01:10:53 hyc: plotting the delta between submitted timestamps, so it won't be very useful unless the signal is strong 01:11:36 in the case of the network I noticed that behavior on, the secret actor is ~60% of nethash so the signal is pretty clear 01:12:32 but there is always a tight fixed interval between the submitted block timestamps 02:16:04 hyc: re-read your message, sorry, yes - iterating the timestamp in addition 02:16:32 presumably each chip gets a unique timestamp and they all start from nonce 0 instead of splitting up nonce space like earlier miners 02:17:04 i sent you a dm with an example of the trait 04:25:09 so is randomx equally performant on intl and amd when it comes to GhZ? 04:25:41 i remember once i turned all the fancy prediction stuff off on my i7, it gets like 700 h/s 04:25:59 on each core 04:26:30 well, thread. i dunno if it would do well with same # cores but more cache 04:28:34 this is some manic thought that with intel getting clobbered by amd, monero can sweep in and somehow team up with intel to make a new CPU thats great at randomx and its put in super cheap computers and monero buys everyone in the world a computer.... 04:29:57 ugh. then we'd have to maintain an OS. well, not really 07:14:32 solar: not AR network? 07:15:11 ? 07:16:33 The network where 60% of nethash had this characteristic nonce pattern 07:16:54 not sure which coin AR is, so no 07:17:50 Arweave - the ones who paid for one of the bulletproof audits 07:17:56 the one I was looking at is an older coin with ASICs already, fairly well distributed until this recent increase 07:18:18 some next gen miner killed off the 3 older ASICS that this coin had previously 07:18:27 right. 07:19:08 but new ASIC has simar nonce pattern that you have seen appear on the monero network? 07:19:32 no, it has no nonce pattern, but it has a signature in block timestamp delta 07:20:15 it makes sense to use timestamp rolling for work distribution, especially given all the focus on nonce patterns in recent times 07:21:08 Aha. re-read what you wrote above. 07:24:25 I sent you a dm 07:44:29 gingeropolous my Ryzen can do 850 h/s on a single thread @ 4.1 GHz 07:46:34 862.1 h/s to be precise 07:47:32 1310.1 h/s with 2 threads on 1 core. No Intel CPU can do this. 09:03:43 damn, my beefy intel box is apparently down 09:03:50 i wanted to get some performance numbers :D 09:27:11 an i7 8700 @4.3 is faster per thread when using max threads then a 3700 @4.1 using max threads 09:31:36 faster than 862 h/s per thread? I don't think so 09:32:09 Of course single thread running on a CPU core is faster than a virtual thread running on half a CPU core 09:33:30 not on the 1 thread 09:33:56 Show me an intel CPU that beats 35KH/s 09:34:09 ~740 per thread on the 8700 09:35:09 the ram is 3200 xmp 09:35:36 you can't compare hashrates of single thread per CPU core and 2 threads per CPU core 09:36:01 the thing is, Intel CPUs suck at RandomX even in single thread, even at higher GHz 09:36:51 hm. the next gen threadrippers have enough L3 cache to utilize 64/128 cores... 09:37:03 But cooling is gonna be a biatch 09:37:03 Dayum 09:37:29 enough L3 AND enough memory channels* 09:38:26 https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3995wx 11:45:24 yep. will be a beast for workstations 12:08:03 Pretty happy with the 3970x. 16:25:47 Intel falling apart. going to produce a CPU at TSCM foundry 16:26:09 "The project is called Sierra Forest and it is about as unique an offering as you can expect from Intel, certainly not a mainstream CPU. Our sources said that Sierra Forest (SF) was a swarm of small core CPU/SoC that was meant to fight the upcoming wave of 32, 64, and 128+ core ARM server chips." 16:27:19 https://semiaccurate.com/2020/07/28/what-is-intel-making-at-tsmc/ 16:27:35 "So how many cores is a Sierra Forest ‘chip’? The largest one, called Sierra Forest-AP by our sources, was 512 cores," 16:59:52 I talked with intel dude today, he was like "why the hell i did not listen to you and sell all my intel stocks to buy amd"