There may be some tweaking needed but I am very pleased with my Rx470's 8GB (Samsung) at 1260/2000 averaging 1014 H/s with an UberMix 3.1 strap with Monerov7. All 40 cards are stable, especially after manually setting difficulty as the payment ID extension. Really looking forward to API so I can use my Awesome Miner software with it.
What intensity/threads are you using? Ajusting manually can improve it, but no much. Mine 580 8GB Samsung can do around 1050~1060H/s in V7 (is better in Heavy) at 1280/2010. I set it at 0, the software is choosing 57. 2 threads. What I like to do is run them for about a week, check for bugs, then start moving them up in intensity, clocks, etc. Problem is, the dev keeps updating the software! That's a good problem, too. |
|
|
|
|
There may be some tweaking needed but I am very pleased with my Rx470's 8GB (Samsung) at 1260/2000 averaging 1014 H/s with an UberMix 3.1 strap with Monerov7. All 40 cards are stable, especially after manually setting difficulty as the payment ID extension. Really looking forward to API so I can use my Awesome Miner software with it.
|
|
|
|
If you have 100 miners doing 100hz (cc pool) and you have 250 miners doing 150hz (comm pool) where do you think you get the highest payout if the pool has a block?
yes the one with less miners ;-) cause the more miners you have on a pool the more coins you need to share.
if you can also specify exactly how many miners where on cc pool and on commpool you can make a proper calculation including network speed.
so yes you get less coins from a pool which has alot of miners cause you need to share.
That is not correct  U will get the same coins because it is and will always be based on your own hashrate/speed. What u say is a beginner/newby mistake but. When u go on a pool with like 500 miners u will get faster a blockfound then a pool with 250 miners. What will happen: ur payout on the 500 miner pool will be 50% from the reward what u get on the pool with 250 miners, correct (?)  So the payout is less BUT u will find 2x as many blocks. At the end: rewards are the same, on the one pool u get faster blocks but less rewards, on the other pool u get slower the blocks but when u find one the reward is higher. As long as the pool keep finding blocks there is totally NO different. The only different can be the FEE, the connection to the pool and little things like this.. But if i have a pool with 10 miners with 2 block founds in 1 day, i get the same rewards then on the pool with 100 miners (if the fee and connection quality is the same, bad connection can result in lost shares). So again, what u are saying is a newby mistake and just not correct. Nothing wrong (i like ur commitment with this topic/stellite, keep doing ur job!), i just want to post what the reality is +1 |
|
|
|
Fucking hell i am mining on the communitypool for 3_4 weeks now just fund out that the pool fuckd me good, laaste couple of days i need to received about 8_9 k coins a day but when i calculate the payouts it was just 4300 a day wtf mate what happend here??? Dev pls take the F pool down or late them ajust the payments , the have stolen more then 0 k of coins just from me man this is way the price is going down the are dumping!!!! the stolen coinss!!! https://communitypool.stellite.cash SCAM POOLhigh network means less coins so don't say scam so quick. did you contact the pool operator? if so can you show us your communication info if not then my first suggestion will be contact pool operator. just dont expect always same results with increasing network speed / difficulty / luck / and how much blocks a certain pool does on average. I've been mining on the commpool since start and have no issues with it. Hi, After 5 days testing on 2 rigs at the same time on the 2 different pools : https://communitypool.stellite.cash: 23603 coin https://cryptoknight.cc/stellite: 44845 coin The result is clear, no doubt. I can confirm his conclusion. On day of new algo I used that pool and only received about half as much as "knight" |
|
|
|
Upgrading to new version and have questions, what to insert in config for "worksize" and "threads", for gpu's: 570, 580 and Vega 56 ?
