Monero Mining Performance

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
M

Marsh

Moderator
May 12, 2013
2,645
1,496
113
Is this a dedicated miner machine?
Which OS?

My OS is Ubuntu 16.0.4 with March release of xmr-stak-cpu.
As you can see, for my I7-4770S low power CPU , I run 4 threads , I turned off 2 unused cores to save power.
If running all 4 physical cores , it is approx 5% faster hashrate but consumes 5-10% more power.
I paid $0.28 KWH , hashrate efficiency is my overall goal.

For I7-4770K, it should be 5-10% faster than the S version.
 
Bradford

Bradford

Active Member
May 27, 2016
223
50
28
Marsh said:
Is this a dedicated miner machine?
Which OS?

My OS is Ubuntu 16.0.4 with March release of xmr-stak-cpu.
As you can see, for my I7-4770S low power CPU , I run 4 threads , I turned off 2 unused cores to save power.
If running all 4 physical cores , it is approx 5% faster hashrate but consumes 5-10% more power.
I paid $0.28 KWH , hashrate efficiency is my overall goal.

For I7-4770K, it should be 5-10% faster than the S version.
Click to expand...
Not dedicated, it's Windows 10. I can see in the task manager that it gets 80% of my cycles, and it gets all the cycles it asks for. But I guess cycles isn't the only thing it needs...
 
M

Marsh

Moderator
May 12, 2013
2,645
1,496
113
Bradford, you hashrate is about right for a normal desktop machine.
L3 cache is "king". xmr-stak-cpu threads run in its dedicated cache is better
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bradford
M

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Bradford said:
Not dedicated, it's Windows 10. I can see in the task manager that it gets 80% of my cycles, and it gets all the cycles it asks for. But I guess cycles isn't the only thing it needs...
Click to expand...

Try XMRig gcc, it gave much better hashrates on I7 than stack. Stack seems to be better for xeons.

I also run win10, and tested all the miners. You should at least get same as me or a bit more as you got higher clock rate and later cpu.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bradford
Bradford

Bradford

Active Member
May 27, 2016
223
50
28
Marsh said:
Bradford, you hashrate is about right for a normal desktop machine.
L3 cache is "king". xmr-stak-cpu threads run in its dedicated cache is better
Click to expand...
Thanks. If my RAM hadn't been stolen off my porch I would have my Ryzen 1800x build going today. When I eventually get it going, I'm going to dedicate this 4770 to mining and hopefully have as much of the cache as possible dedicated to mining.

mantis said:
Try XMRig gcc, it gave much better hashrates on I7 than stack. Stack seems to be better for xeons.

I also run win10, and tested all the miners. You should at least get same as me or a bit more as you got higher clock rate and later cpu.
Click to expand...
I'll give that a shot, thank you. NiceHash has a benchmarking utility that measured XMRig as slower than xmr-stak and as I run it right now, it seems to be true (that it's slower), getting about 185 H/s, but I'll give it a go for a few hours to see how it does. Maybe NiceHash's version is slower/different than XMRig gcc? When you say gcc, do you mean you compiled it from source or that you downloaded a version called that?
 
J

janvi

New Member
Nov 19, 2017
4
0
1
37
News of my GTX 960 in linux...
I had OC the ram : + 50 h/s, but next one reboot now the driver refuse to run in perf level 3 when i lunch xmrig :(
I haven't found any solution to force it in max performance level

With OC : 330 H/s (60w) , without 280 H/s
 
M

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Bradford said:
Maybe NiceHash's version is slower/different than XMRig gcc? When you say gcc, do you mean you compiled it from source or that you downloaded a version called that?
Click to expand...
Yes, at least nicehash legacy uses MSVC version, GCC is better for I7. But i dont think its that much better, i got like a bit more hashes with it. Do you have huge pages enabled?

There are two version of it, GCC and MSVC
Releases · xmrig/xmrig · GitHub

I retested it, and the difference is small.. like 2-5h/s less on the MSVC version nicehash legacy uses, compared to GCC.
 
Last edited:
D

dwright1542

Active Member
Dec 26, 2015
377
73
28
50
traderjay said:
I am getting 750~800 on my 2696V4 - reasonable?
Click to expand...
No. That doesn't seem right at all. I've got some 2680v4 running ESX, HT, with VM's only running half the cores, and I average 900H/s


With 55MB cache, and 22 cores, you should turn HT OFF.

Run xmrig first. See what you get "automatically"

Then switch to xmr-stak-cpu "automatically"

Probably run 22 threads, but then add some "low power mode" threads in there to eat up the extra cache.

I bet you see 1100+

-D
 
B

bishop2020

New Member
Sep 1, 2013
7
2
3
Patrick said:
Without benching, I can tell you AMD EPYC will be better performance per watt and dollar by a wide margin.
Click to expand...
I have an i7-7820X and get about 525H/s mining using the unified xmr-stak miner (CPU-only mining) running in Win10 and total system power is around 190W, which I assume is beaten handily in effeciency by EPYC as you say.

My 980TI is able to do about 600H/s with a +250OC (500H/s no-OC). Running them both at the same time brings my total system power to ~330W @ 1100H/s.

XMR mining never really pushes my GPU much, with the best settings I've managed to find (12Tx44B) it doesn't run hot or get near full power draw. In contrast, ZEC mining on the 980TI pushes my system power draw up to 450W+.
 
traderjay

traderjay

Active Member
Mar 24, 2017
226
51
28
39
dwright1542 said:
No. That doesn't seem right at all. I've got some 2680v4 running ESX, HT, with VM's only running half the cores, and I average 900H/s


With 55MB cache, and 22 cores, you should turn HT OFF.

Run xmrig first. See what you get "automatically"

Then switch to xmr-stak-cpu "automatically"

Probably run 22 threads, but then add some "low power mode" threads in there to eat up the extra cache.

I bet you see 1100+

-D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply - I followed the tips here - What is the best monero miner - my GUI miner hashrate seems a bit low

I cannot turn off HT as this is also my workstation and will negatively affect my applications. Or is really HT the deal breaker here?
 
K

kfriis

Member
Apr 8, 2015
54
7
8
49
@traderjay

As a reference point, I am seeing around 1060 H/s for a dual E5-2660V2 system running xmr-stak-cpu on bare metal. This is with HT on and std. BIOS settings (i.e. no special "optimizations").
 
D

dwright1542

Active Member
Dec 26, 2015
377
73
28
50
K

kfriis

Member
Apr 8, 2015
54
7
8
49
I def. recommend that you try BOTH xmrig and xmr-stak. For me, xmr-stak is clearly better, but others have reported xmrig to be better. Seems to depend on your CPU.
 
Bradford

Bradford

Active Member
May 27, 2016
223
50
28
My C2785 is getting 44H/s on 4 threads, 53H/s on 7 threads. Trying to get xmr-stak to compile with CUDA support is impossible though, otherwise I'd have a few more hashes from my GT 710
 
M

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Intel Atom N455 does 2.4H/s.... so i'm going to be rich around never

It hashes so little that it does not even show any hashes in the 2.5sec avarage, only in 60sec it shows 2.4H/sec :)

UPDATE Its now doing 3.2H/s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marsh
M

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Xeon E5-2620 284H/s

XMRig cgg 7 threads 45w WIN10

Not bad for a 20€ CPU, about the same what i get from my I7 2600.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom