A Thorough Comparison and Analysis of Cryptonight Algorithm Mining Tools

At its core, Cryptonight serves as a Proof-of-Work algorithm employed by many privacy-focused cryptocurrencies such as Monero, Electroneum and Bytecoin enabling mining through both computer CPUs and GPUs.

This discussion provides an in-depth look at a range of Cryptonight mining applications, equipping readers with the knowledge needed to select the most suitable software for their needs.

Rather than proclaiming a definitive 'best' mining software, this examination represents a detailed survey, inviting miners to explore features that align with their unique preferences and conditions.

The opinions and speed estimations provided here are subjective and based on my personal experience. Results may vary across different setups, even with identical hardware and software configurations.

Test Setup

In my experimental setup, I utilized a Windows 10 environment with three Vega64 GPUs and relied on Blockchain drivers for optimal performance. https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/Radeon-Software-Crimson-ReLive-Edition-Beta-for-Blockchain-Compute-Release-Notes.aspx

For this trial, I decided to mine Electroneum using specific configurations. https://electroneum.hashvault.pro as my mining pool.

I've been primarily using XMR-Stak for its alignment with my desired functionalities. Yet, I was intrigued to compare its performance against other alternatives, seeking a more comprehensive understanding of their attributes.

Essential Mining Software Features on My Radar

My key focus was on speed, while features like remote monitoring of miner status and speed also intrigued me. Despite my preference for open-source solutions, speed took precedence, and I wasn't overly concerned with GPU monitoring aspects.

Mining Software

The software lineup under review includes:

• XMR-Stak – https://github.com/fireice-uk/xmr-stak
• XMRig AMD – https://github.com/xmrig/xmrig-amd
• Claymore’s Cryptonote AMD GPU Miner – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0
• Cast XMR – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2256917.0;all

I ensured that the latest versions were at play across the evaluated mining software.

• XMR-Stak version 2.2.0
• XMRig version 2.5.0
• Claymore’s Cryptonote AMD GPU Miner at its current iteration 11.2
• Cast XMR version 0.9.0

To streamline the comparative process, I created a feature chart to juxtapose the mining applications under consideration:

XMR-Stak Review

Here is XMR-Stak’s features

XMR-Stak likely boasts the most extensive feature set and multi-platform capability, but it falls short in GPU monitoring functionalities.

Here’s the specific configuration I applied to the Vega-based system:

Here is the code for the batch file:

xmr-stak.exe --noCPU

The testing methodology began by running the miner for an hour, from which I recorded the average speed over fifteen minutes as the benchmark.

The reported speed using XMR-Stak reached 5952.6 H/s, with no incidents of stale or invalid shares reported during testing.

XMRig AMD Review

Here is XMRig’s features:

While XMRig AMD showcases impressive features, it similarly lacks GPU monitoring functions. Notably, this software also falls short of supporting SSL.

Here is the code for the batch file:

xmrig-amd.exe --donate-level 1 --api-port 8000 --opencl-platform=0 --opencl-devices=0,0,1,1,2,2 --opencl-launch=1900x8,1900x8,1900x8,1900x8,1900x8,1900x8 -o pool.electroneum.hashvault.pro:7777 -u wallet_public_key -p officecomputer:myemail

• The --donate-level 1 flag enables a 1% developer fee.
• With --api-port 8000, remote reporting is facilitated on this port.
• The --opencl-platform=0 command selects the default OpenCL installation.
• --opencl-devices=0,0,1,1,2,2 denotes the use of GPUs 0, 1, and 2, designating dual threads per GPU.
• --opencl-launch=1900×8,1900×8,1900×8,1900×8,1900×8,1900×8 configures thread intensity and work size parameters.

The testing methodology began by running the miner for an hour, from which I recorded the average speed over fifteen minutes as the benchmark.

During testing, XMRig AMD reported a speed of 5907.2 H/s with no stale or invalid shares encountered.

Although marginally lower than XMR-Stak, not having unified software for CPUs, Nvidia, and AMD is inconvenient. SSL support is lacking, which is not ideal for my typical requirements, solidifying XMR-Stak as my ongoing choice.

