Microcoin is being pumped quite heavily atm, although how long it lasts / how high it will go is anyone's guess (in other words YMMV).

But at current difficulty and price (0.3 Satoshi), my 2 x 750ti should generate £1.30 per day each (before power costs).  The next closest of the coins I monitor is YAC at £0.69 per day per card.  MRC could easily double from where it is now though (of course it could equally easily collapse back down to 1 Satoshi or less).

If you want to delve into your own spreadsheet, Jarred Walton gave the details of how to calculate coins per day for any coin on his (IMO) excellent blog: http://www.holynerdvana.com/2014/02/how-to-calculate-coins-per-day-for-any.html

He also offers a subscription service where he does basically all the hard work for you and lists the profitability of several coins a few times a week: http://www.holynerdvana.com/2014/03/subscription-instructions.html

£25 using a voucher here if that's any use to you: http://www.postabargain.co.uk/categories/pc-mac/titanfall-pc/041558

EVGA 750ti FTW (standard BIOS, mild overclock of which I cannot remember the specifics)
x86 ccminer (cuda 3.5)
Windows 7 64-bit

This is on an old i5 2500k, running at 4Ghz or so IIRC (but also running two Darkcoin threads on the CPU).  The 750ti is the only (mining) GPU in the machine.

Using the zhpool FIXDIFF pool that someone linked earlier in the thread made a decent difference, both on ccminer 0.4 and now 0.5; before that I could get decent numbers running a benchmark, but when actually connected to other pools the hash rate dropped by 10-20%.  This is assuming that Zhpool is not doing something funky and lying to me, although the rates it's reporting are pretty close to what I'm seeing in ccminer.

Awesome job Christians, I'm getting 13.7 Mhash on a 750ti and 22.7 MHash each on two 780s (using the Zhpool FIXDIFF pool)!

Even in an open case you might want some airflow over the cards, although if they're 750tis then they run pretty cool anyway.

I built an open case using this site as a guide: http://wilsafris.wordpress.com/

It cost less than £20 all in and was dead easy to do.  I do have a desk fan blowing across it to keep the cards cool however they are R9 290s so run a lot hotter than 750tis.

Thanks - I'm just so used to my R9 290s significantly outperforming my GTX 780s I assumed I must be missing something!  I also got a bit excited when I got over 10k on my first attempt before noticing all the hardware errors...

What's the relationship between buffer size and raw intensity at the various lookup gaps?  Besides LG 8 being double the buffer size of course, that one I can manage myself!

I'm really struggling to get a decent YAC rate out of my three MSI R9 290 (4Gb) cards; the best I've managed so far without a load of hardware errors is a little over 5kH per card which seems too low to me!

I've tried to go through the tuning guide in the readme, have tried 2, 4, and 8 for lookup gap, but still can't do any better.  Can anyone help please?

My "best" settings so far:


Edit: I'm running Windows 7 64-bit with 8Gb of system RAM, using the above settings Task Manager shows 1419/8153 memory in use (so well over 6Gb of physical memory available)

On Linux, I've no idea I'm afraid; I was editing on Windows via FTP (using an app called Emeditor).

Edit: glad you got it sorted, looks like my suggestion was barking up the wrong tree altogether!

I had something similar when I had edited and resaved a file on Windows - it had put CR+LF at the end of each line in the file, whereas Linux was expecting only LF.

I reopened the file and specifically saved with LF only and it worked fine.

Check out the Cudaminer thread, there's a hell of a lot of information in there, but the following gets me 55-60khash:

-H 2 -i 0 -m 1 -l T5x16 -L 2 -b 2048

You need to edit the makefile - using this link worked for me: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1585.0

I was being dense...I hadn't rebooted since the cudaminer got a bunch of "does not validate" from mining when the nfactor changed, now that I have done so the hash is looking much more healthy!

The best T autotune (T12x20 - 106kh) still marginally beats the best t one (t120x6 - 104kh) though (both with L2).  My best speed is with exactly the same kernel settings as before, but with a lookup gap of 2.

I've still lost 65% of my 780 hash rate with the nfactor change, but that's much better than losing 80%.

It's kinda moot now that the nfactor has increased, but FWIW I have two 780s; the one that drives my monitors was getting 290-295kh, whilst the other one (no monitor connected) was getting 305-310kh.  This is on my main PC rather than a mining rig, and Chrome is my browser of choice so is running just about all the time (gotta forum whore you know!).  I've never specifically tried mining without Chrome running.

With the new nfactor I'm struggling to get a decent speed though...best autotune I've found so far was for the same T12x20 but with a lookup gap of 2.  This only yields a little over 50kh (over 80% down from before), whereas my R9 290s have only decreased by 50% (from ~340kh to ~170kh).

My 750ti is even worse - previously it was running at 150kh, now I can't get it over 10kh!

Since the nfactor change to 10 I've been getting 300k from my 780s using (from autotune): -l T12x20 -L 1

Also a definite +1 to cudacoin!

I think you should be getting a lot higher than that - I've got an i7 2600K and I get over 800kh/s for 8/8 threads (-a quark), and your processor is a lot newer than mine.

It might be worth giving the miners here a go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=353448.0

Thank you for that, saved me (and I'm sure others) a lot of potential hassle.

The new Z kernel has taken my pair of 780s from circa 500 khash each to circa 600 - quite a bump!

I did notice that they are using even more CPU now though - at 500 khash each I was able to run a single thread of either Prime or Particle (on my 2600K running at 4.5GHz) without slowing down the GPU mining, but now even a single thread of CPU mining kills the GPU speed.

Thanks again to all involved!

I haven't mined there for the past week or so, but looking back at my transaction history I see my own address appearing for both the payout and the transaction fee, as above (although I only received the payout amount in my wallet, not the transaction fee).

Edit: to clarify, I always received the payout amounts to my wallet correctly

I almost got into mining a year or so ago, but never quite got around to it - wish I had since BTC has gone up massively since then!

I finally started mining just before Christmas, on a couple of Nvidia 780s, an R9 290 and some CPUs.  I've been mining Quark on the CPUs until today, now I've switched them all over to Particle so fingers crossed that one takes off!  On the GPUs I started off with LTC, then switched over to Hashcows / Middlecoin with a couple-of-days foray into OGC when it launched, as much so I could be involved at the launch of a coin (and do a little solo mining) as anything else.

I'm hoping that Quark picks up in value this month, as I've converted the 0.3 or so BTC I've got from the switching pools so far into Quarks.  Not big money, but a reasonable chunk of what I "invested" at the beginning (I already had the Nvidia GPUs but bought the 790 just for mining).