0.4c released minutes ago. Version 0.4b is not optimized for AMD cards
I using you new miner for my geat miner rig on AMD videocards.
6 GPUS: Radeon 7970+7870+5850+5850+5850+5850.
And i get from all videocards only 3200 collisions\minute. :(
But When i using this miner: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2410.0
i received from five videocard 4000 collisions (miner on 6st the card didn't manage to start).
How can I run this miner on Ubuntu ? ???No. It is for Windows only till now.
hi abc123, 1gh?Still not supported. 1gh use a different version of xpt protocol.
Hi abc123, will be any performance improvement for Cuda? We all know AMD is much much faster. :-("AMD will is much much faster" is not true for SHA512, it is true for SHA256 and scrypt.
Hi abc123, will be any performance improvement for Cuda? We all know AMD is much much faster. :-("AMD will is much much faster" is not true for SHA512, it is true for SHA256 and scrypt.
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/766bb50a17b9bb339c748586d902bebfcfbfbb0afa1ba46fc0d8ff005dbdbdae/analysis/1392488299/It is shelled using the newest version of the software formerly called NoobyProtect. There is no detection before shell.
My friend's R9 280X can have 3100/3500 (default/OC) cpm on clpts-v0.2.2, and my gtx690 has 2200 cpm in total. I believe this means AMD now is much faster in SHA 512, single chip beats my two. clpts also asks for 2 threads for each chip like your miner, apparently, it is much more efficient and optimized.Thanks for the information you provided. I don't have a R9 280x just now, on my HD7850 2GB, clpts-v0.2.2 is ~15% faster displayed, ~10% faster net than PtsGPUz v0.4c, which net performance is 840 cpm.
Check this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.0
My friend's R9 280X can have 3100/3500 (default/OC) cpm on clpts-v0.2.2, and my gtx690 has 2200 cpm in total. I believe this means AMD now is much faster in SHA 512, single chip beats my two. clpts also asks for 2 threads for each chip like your miner, apparently, it is much more efficient and optimized.Thanks for the information you provided. I don't have a R9 280x just now, on my HD7850 2GB, clpts-v0.2.2 is ~15% faster displayed, ~10% faster net than PtsGPUz v0.4c, which net performance is 840 cpm.
Check this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.0
===================
Preliminary test result, only on HD6670 1GB:
AMD HD6670 1GB, test using AMD Catalyst 13.12, Windows 8 x64, G1610 CPU:
1. ominer 0.8, 425 cpm, fixed to upcpu, pool fee 2%, net performance user gets: 417 cpm;
2. PtsGPUz 0.4c, 380 cpm, pool fee 3% at ptspool.com, net performance user gets: 368 cpm;
3. ominer 0.9 preview 2, 336 cpm, fixed to upcpu, pool fee 2%, net performance user gets: 329 cpm;
4. clpts 0.2.2, 218 cpm, fixed to ypool.net, miner fee 5%, pool fee 5%, net performance user gets: 197 cpm.
Note: clpts 0.2.2 seem to be the fastest on AMD cards with 2GB or more video memory, but slowest on cards with 1GB memory.
The Tahiti improved in clpts 0.2 is significant, which used to net1200+ (similar to 680/670) in its v0.1 or any other miners now. I believe only clpts 0.2 makse a big step. If as you said, pts is designed by sha512, ,which should make no different, then I believe cuda has no reason behind AMD.I guess that the collision algorithm (not SHA512) in clpts 0.2.x is different from any other miners.
hi @abc123,could you make your application writes running log to stdout, so i can use my watchdog script capture mining stats and restart mining process when cpm fall to 0.000 CPM accidently.
now i cannot pipe out anything from stdout or stderr when ptsgpuz running. Even start miner and pipe to text file with "> log.txt " is not working. Thank you!
and the first reply of this post may help:http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/25c9a991-89df-4c70-b7d2-dd40eb35e235/redirecting-stdinstdoutstderr-for-windows-console?forum=vclanguage.Thanks. Without fflush(), it needs very long time to get something in the redirected "log.txt" file.
it's said if use printf and not calling fflush() on windows platform will make Pipe not working as expecting. i checked jhprotominer source code and find out it maybe the problem.
Is there a way to run this on only device y, z, instead of device x, y, z? I have a machine with r270, 5830, 5830... clpts would be faster with the r270, but it crashes when I run ptsgpu (which starts mining on the 3 amd gpus)... clpts gets 0 c/m for all my 1GB cards, not sure how you even run them... (none of the 5830, 5850, 7770, 7790, or 7850 with 1GB works)Not supported for AMD cards currently. The "-t", "-d" options only works for Nvidia cards now. Thanks for your advice.
What do you mean they are different? you mean the way clpts 0.2.x calculates cpm is different to other miners? Please specify, thanks.I means that he may find a very effective algorighm for cards like 280x.
Hello, how to mining only on one gpu.Thanks for your advice. Please use PtsGPUz v0.3c, which don't support AMD cards.
I want mining on gpu 0 (nvidia) without mining on gpu 1 (amd).
