Quote from: dga on January 13, 2014, 08:16:48 PM
For those who don't feel like reading through a bunch of source code but find the algorithmic issues interesting, I've posted a little writeup on my blog about the basic problem and solution used in the GPU PTS miner:

http://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/01/gaining-momentum-duplicate-detection-in.html

  -Dave

Hi dga.
Your work is fantastic. But I do have a small request for the next build, and I would like to ask if it's possible: Could you implement the interactive mode like cudaminer. Your miner is already top, efficient and in low temperature for the card, but I can't use the computer anymore if I let it runs. Cudaminer has the interactive switch, so if you switch this on, you lose about 5-10% of hash, but you won't notice much about how your computer lags. I would be very happy with this.

Thanks dga.

Regards.

Quote from: r05 on January 12, 2014, 06:50:33 PM
I would really like to see a working, platform-independent OpenCL miner hosted on github. The 1gh miner is all well and good but if you run anything other than Ubuntu, you can't work with it. I can't get it to compile on Deb 7 for love nor money because the version of glibc I'm running is newer than the one you're supposed to compile it on!

I can run 1gh miner in Gentoo without any problem. But I don't have any AMD card and I like beeer pool more so I stick with dga's Cudaminer.

Quote from: donschoe on January 12, 2014, 05:10:58 PM

Quote from: AizenSou on January 12, 2014, 05:02:32 PM

Quote from: infovortice2013 on January 12, 2014, 12:59:47 AM
why is going down the price of pts so quicly? ... is expectec to go down until 0.001btc per pts?

It's maybe because of the new GPU miner. People mine it and dump it. So expect big dump like MMC soon.

No way. A high end Nvidia card makes maximum 1 PTS/day.

Even if you have a farm of - let's say - 100 GPUs, you wont be making more than 3000 PTS/month. That's far from being a real dumping volume.

You can't compare the situation with MMC, much lower diff and much higher block rewards. PTS is getting closer to be mined out.

I believe you donschoe :D To be honest I was planning to sell all of my PTS when I heard the news about the GPU miners. So I will keep PTS until the price exploding like BTC. If it happens I will call you my master, mod :D

Quote from: infovortice2013 on January 12, 2014, 12:59:47 AM
why is going down the price of pts so quicly? ... is expectec to go down until 0.001btc per pts?

It's maybe because of the new GPU miner. People mine it and dump it. So expect big dump like MMC soon.

Quote from: Riverhead on January 12, 2014, 03:18:50 PM

Quote from: r05 on January 12, 2014, 02:30:27 PM


+1. In my opinion you need at least a week on a pool to decide whether to stay or not.

Agreed.  I'll let it run for a week or two and see where it's at then.  It seems there is some rapid development going on with GPU mining PTS as well so the mining landscape may change a bit even by then.

I can tell you about my experience. The first pool I tried is beeer pool. I have around 24k cpm so I expected to get 9-10PTS per day. So I mined with beeer pool around 12 hours and they found nothing. I got upset and checked another pool. I don't like ypool or ptspool.com so I try 54.238.185.113 pool since they are in the same level with beeer pool (50% more workers but 30% less shares) and at the time I checked they found round 3 blocks in 6 hours. Ok I sent my 24k cpm machines there and hoped :D.  Fortuna doesn't smile this time with me too and 54.238.185.113 pool won't found any block in 10 hours I mined with them. In that time beeer pool found 2 blocks and I got around 2PTS from my last shares. What did I should do? Well I pissed of with the checking pool routines and decided to stick with beeer pool since I like how the admin answers. Although beeer pool only found 3 or 4 blocks per day for 2 days but I don't care any more. Fortuna plays with me enough so it maybe get better. Since the time I sticked with beeer pool they found block every 2 hour. lol

But you can still have a rough calculation for pool luck if you have time to study their found blocks log. Then decide yourself and stick with it at least a few days before making any decision.

PS: 54.238.185.113 pool found 2 blocks and pays me around 1PTS for 10hours mining. I won't say it is worse, it is just too difficult to measure exactly if luck plays a big role.

Quote from: Riverhead on January 12, 2014, 01:09:36 PM

Quote from: Avant on January 12, 2014, 12:44:10 PM

Quote from: Aber on January 11, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
I saw that 1gh got pool with miner for amd and nvidia :) (pts.1gh.com)

It seems that the 1gh pool get less block by now.

If they can stay ahead of the GPU arms race people will slowly migrate over and then they'll be the block king for a while.  I haven't been following this super close but I suspect either a generic miner (not one hard coded to pts.1gh.com) or a ypoo/beeeeer.orgl gpu miner, will be released eventually and then the tide will swing back.


Currently I'm earning more GPU mining pts.1gh.com even with few blocks found that I was cpu mining pts.beeeeer.org.  By a lot.


