Quote from: JCE-Miner on January 08, 2019, 06:22:03 PM

@pbfarmer :
Your new data are easier to understand.
The missing hashrate being equal to CPU is coincidental, pause your CPU and you'll see a drop will remain.
The optimal yield you can get is ~99% (100% minus the fees) but depending on your pool aggressiveness, ping and overall CPU usage you may experience lower hashrate, while 96% is somehow in the lower bound. Mining with CPU + GPU has a normally little impact on performance, but it looks like on your rig, it's higher. Maybe because of the chipset or something, or the PCIe lanes used causes some internal delays.
Try to mine with 1 and 0 Cpu and i expect you'll get a better efficiency between the instant and effective hashrate. I already experienced such on one of my rig (a A320 + ryzen). Also remove the --legacy parameter if you use it, while it may provide more stable hashrate, it tends to lower the efficiency of mixed mining.

It's very possible you get different results with another mixed miner like Stak all-in-one, just because we did different choices in term of CPU/GPU sync and netcode aggressiveness. I chose a medium/high aggressivity, but not maximum, to keep a stable hashrate and zero bad shares. It may not be the best choice in term of absolute perf on your precise rig, but that's an overall all-around design.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I've let my larger rig run about a week now, and it's stabilized at a ~3% spread, which is once again almost exactly the CPU h/r (pool is showing a 24hr of 9.8kh/s atm.)

Code:

{
  "hashrate":
  {
   "thread_0": 63.71,
   "thread_1": 63.67,
   "thread_2": 64.33,
   "thread_3": 64.33,
   "thread_4": 623.13,
   "thread_5": 623.13,
   "thread_6": 629.29,
   "thread_7": 623.13,
   "thread_8": 592.92,
   "thread_9": 598.50,
   "thread_10": 592.92,
   "thread_11": 592.92,
   "thread_12": 607.45,
   "thread_13": 610.76,
   "thread_14": 607.45,
   "thread_15": 604.18,
   "thread_16": 623.13,
   "thread_17": 622.92,
   "thread_18": 610.37,
   "thread_19": 604.57,
   "thread_all": [63.71, 63.67, 64.33, 64.33, 623.13, 623.13, 629.29, 623.13, 592.92, 598.50, 592.92, 592.92, 607.45, 610.76, 607.45, 604.18, 623.13, 622.92, 610.37, 604.57],
   "thread_gpu": [1246.25, 1252.41, 1191.41, 1185.83, 1218.21, 1211.63, 1246.05, 1214.93],
   "total": 10022.71,
   "max": 10256.21
  },
  "result":
  {
   "wallet": "bxc5rbWK8vhjHUvntsXoHxB5BxBcDmnApK8yBruAifJKASDLgwBZi2q7Q3zMSTmaLqhKu4gFgXEQjiyq7kKyhFH41un6Z7seX",
   "pool": "ca.bittube.miner.rocks:7777",
   "ssl": false,
   "reconnections": 0,
   "currency": "BitTube (TUBE)",
   "difficulty": 529002,
   "shares": 10489,
   "hashes": 5461064802,
   "uptime": "155:34:01",
   "effective": 9751.19
  },
  "gpu_status":
  [
   { "index": 0, "temperature": 39, "fan": 21, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1324, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 1, "temperature": 40, "fan": 27, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1388, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 2, "temperature": 39, "fan": 30, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1280, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 3, "temperature": 40, "fan": 23, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1285, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 4, "temperature": 39, "fan": 36, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1262, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 5, "temperature": 39, "fan": 24, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1312, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 6, "temperature": 39, "fan": 22, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1285, "bad_shares": 0 },
   { "index": 7, "temperature": 39, "fan": 33, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 1282, "bad_shares": 0 }
  ],
  "miner":
  {
   "version": "jce/0.33b14/gpu",
   "platform": "AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core Processor ",
   "system": "Windows 64-bits",
   "algorithm": "13"
  }
}

I wasn't really comparing yours to other miners - I already know yours is the best.

But the part that doesn't align w/ your explanation (and why i suggested there may be a bug) is that this discrepancy goes away when the gpu and cpu are split into independent processes. Really not a big deal at all - i'm fine splitting them, just thought i'd give you a heads up in case it was something that could be fixed.