11 av detect this miner is a virus, can you reduce please ?This miner is protected from being analyzed by exe file shell tools, so may
I don't have a 780ti but I do have a 780. The miner reports around 2000cpm @1293/150211 av detect this miner is a virus, can you reduce please ?This miner is protected from being analyzed by exe file shell tools, so may
be reported for virus, take it easy. Maybe I will try to fix this in future.
================================
Note:
For GTX 750Ti at 780cpm, you will get 0.077 PTS per day at yPool.net
now in theoretical, only values $0.45 per day now. It is recommanded to mine
ProtoShares PTS 30+ days later when the network difficulty goes down.
Test needed:
Is there anybody who can test this miner (PtsGPUz0.5.exe and
PtsGPUz0.5_x64.exe) on NVIDIA GTX 780 Ti and report the performance?
Thanks very much.
I don't have a 780ti but I do have a 780. The miner reports around 2000cpm @1293/1502Thanks for the performance information you provided. I guess that the performance of GTX 780Ti will be 10% higher.
Thank you very much abc123! This GPU Miner v0.5 is the best in all your miners! 8) Before I use this miner v5.0, I used the v3.0b. Because my GTX780 Lightning 1254/1502 can run around 1800 cpm in v3.0b, but has problem in the other miners. It runs very slow in v4.0 to v4.0c. I have no idea about that! :( The other thing is my GTX770DC2OC 1254/1752 and GTX660DC2OC 1097/1502 can run around 2000 cpm in v4.0c, but just 1700 cpm in v3.0b :'( I was waiting for a long time that you can improve the miner. :( Finally! You made a new and wonderful miner again! :) I can run my GTX780*2+GTX770DC2OC+GTX660DC2OC around 5700 cpm in v5.0! :) Thank you very much again!It is my mistake that GTX780 runs very slow in v0.4, I am sorry.
I don't have a 780ti but I do have a 780. The miner reports around 2000cpm @1293/1502Thanks for the performance information you provided. I guess that the performance of GTX 780Ti will be 10% higher.Thank you very much abc123! This GPU Miner v0.5 is the best in all your miners! 8) Before I use this miner v5.0, I used the v3.0b. Because my GTX780 Lightning 1254/1502 can run around 1800 cpm in v3.0b, but has problem in the other miners. It runs very slow in v4.0 to v4.0c. I have no idea about that! :( The other thing is my GTX770DC2OC 1254/1752 and GTX660DC2OC 1097/1502 can run around 2000 cpm in v4.0c, but just 1700 cpm in v3.0b :'( I was waiting for a long time that you can improve the miner. :( Finally! You made a new and wonderful miner again! :) I can run my GTX780*2+GTX770DC2OC+GTX660DC2OC around 5700 cpm in v5.0! :) Thank you very much again!It is my mistake that GTX780 runs very slow in v0.4, I am sorry.
Technical explanation: SM (Shader Model) 3.5 code generation is added since version 0.4, hoping that will increase the performance for GTX 780Ti, but does decrease the performance around 20% for GTX 780 and GTX 780Ti. I did not find this before release as I don't have a GTX 780 and didn't ask others to test it. Further more, when zvs report that the performance on GTX 780 is poor, I just fell strange and ignore this report, as I am working on add supports for AMD card then.
Is there an install guide for nvidia cards at linux and is this faster than clpts miner for amd cards?whats the dev fee on this miner?1. This miner do not support Linux currently.
i want to use this miner with 3x r290 and 2 x Gtx 680.Do you think they will work together @ windows 7?And what will be their cpm.I am getting 4k+ from 290s at linux with clpts v.0.2.2Is there an install guide for nvidia cards at linux and is this faster than clpts miner for amd cards?whats the dev fee on this miner?1. This miner do not support Linux currently.
2. Clpts do not support AMD card with 1GB or less video memory well, either very slow or doesn't work, depending on which driver you are using. Clpts seems also do not support many different cards on one machine well. This miner does, it is much faster on AMD card with 1GB video memory than clpts, otherwise with 2GB video memory clpts is faster.
3. Developer fee of this miner is 5% currently, no matter which pool you are using.
Something new.Thanks for the information you provided. You are right, it is because low PCI-E bandwidth when using PCI-E 1x risers.
I have 4 750ti's on usb powered risers:http://www.hashratesolutions.com/products/6-pack-pci-e-powered-riser-card-60cm-24-usb-3-0-cable
Before I used these I had 2 in the pci-e slots and was getting about 1,000 cpm now I only get 1,900 cpm or 487 cpm per card. It looks like my cards are running at 1x in the pci-e slots. Could that be the reason for the lower cpm?
When I ran another PTS miner I only lost about 40 cpm per card but it originally only got bee 580-600 cpm per card. I would much rather use this one.
i want to use this miner with 3x r290 and 2 x Gtx 680.Do you think they will work together @ windows 7?And what will be their cpm.I am getting 4k+ from 290s at linux with clpts v.0.2.2Clpts v.0.2.2 may runs much faster than my miner when using AMD R9 290. Please use "-da 10" option with my miner to avoid using of AMD cards, and run clpts v.0.2.2 on AMD R9 290 together with my miner on Nvidia cards to get best performance.