Edit: I'm still not sure this is worth it though; at least not yet.  In my VERY brief (10 hours) time GPU mining PTS I can extrapolate an income of approximately 14PTS/m at 1800cpm.  I know it's a very very small sample set and cpm is hard to predict income...however bear with me.  14PTS can currently be bought on the open market for about $14/PTS or $192.  With the same hardware I get about 1.5MHs mining LTC which yields about 11.6 LTC/m.  At $25/LTC that's about $290, or 20PTS...a 42% improvement.  So unless the PTS.1gh.com luck improves in the next couple days (I'll leave it running for a larger sample set) I'd still be better off mining LTC and buying PTS.

You state the fact yourself. It is very difficult to judge with only 10 hours mining with one pool, because it depends greatly on pool luck. You can mine with one pool for the whole day but they found only 2 blocks but another day they found block every hour (with the same difficulty). It is my experience. So test your pool for at least a few days before making any decision.

Quote from: 029xue on January 12, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
The PTS estimated difficulty is continue decreasing those days, the latest difficult is:

Code Select Expand

Estimated difficulty: 0.01256943 (83.81%)

With so many GPU miners released those days, I had thought the difficulty should increase much after that, but seems that not happen.

Dose that even mean the added GPU powers cannot catch up the lost of CPU powers? That's seems not a good news...

1. the new introduced GPU miners don't have superior performance vs. CPU miners. It just works more efficient and provides miners more options to mine PTS. Normally you have only 1 CPU in one computer but now you can have at least 1 GPU more to mine PTS.
2. some big boy miners still don't know about the new PTS-GPU miners. I did see a miner in 1gh pool with over 200k cpm, but some big boys in China could get over 1mil cpm alone with their AMD farm. Even if they know about it, they still consider about the profit of mining PTS vs. mining altcoins. There was no accurate PTS mining calculator available, so they still test it first before moving their big farm to PTS.
I don't think it will change drastic the total hashrates in such a short time. The GPU miners are just available for a few days. So why don't you enjoy mining PTS while it's still in low difficulty? Next week maybe totally different, who know :D

PS: I expect big dumps from PTS in short time like altcoins soon.

Quote from: dga on January 12, 2014, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: r05 on January 12, 2014, 12:46:50 PM

Quote from: bitminer9000 on January 12, 2014, 03:50:12 AM
with the new version it's look like im down 100c/m per gtx 295
each gpu in the gtx 295 was getting 340+ now it is only getting 290c/m

+1 to this - my GT210 dropped from 80c/m to 50c/m with the latest update.

That's no good. :(

Did you both let it run for a while before comparing the #s?  It can take an hour or two (particularly with slower cards) for the rate to become steady.  I'm going to add another "speed" metric that's a bit more relevant to quick benchmarking, but for now, c/m it is. :)

I'm surprised.  The changes I made shouldn't be large, and slower cards, if anything, should see almost no effect.

I can confirm too, dga.
I have test at least each card for 1 hour but the maximal rate drops at least 10% in comparison to your previous version. I don't check the memory consumption or temperature.

Quote from: dga on January 11, 2014, 05:28:10 PM

Quote from: AizenSou on January 11, 2014, 02:36:11 PM

dga, do you have any idea why GTX680 card is not faster than 580? And there is any improvements of sm3.5 over sm3.0? In my test 3.5 card (GTX780) loses 20% cpm when using sm3.5 over sm3.0.
Thanks in advance if anyone could explain it for me.

Because the biggest bottleneck with my current design is memory latency and the number of memory references that can be in flight at a time.  This isn't something that improves nearly as fast with different generations of cards (and sometimes gets worse).  Though I'm surprised at your 780 slowing down with sm_35.  I'll have to try that.

Lesee.  K20c I get 1104 c/m with sm_35.  Results are nearly unchanged with sm_30.

The biggest crypto-related improvement in sm_35 is the funnel shifter, but the design of Momentum is less crypto-intensive than a lot of PoW functions because it generates 8 memory references for every one execution of SHA512.  This is in part why I don't expect there to be as big an nvidia-AMD gap (except that by being so much faster, the AMD crew can try to exploit space/time tradeoffs in different ways.).

I'm playing around with some very different design options for faster cards, but haven't decided on anything I really like yet.

Someone over 1gh pool did something similar like you, dga.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1784.0

I just gave it a short test, and so far I can say that this GPU miner has some similar performance with your miner ( around 10% more depends on cards but it uses at least 2 threads of CPU with 100% load). Temperature of cards stay the same but more memory is required (1.2GB).

Since he doesn't public his code I can say for sure but it maybe use your code. And there some reports that it works with AMD cards too.

PTS mining is exploding in a few days.