Review of Claymore’s Cryptonote AMD GPU Mining Tool

Here's what Claymore’s Cryptonote AMD GPU Miner brings to the table:

Claymore’s Cryptonote tool isn't open-source but includes GPU monitoring features.

Here is the code for the batch file:

setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 1
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
NsGpuCNMiner.exe -xpool pool.electroneum.hashvault.pro:7777 -xwal wallet_public_key -xpsw officecomputer:myemail

Initially intended to run for an hour, I halted it after 18 minutes as it lagged behind the other tools in speed.

Claymore’s tool indicated a rate of 5345 H/s, with no stale or invalid shares detected.

With results considerably under XMR-Stak, my preference towards open-source solutions makes XMR-Stak the more appealing choice for ongoing use.

Cast XMR Review

Here is Cast XMR’s features:

It seems Cast XMR offers the fewest features amongst the reviewed.

Here is the code for the batch file:

cast_xmr-vega.exe -S pool.electroneum.hashvault.pro:7777 -u wallet_public_key -p officecomputer:myemail -G 0,1,2 -R --nonicehash --fastjobswitch

• -G 0,1,2 is for using GPU 0,1,2
• -R is to enable remote reporting
• --nonicehash is leveraged to enhance miner speed outside of NiceHash.
• --fastjobswitch is purposed to accelerate the job switch process.

The testing methodology began by running the miner for an hour, from which I recorded the average speed over fifteen minutes as the benchmark.

I took an average because of the --fastjobswitch feature, which can momentarily diminish average speed readings due to its rapid cycle post-submission.

Resulting in an averaged performance of 2018.4 + 2023.3 + 2021.1 = 6062.8 H/s, surpassing XMR-Stak.

XMR-Stak and Cast XMR Comparison

Speed being my top priority necessitated a further contrast between XMR-Stak and Cast XMR.

So far, here are the speed results:

With XMR-Stak’s default fee structured as follows:
XMR-Stak = 5952.6 * 98% = 5833.6 H/s
Cast XMR = 6062.8 * 98.5% = 5971.9 H/s

As an open-source tool, XMR-Stak allows potential fee alterations, impacting possible speed benchmarks.
XMR-Stak = 5952.6 * 100% = 5952.6 H/s
Cast XMR = 6062.8 * 98.5% = 5971.9 H/s

Given the marginal variation in speeds, extended testing presented itself as necessary.

I planned a subsequent phase assessing mining pool statistics over hashed totals and share validity over a 4-hour window.

Allocated duration for both Cast XMR and XMR-Stak was set at 4 hours, deemed sufficient without risking validity issues due to pool disruptions.

Initial statistics captured before testing began were as follows:

Commencing trials with these baseline metrics:
Total Shares: 1,046,185
Valid Shares: 81
Invalid Shares: 0

The following results were recorded post-4-hour Cast XMR session:

Summarized figures from the Cast XMR 4-hour evaluation include:
Total Shares: 77,233,475 – 1,046,185 = 76,187,290
Valid Shares: 528 – 81 = 447
Invalid Shares: 0 – 0 = 0

The XMR-Stak results post-4 hours yielded:

XMR-Stak’s results are encapsulated as follows post-4-hour observation:
Total Shares: 153,480,475 – 77,233,475 = 76,247,000
Valid Shares: 978 – 528 = 450
Invalid Shares: 0 – 0 = 0

Both sets of results fell within acceptable margins of deviation.

Conclusion

Attached is a detailed feature chart aiding selection of the ideal mining tool tailored to your priorities.

For my purposes, XMR-Stak continues to win my favor due to its speed. Comparatively, this software matched Cast XMR’s performance in my uses. Additionally, I appreciate XMR-Stak’s Remote Reporting interface and OS compatibility.

Embracing open-source capabilities is a major draw, with donation discretion greatly appreciated, allowing for potential contribution without forced connectivity interruptions.

It’s my hope that this exploration aids in aligning mining software selection with your specific feature preferences.