Re: hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap
So, I did the test I mentioned earlier in the thread.
I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.
I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%
I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.
I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds
The reported hash rates from each miner were :
KlausT : 1480 kH/s
hsrminer: 1790 kH/s
During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:
KlausT: 0.07451398 QBIC
hsrminer: 0.07188344 QBIC
One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited
) and created the graph below.
The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.
https://ibb.co/cSv9im
While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.
I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.
I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%
I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.
I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds
The reported hash rates from each miner were :
KlausT : 1480 kH/s
hsrminer: 1790 kH/s
During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:
KlausT: 0.07451398 QBIC
hsrminer: 0.07188344 QBIC
One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited
) and created the graph below.The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.
https://ibb.co/cSv9im
While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.
I'm sorry but there is a VITAL piece of information you are missing. QBIC is completely unreliable source to try to benchmark against because it is always under nicehash attacks. Hashrates can go from 1ghs on a pool to 20/30 even 160 I have seen.
But why is that a parameter? If I am running both miners towards the same pool at the same time they should have the same basic preconditions right?
Aren't more or less all neoscrypt coins mined by Nicehash?