Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 12, 2013, 08:52:01 PM

Quote from: Vilepickle on July 12, 2013, 08:49:10 PM

Quote from: Chemisist on July 12, 2013, 08:36:43 PM

Quote from: tocket on July 12, 2013, 08:21:32 PM

I also notice a decline in PPS using Chemisist's code compare to the official (0.11). Getting an average of about 1800 PPS vs 2200 with official. I'm only running 12 threads as well, so it's not just affecting users with high thread counts.

Well, you're running with more threads than I was able to test (highest I got to was 8 on my core i7-950), so I'm not entirely sure why this is, though it could be that all threads are trying to access a single variable which is determining how long to let the sieve be woven for. I suppose that all these threads could end up blocking each other and cause a significant portion of idle time. It would be far more effective to have a sieve weaving time variable (see line 11 in my version of the prime.cpp: static volatile int sieveBuildTime = 0;) for each individual boost thread, but I'm not sure how to do this as I am entirely unfamiliar with the Boost library (I'm not a c++ programmer Sad

)

Tried yours with 30 threads on one box, I'm only pulling about 1800pps. Latest official repo nets around 4000.

I suspect that optimizing the CPU miner code much further is of little consequence to most people. Right now Cluster instances and a few large miners are totally owning the coin with 100.000s+ PPS.

Next step in 'mainstreaming' the coin is a CUDA/GPU implementation.

So basically we're fubard until GPU mining/mining pools come into play?