Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 04:45:45 PM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 03:59:48 PM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 03:38:45 PM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 02:23:55 PM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 02:05:11 PM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 01:21:04 PM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 11:10:08 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 10:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 03:15:16 AM

Quote from: thefix on February 04, 2016, 01:39:00 AM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

Nope that is for 14 round blake. On 8 round blake i get 2.5GH/s & 920 MH/s. I am mining VNL right now. I am a noob but not that much.

*facepaw* VNL is 8 round.

@wolf exactly 8 round blake on VNL is giving me 2.5 GH/s & 920 MH/s and 14 round gives me 1.5GH/s & 520MH/s on ccminer. What is facepalm about it? still cgminer is 80% less than what i get on ccminer for 14 round blake. Also 14 round blake is 60% of 8 round blake on ccminer so there is some room for improvement if as you say it should be 80% of 8 round blake. Dude you totally taking me for a moron or am i really missing something here?

I don't get it - how are you testing an 8 round Blake-256 on ccminer when it's not implemented?

Its implemented for VNL for sure & i guess for blakecoin as well, although i am not sure, in tpruvot's ccminer fork. I am using that.

See, when you say things like that, it makes me think you misunderstand. You see, VNL uses eight round Blake-256. Blakecoin uses 8 round Blake-256. Decred is the only one I know of using 14-round Blake-256, and it doesn't have a CCMiner implementation yet as far as I know, so I'm unsure as to how you've benchmarked it.

Not to pissed anyone.. but Wolf0, I'm assuming he is using this: https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/blob/windows/ccminer.cpp#L1833 to benchmark..