What is this all about?

 "payment threshold is 25000 BTC and 25000 BTC on Sunday "

why was threshold increased to a ridiculous amount?

round 3 complete, onto round 4

Anyway, there is no point in arguing with you all, I’ll post the results and people can (or not) take the results for what they are.

This is randomness of the Algo, not luck of hitting blocks. This randomness *should* even out over time. This is wha I am doing many rounds and will only make conclusions based on a large dataset. If one miner is always 10%+ ahead of another, will you really argue this is “luck” and not a real advantage of hat miner?

If it were just just luck/stochasticity, wouldn’t you expect not to see the same winner each time?

Also, share number is completely meaningless. It can be manipulated by changing share difficulty in command line.

excellent question, i'll look into this

t-rex hung in ROUND 2, unclear why, but I won't post a result for t-rex for this round (and I'll add a 4th round to get adequate data). z-enemy was in the lead (by ~1%) before the crash.

this is what the client looked like on the machine:

Luck is not a factor in these tests, all 3 miners are on the same pool mining identical blocks — their luck is the exact same .

round #1 is done, z-enemy and t-rex almost dead even (and both way in front of spmodgit7).

round #2 begins now.

suprminer starting (appears it sets stock intensity @ 24):



trex starting (appears it sets stock intensity @ 20):



z-enemy starting (appears it sets stock intensity @ 20):

---

miner battle: z-enemy 1.16 vs t-rex 0.5.7 vs spmodgit-7 [x16r / ravencoin]

---

I've been wanting to compare performance between miners on the X16R algorithm for some time. This will be a test done in the vein of JackIt's tests in the past, where I ask which miner puts more coins in my wallet?

---

Setup: For this first test, I'm using a 3 GPU rig with Zotac 1080 Ti Minis running Windows 10 x64. I started an instance of each miner at the same time (using 1 GPU each) running on the same pool (Ravenminer) and the same machine. The miners will run for ~6 hours, I'll stop them simultaneously, and we'll see how many coins are in the 2 wallets. I will likely run this test 2-3 times to ensure that the results are consistent.

Overclock: 100% TDP, +110 core clock, stock memory


Drivers: 398.82


Miners: Z-enemy 1.16 x64,  CUDA 9.2, STOCK intensity (thread here)  vs.  T-rex 0.5.7 , CUDA 9.2 , STOCK intensity (thread here)  vs.  spmodgit7 (suprminer), STOCK intensity (github here) . z-enemy and t-rex have 1% dev fee, spmod has no dev fee. Running auto (server set) difficulty on both miners. I'll switch which of the 3 GPUs each miner uses for each round to account for any variations in hardware.

---

Results: Experiment #1: default intensities

ROUND #1: 660 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 25.63 RVN [+17.1%]
t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 25.64 RVN  [+17.2%]
spmodgit7 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 21.88 RVN

ROUND #2: 610 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 32.48 RVN [+12.7%]
t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : **HUNG CLIENT**
spmodgit7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 28.83 RVN

ROUND #3: 650 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 25.51 RVN [+26.7%]
t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 23.51 RVN [+16.7%]
spmodgit7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 20.14 RVN

ROUND #4: 500 minutes (ended early b/c i clicked on z-enemy, trex/spmod kept running briefly)

z-enemy 1.16 : GPU0 : pool wallet : 25.79 RVN [+32.0%]
t-rex 0.5.7 : GPU2 : pool wallet : 23.44 RVN [+20.0%]
spmodgit7 : GPU1 : pool wallet : 19.54 RVN

Conclusions: Experiment #1

The big takeaway from this experiment is that both z-enemy and trex are dramatically faster than spmod (suprminer) at the default intensities, even with the 1% developer fees. It sounds like spmod may be faster with OC'd memory and a static difficulty, so I may test that eventually. For now, I would reccomend both z-enemy and t-rex over spmod, unless you stand firm on only using open source software.

If we averaged the coin gains I would rank below, my estimation being that z-enemy is 3-5% faster than t-rex with the default settings:

#1: z-enemy 1.16 +22%
#2: t-rex 0.5.7 +18%
#3: spmodgit 7

---

Results: Experiment #2: comparing t-rex intensities

Here, I plan on testing various t-rex intensities to find the optimal intensity for t-rex (and I will do the same for z-enemy) and then to eventually compare those optimal intensities head to head.

