Quote from: sech1 on December 10, 2019, 10:19:35 PM

Quote from: BoredAlchemist on December 10, 2019, 09:04:37 PM

Quote from: sech1 on December 10, 2019, 07:01:34 AM

I tested this RagerX yesterday and it was slower than XMRig on my R7 3700X. 8200 h/s RagerX vs 8450 h/s XMRig (all stock 3700X with tuned memory).

well as your the xmrrig dev and are prob optimising your miner for your own equipment its not really a fair comparison is it?

I've seen comparisons where xmrig ran without large pages or where tester was recording a video on the same pc while testing xmrig's hashrate, now this is what I call unfair Cheesy

My equipment is pretty standard, I just make sure everything is tested in perfect conditions - properly tuned, no background programs eating CPU, updates and unneeded Windows services turned off etc. I need this to easily reproduce the same hashrate at every test - it's hard to tell if some change in the code improves hashrate +0.1% or makes it worse -0.1% without this kind of stability.

"According to the devs..."

Why does CMB publish this kind of crap without any attempt to verify the outrageous claims.

Any miner that locks you into their ecosystem is to be avoided. There's no telling what kind of malware
might be buried in their OS.

No one is going to magically come up with a new faster implementation. There is strong competition between
xmrig & xmr-stak, not to mention Tevador's reference implementation. I doubt there is much room for improvement.