thanks
in the config.txt file at the bottom like this: "gpu_conf" :
[
{ "id" : 0, "intensity" : 0, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2},
{ "id" : 1, "intensity" : 0, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2},
]
} Be sure and remove the (/* comment ) at the beginning and end |
|
|
|
 This is SRBMiner-CN mining Stellite (CNv7) with Robinhood's blockchain drivers for Win 7-64, Sapphire RX 470 Nitro+ 8Gb (Samsung) at 1260/2000, auto intensity, worksize 8, threads 2. GPUs are modded with something that is close to Ubermix 3.1. |
|
|
|
CLAYMORE V11.3 CRYPTONIGHT MINER AND VEGA CARDS--
Has anyone have notes to share about the best settings on Claymore-XMR v11.3 for Vega cards? I am really interested, thanks. --scryptr
Don't waste your time, you can't get it anywhere close to XMR-Stak or SRBMiner-CN YOUR RESPONSE IS OFF-TOPIC-- I am asking about the current Claymore-XMR miner, v11.3. I have read about the other miners on my own. --scryptr And YOUR RESPONSE IS FUTILE-- NO, IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION WITHIN THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD-- I asked about Claymore-XMR v11.3. I did not ask for your insults, and I have researched the other miners. I am able to do my own research. I still would like to read input from miners using Claymore-XMR v11.3, the current version, and Vega GPUs. Please don't insult me again, I am asking a legitimate question. --scryptr And I responded about Claymore-XMR v11.3. It is not going to get any decent results with Vega GPUs. That is a fact. That is why I responded as I did. It is a legitimate material response from an expert who has been using Claymore's CN miner since 9.6 daily on multiple Tahiti rigs, Ellesmere rigs, but never Vega rigs, because it sucks with Vega's. Believe me I have tried. Now regarding insults: I have not insulted you, but keep it up and I definitely will show you what an insult is. |
|
|
|
CLAYMORE V11.3 CRYPTONIGHT MINER AND VEGA CARDS--
Has anyone have notes to share about the best settings on Claymore-XMR v11.3 for Vega cards? I am really interested, thanks. --scryptr
Don't waste your time, you can't get it anywhere close to XMR-Stak or SRBMiner-CN YOUR RESPONSE IS OFF-TOPIC-- I am asking about the current Claymore-XMR miner, v11.3. I have read about the other miners on my own. --scryptr And YOUR RESPONSE IS FUTILE-- |
|
|
|
I think Claymore is best for monero's hashrate
Against a tweaked XMR-stak config file, not really. I agree, but have you checked out the SRBMiner-CN? Looks very promising. |
|
|
|
CLAYMORE V11.3 CRYPTONIGHT MINER AND VEGA CARDS--
Has anyone have notes to share about the best settings on Claymore-XMR v11.3 for Vega cards? I am really interested, thanks. --scryptr
Don't waste your time, you can't get it anywhere close to XMR-Stak or SRBMiner-CN |
|
|
|
|
doktor83,
Very nice work. I can confirm that 110.5 is the optimal intensity for Vega 56 reference air cards at this point using Blockchain drivers.
I can now confirm that your miner is beating the latest XMR-Stak stellitequestion-compiled-0 miner with better temperature and hashrate, not by much, but still better.
The only thing keeping me from full utilization is the API send for remote monitoring. I know you are working on it and I anxiously await it.
|
|
|
|
Sorry for being wrong.
Great miner, higher hashrate for vegas!
Love it <3 :*
How did you manage to avoid the hashdrop ? And what algo do you use? Cn heavy ? If yes can you please share your hashrate and config with the way you managed to avoid the hashrate drops with vega please ? The max hash rx 470 for Cryptonight-V7 is 915 and the Cryptonight-heavy is 739. Is that good hash  My Rx 470s are getting over 964, but they are 8GB Samsung and custom-tuned at 1170/2000. I have pushed them over 1050 with 1250/2000 for CNV7 but the power usage to do so decreases efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
I can confirm that Vega 56 works with Intensity 112 with monero7. Gets same output as XMR-STAK.
The potential here is looking good.
|
|
|
|
2020 on vega 56, nice jobson.  What intensity? |
|
|
|
Bagholders who bought at $20k are the new poor welfare people, gentlemen.
Only if they are stupid enough to sell. |
|
|
|
fan control would really be great @dev
i hate it when my fans always turn off and on. i have a feeling that it will degrade faster than a static fan. setting target temp too low will also make the fan try harder, so its a no as well.
I am working around this with a .bat file utilizing OverdriveNTool. No problem. |
|
|
|
|
Hey, dev, nice work!
My rx470s are getting 964 H/S at 57 intensity.
On my wish list for this miner is the ability for an HTTP api monitor.
|
|
|
|
If you don't understand the business model, how can you explain how an action has no effect on the business model?
If you really think I don't understand the features of erc20 tokens in being highly divisible in addition to your token being recyclable for resell, thus no risk of short supply and no redemption, then explain to me how am I wrong. Explain to me how despite being highly divisible, recyclable and resellable, your tokens would still face the risk of short supply and no redemption. I think you should stop spreading FUD against Veritaseum and just move on to another forum to annoy people with your BS. |
|
|
|
I wanting to find out if anyone else is, or has, experienced this problem detailed below: Win 7-64 with Robinhood's AMD drivers (22.19.659.1). I have an interesting problem in 2 of my rigs that use 2 Rx 470 8GB Sapphires (Samsung): Here is batch: set GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR=1 set GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT=100 set GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS=1 set GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE=100 set GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT=100 NsGpuCNMiner.exe -xpool stratum+tcp://78.46.85.142:5223 -xwal <address> -xpsw x -di 01 -h 0 -dmem 1 -tt 80 -tstop 90 -cclock 1150 -mclock 1900 -allpools 1 If I use version, 11.0, 11.1, or 11.2, they run fine and get about 0.934 Kh/s If I use version 11.3, the first GPU reports 0.934 but the second one ALWAYS reports 0.235 whether I reboot or run as admin Even more interesting, all my other rigs with 5 of the same GPUs are ALL reporting about 0.934 per GPU as expected Please let me know if you have experienced this and what you did to fix it. I have tried reducing -h, turning off -dmem, lowering clocks, lowering mem, uninstalling Trixx, uninstalling GPU-z, uninstalling ASUS GPU, CCleaning system, reboots - all to no avail. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
