Quote from: chrysophylax on December 12, 2015, 07:40:37 AM

Quote from: joblo on December 12, 2015, 03:37:29 AM

Quote from: Al_may on December 12, 2015, 03:27:09 AM

yep 76 is a 50% slow down for neo scrypt from 586 to 234
and quark is up 1.04 % from 17206 to 17972
time to run two folders

Has anyone compiled r76 for sm5.2 using cuda 6.5 (windows or linux to do a direct comparison with cuda 7.5?
I could only do it with 750ti's on Linux and there was virtually no difference.

Edit: however, they were both slower than 1.5.74-cuda6.5.

The numbers (gpu0/gpu1) both EVGA 750ti SC no OC.


            1.5.74(6.5)    1.5.76(6.5)     1.5.76(7.5)
x11         3090/3145      2985/3050       2980/3045
quark       6360/6450      6335/6380       6340/6400
lyra2v2     4715/4755      4680/4715       4680/4715

What a pain getting this to display correctly, this ain't WYSIWYG.

im compiling the the latest as we speak ... i was well enough to drive - so im here in the office at the moment ...

the only thing i can give a comparison rate to is quark ( from 74 - 76 ) on c7.5 ...

that doesnt exactly hep what you are asking - but it may be of interest to you regarding the last compiles i had with fedora ...

btw - i have upgraded to fedora23x64 on the test machine - and compiling with c7.5 and ccminer-spmod76 ...

#crysx

Unfortunately with Linux there are very few versions that support both cuda 6.5 & 7.5 so it's difficult to do
direct comparisons. I'm compiling r76 for cuda 6.5 on Windows (had to fiddle with the project file) so I can
directly compare the difference between r74-cuda6.5 vs r76-cuda6.5 and r76-cuda6.5 vs r76-cuda7.5.

Compiling on Windows is a pain. I have to rebuild my compile environment every month because VS shuts down
unless I register. I had to create a virtual machine snapshot before installing VS the first time, otherwise the
tombstone from the previous install would trigger the forced registration imediately.