Something new.
I have 4 750ti's on usb powered risers:http://www.hashratesolutions.com/products/6-pack-pci-e-powered-riser-card-60cm-24-usb-3-0-cable
Before I used these I had 2 in the pci-e slots and was getting about 1,000 cpm now I only get 1,900 cpm or 487 cpm per card. It looks like my cards are running at 1x in the pci-e slots. Could that be the reason for the lower cpm?
When I ran another PTS miner I only lost about 40 cpm per card but it originally only got bee 580-600 cpm per card. I would much rather use this one.
Thanks abc for the response
Thanks for the information you provided. You are right, it is because low PCI-E bandwidth when using PCI-E 1x risers.
This is the test result of mine:
(Windows 8 x64, driver 334.89, PCI-E 1.1 x1, Single GTX 750Ti)
PtsGPUz0.5.zip x64: 140cpm;
PtsGPUz0.5.zip x86: 96cpm;
PtsGPUz0.3c ~ PtsGPUz0.4c.zip: 100~110 cpm;
PtsGPUz0.3b.zip: 582cpm.
I am trying to fix this. It is recommended to use PtsGPUz0.3b.zip when using risers with GTX 750Ti currently.
i want to use this miner with 3x r290 and 2 x Gtx 680.Do you think they will work together @ windows 7?And what will be their cpm.I am getting 4k+ from 290s at linux with clpts v.0.2.2Clpts v.0.2.2 may runs much faster than my miner when using AMD R9 290. Please use "-da 10" option with my miner to avoid using of AMD cards, and run clpts v.0.2.2 on AMD R9 290 together with my miner on Nvidia cards to get best performance.
Something new.Thanks for the information you provided. You are right, it is because low PCI-E bandwidth when using PCI-E 1x risers.
I have 4 750ti's on usb powered risers:http://www.hashratesolutions.com/products/6-pack-pci-e-powered-riser-card-60cm-24-usb-3-0-cable
Before I used these I had 2 in the pci-e slots and was getting about 1,000 cpm now I only get 1,900 cpm or 487 cpm per card. It looks like my cards are running at 1x in the pci-e slots. Could that be the reason for the lower cpm?
When I ran another PTS miner I only lost about 40 cpm per card but it originally only got bee 580-600 cpm per card. I would much rather use this one.
This is the test result of mine:
(Windows 8 x64, driver 334.89, PCI-E 1.1 x1, Single GTX 750Ti)
PtsGPUz0.5.zip x64: 140cpm;
PtsGPUz0.5.zip x86: 96cpm;
PtsGPUz0.3c ~ PtsGPUz0.4c.zip: 100~110 cpm;
PtsGPUz0.3b.zip: 582cpm.
I am trying to fix this. It is recommended to use PtsGPUz0.3b.zip when using risers with GTX 750Ti currently.
you think can i get 3k cpm from 2 xgtx 680?No. I think the performance should be around 2140 cpm with 2x GTX 680.
I just noticed that when running the 0.5 it puts a serious load on the cpu. Using a 1100T, I get all 6 cores at 93%-100% load.Strange behavior, I don't know what happened currently on your system.
Is there a setting to shift all the work to the gpu's?
EDIT: When running the 3b there is virtually no load on the cpu. I have one core that gets to maybe 25%.
you think can i get 3k cpm from 2 xgtx 680?No. I think the performance should be around 2140 cpm with 2x GTX 680.I just noticed that when running the 0.5 it puts a serious load on the cpu. Using a 1100T, I get all 6 cores at 93%-100% load.Strange behavior, I don't know what happened currently on your system.
Is there a setting to shift all the work to the gpu's?
EDIT: When running the 3b there is virtually no load on the cpu. I have one core that gets to maybe 25%.
The CPU usage should be less than 1% on average even with GTX 660 and AMD Athlon 64 2650e CPU (15W TDP 65nm CPU).
All heavy work is done on GPU in all versions of PtsGPUz.
Thanks for the information you provided.
whats the real fee of the v0.3c ,%6? and i am getting 2750cpm with 2xgtx680you think can i get 3k cpm from 2 xgtx 680?No. I think the performance should be around 2140 cpm with 2x GTX 680.
Yes.whats the real fee of the v0.3c ,%6? and i am getting 2750cpm with 2xgtx680you think can i get 3k cpm from 2 xgtx 680?No. I think the performance should be around 2140 cpm with 2x GTX 680.
i just used my 780 GPU o mine, collisions/min: 1617.1552, and the temperature raise to around 80°,is that normal?The performance is normal. zvs and lilunxm12 reported the performance of GTX 780 is around 2000 cpm when overclocked.
i can`t download this file "PtsGPUz0.5b", anybody who can send it to my Email: seven.ss@qq.com, THK.Try this link:
i can`t download this file "PtsGPUz0.5b", anybody who can send it to my Email: seven.ss@qq.com, THK.Try this link:
http://uploadingit.com/file/view/8bcwsjba4bzgclix/PtsGPUz0.5b.zip
By the way, the difficulty of BitShares PTS network adjusted down to 0.01030392 from 0.04121569 about 10 hours ago.