Quote from: dga on January 11, 2014, 01:54:38 PM

Quote from: donschoe on January 11, 2014, 10:34:56 AM

Quote from: AizenSou on January 11, 2014, 10:13:51 AM
GTX 780 - 1800cpm

Jesus Christ!

* donschoe went off shopping!

grin.  Now you're seeing which platforms I'm able to develop for.  Gorgeous result.

I have a dual GTX690 rig that's currently doing about 3600 c/m.  I like it.

dga, do you have any idea why GTX680 card is not faster than 580? And there is any improvements of sm3.5 over sm3.0? In my test 3.5 card (GTX780) loses 20% cpm when using sm3.5 over sm3.0.
Thanks in advance if anyone could explain it for me.

Quote from: archit on January 11, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
Any one who can test my miner as well and see how the speeds compare?

I would like too, but without source I can't compile for linux. I have a quite broad range of nvidia cards lying around, so it's very interesting to test, but my computer is all linux so windows binary is impossible for me :).

Quote from: xolokram on January 11, 2014, 12:15:46 PM

Quote from: AizenSou on January 11, 2014, 10:51:15 AM

Quote from: donschoe on January 10, 2014, 11:22:24 PM
I dont understand all these complaints! This pool made me rich!

Maybe the pool has incredible unluck a last few days. I send 24000 cpm to the pool for one day and only 4 blocks were found. The difficulty is not rising the last few days too. One of the reason is because of ypool.net has grown too big for PTS.

https://coinplorer.com/Charts/Difficulty/PTS -> wednesday? network is growing.

@noobster:
no, i'm currently working on the primecoin pool/miner & website

- xolokram

ps. small pool maintainence incoming!!!! server will be down for a few minutes *done*

I know that the difficulty explodes since 07-01 (maybe because of the new GPU miner). I just test your pool for one day so it's not easy to make some judgements too. I just share my opinion :). Since rpoot.net has more workers than beeer.org, I just have the impression that rpool.net is bigger, but they only find 5 blocks/day. So your pool is still more efficient.
Btw how could I see the total cpm of the pool ?

Thanks.

Quote from: donschoe on January 10, 2014, 11:22:24 PM
I dont understand all these complaints! This pool made me rich!

Maybe the pool has incredible unluck a last few days. I send 24000 cpm to the pool for one day and only 4 blocks were found. The difficulty is not rising the last few days too. One of the reason is because of ypool.net has grown too big for PTS.

Quote from: dga on January 11, 2014, 02:35:36 AM
2014-01-01 update:

I've committed some new changes to the repository.  Some are cosmetic, but three are important:

  1)  Memory use on the host side is reduced by about 500MB.  This may or may not matter for you.

  2)  Speed is boosted by 10-20% on a lot of platforms.  I have another speed boost patch coming next week once I've made it not horrible, but this one gets a decent chunk of the gains.

  3)  There's now a developer fee that goes to me.  Kinda. 

I'm doing an experiment with this code release in the developer fee:  It's easy to disable.  It's not hidden.  But it's also just a list of addresses that share the dev fee equally.

So here's my proposal:  If you port this software to another platform or release a binary, don't remove my address.  Instead, add yours to the list -- I've tried to make it super easy for you to get your own share.  If this works out, I'll continue to release improvements and try to make it even easier for other developers who improve upon the code, because we'll all have a reason to make software that remains open source and which is user-friendly and high performance.

If you think this is horrible, let me know and let's try to find a way to make it work better.

If you're a user who hates the idea of a dev fee, the source is yours and you can delete the addresses listed there and/or add your own.

  -Dave

You mean 10-01-2013 update?  ;D

Superb work dga. Since I have a few Nvidia cards lying around, I report some of my test since yesterday.

cudarts version 08-01-2013 (v7 if I not mistaken)
GTX 780 - 1450cpm
GTX 680 - 650 cpm
GTX 580 - 850 cpm (3GB memory)
GTX 580 - 920 cpm (1.5GB memory)
GTX 570 - 750 cpm
GTX 260 - 290 cpm

cudarts version 10-01-2013 (v8)
GTX 780 - 1800cpm
GTX 680 - 950 cpm
GTX 580 - 820 cpm - 930 cpm (3GB memory) (the value varies depends on card manufactures)
GTX 580 - 960 cpm (1.5GB memory)
GTX 570 - 770 cpm
GTX 260 - 240 cpm

Yeah most of cards got very nice bump, but I notice some reduction too. But the most nice thing of V8 is my card running at least 3grad C lower. No change on memory consumption.
There some points I still don't understand:
1. Why GTX680 card not much faster than 580. The GTX680 runs with v7 even slower than GTX580.
2. I tried to compile with sm_35 for GTX780 cards. But it got around 10-15% slower than with sm_30.

Anyway I'm very happy with this. Thanks dga.