On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...
Code:
[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about.
Talking about the original, yep. Oh well, maybe my 970 is just jinxed
I had a similar problem with a previous version of keccak and compute 5.2 where none of the hash were getting validated due to some bad allocation (The content of the register wasn't what it was supposed to be... and the problem wasn't showing at compile time...)