ROUND #1: 840 minutes

t-rex 0.5.7 : default intensity [20] : pool wallet : 24.11 RVN
t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 25.44 RVN [+5.5%] ** WINNER **
t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 23 : pool wallet : 24.90 RVN [+3.3%]

ROUND #2: 600 minutes

t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 16.19 RVN
t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 22 : pool wallet : 16.39 RVN [+1.2%]
t-rex 0.5.7 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 17.58 RVN [+7.3%] ** WINNER **

Conclusions: Experiment #2

I stopped the test a little early because a new version of t-rex was released (0.6.1). It seems higher than default intensities are fastest for t-rex. I will likely revisit this with the new version, but currently it seems 24 intensity is the fastest on my machine.

---

Results: Experiment #3: comparing z-enemy intensities

ROUND #1: 720 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 23.21 RVN
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 21 : pool wallet : 23.27 RVN [+0.3%]
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 23 : pool wallet : 25.12 RVN [+8.2%] ** WINNER **

---

Results: Experiment #4: t-rex 0.6.1 vs z-enemy 1.16 [optimal intensities]

ROUND #1:  1440 minutes

Going to let this one run 24 hours per round. From my previous tests intensity 24 is the fastest on my machine for t-rex and 23 intensity for z-enemy. the z-enemy internal tests show intensity 20 is the fastest, so i'll compare that as well

z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 53.98 RVN [+6.8%]
z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 23 : pool wallet 54.08 RVN [+6.9%] ** WINNER **
t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 50.56 RVN

z-enemy is clearly the winner here, the higher intensity doesn't seem to change much. going to run one final 24 hour run and then i'll finalize z-enemy as the winner.

ROUND #2: 2000 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 71.83 RVN  [+1.1%]
t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22 : pool wallet : 75.09 RVN [+5.7%] ** WINNER **
t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 71.03 RVN

ROUND #3: 1200 minutes

z-enemy 1.16 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 44.73 RVN
z-enemy 1.17 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 49.63 RVN [+11.0%] ** WINNER **
t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22  pool wallet  : 45.10 RVN [+0.8%]

ROUND #4: 500 minutes

spmodgit 9 : intensity 24 : pool wallet : 26.40 RVN
z-enemy 1.17 : intensity 20 : pool wallet : 36.86 RVN [+39.6%] ** WINNER **
t-rex 0.6.1 : intensity 22  pool wallet : 35.45 RVN [+34.3%]


Final Conclusions

1. z-enemy 1.17 is the fastest x16r miner in my tests. While a recent entrant into the x16r mining field, t-rex, was an impressive foe, z-enemy consistently won out. The latest version of z-enemy, 1.17, is faster than the previous version, 1.16, by a small amount. It's worth upgrading if you're running 1.16 or earlier.

2. intensity matter and is unique to each miner. While z-enemy appears to run fastest on the default intensity, 20, t-rex performance improves with raised intensity. In my tests, the optimal intensity for t-rex was ~22.

3. open source x16r miners have a ways to go. Even with the 1% dev fees, both z-enemy and t-rex were signifncantly faster (15%-30% faster) than spmodgit. Apparently spmodgit can improve in performance with increased memory speed, but I didnt get a chance to test performance under those conditions.



Winner: Faster X16R Miner: z-enemy 1.17 ( thread here)

ROUND #2: COMPLETE!

z-enemy 1.16 : 109.63 RVN (+7.3%): pool link ***** WINNER   *******
t-rex 0.5.7 : 102.16RVN : pool link

Round 2 we have a different winner, z-enemy by 6%! Round 3 begins.

Nah, I’ve optimized these in the past on my system and z enemy performs better at 21.5/22 intensity. I can test them again at different intensities (or their standard intensities). This is a test of the intensities that run the best on my machine.

I'm not running static difficulty (see my post). I will probably test intensity at a later time.

ROUND #1: ~11 hours

z-enemy 1.16 : 38.63 RVN: pool link
t-rex 0.5.7 : 42.50 RVN (+10.0%) : pool link ***** WINNER ROUND #1  *******


t-rex takes round #1 by a solid 10% in earnings. could be due to the variability in the X16R algorithm, so we'll need a few more rounds before we declare t-rex the winner.

ROUND #1 complete. I will post results here soon. On to ROUND #2 , I switched which set of 2 GPUs is used for each miner.

done.

GPU-Z shot of one of the 1080 Tis:



Z-enemy 1.16 starting:



T-rex 0.5.7 starting:

z-enemy much faster for phi2 than both cryptodredge/t-rex

also this only seems to be an issue with X16R. All other algos seem normal and report consistent hashrates (including X16S).