|
Update: Improve speed on Catalyst 12.2
So I have surveyed the damage that 12.2 caused. On my 5850, 393 went down to 387, I've been able to bring it up to 390 by reordering a few instructions and switching to -v 2,1 as my recommendation on VLIW5. Another interesting thing is, -v 4 now fits on VLIW5, although it is still slower than -v 2,1.
As for VLIW4? Someone is going to have to run -v 2, -v 2,1 and -v 4 on there and tell me which one wins, I assume -v 2 will be the only one that works right.
|
|
|
|
They will release fglrx 12.2 when you work on optimizing for the 7970.
a) I did work on it, conquering 2.6 was the first step b) 12.2 is now out: its slower. |
|
|
|
|
Goddamnit, 12.2 just came out for FGLRX and I've confirmed: ITS SLOWER, WHY IS THIS, GODDAMNIT AMD
|
|
|
|
I didnt overclock them alot because they are in standard closed case.
This is just my test box to test stuff on it. I was in cuba for 14 days (no internet there) so im testing all this new drivers and miners now i thought performance would improve but now its like this..
Other rigs are in custom built cases with 4x7970 clocked higher and get around 660 as i do not want temps to exceed 65°C.
Any1 knows whats wrong? Or how do i roll back to old drivers?
Woah dude, 65c is too low. 85c is the standard max safe temp for Radeons that aren't mobile. People have almost hit 800 mhash at full overclock potential. Still, not sure why you should be having problems. You didn't accidentally install SDK 2.6 on top of 12.2 did you? Also, which 12.2, there are several. Try the new 12.3RC release. Well I didnt dare to leave them alone running at 85°C for 14 days.. I just downloaded 12.2 from ati.com and installed whole package. edit: installing 12.3 rc doesnt help Weird. You're only using -v 1 -w 256 as args, right? |
|
|
|
Question: I have an iMac with a 6750M. This is what I am getting in diablominer and btcguild. -w 128 -v 2 or -w 64 After 7-10 minutes it has 1-3 shares, and 5-10 hardware errors. It was running at 14-20 mhash/s. Then it will crash the system. Is there anything I am doing wrong or is it a mac problem? It is also OSX 10.7 (Lion).   See the op post. You need to also use -na. |
|
|
|
Someone mentioned offering to drive the money out there, instead of mailing it to them. Don't think butterfly returned the email request.
I live in Des Moines and have access to a decent amount of capital. If they offer the Rig Box for real I'd drive two hours and buy at least one of them directly. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the rig box probably doesn't exist yet. Perhaps in 4-6 weeks? If it does, thats sure as hell not the real picture. That thing has to be much bigger. |
|
|
|
I didnt overclock them alot because they are in standard closed case.
This is just my test box to test stuff on it. I was in cuba for 14 days (no internet there) so im testing all this new drivers and miners now i thought performance would improve but now its like this..
Other rigs are in custom built cases with 4x7970 clocked higher and get around 660 as i do not want temps to exceed 65°C.
Any1 knows whats wrong? Or how do i roll back to old drivers?
Woah dude, 65c is too low. 85c is the standard max safe temp for Radeons that aren't mobile. People have almost hit 800 mhash at full overclock potential. Still, not sure why you should be having problems. You didn't accidentally install SDK 2.6 on top of 12.2 did you? Also, which 12.2, there are several. Try the new 12.3RC release. |
|
|
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
I'd also be concerned about why you were only getting ~625 per card before. I was getting 675-ish, even before I installed my water block. Sounds like there may be other issues at work... Well, from what I've heard, on 12.2, people get about 560 at stock clocks. Has this changed? |
|
|
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
Forgot to turn -na off? |
|
|
|
Does a user on this forum have to defraud another forum user in order to earn the 'scammer' badge?
It'd be nice if mods would stretch to tagging this guy for self-admitted ongoing fraudulent activity.
If he has no qualms about stealing from his employer - he'll likely have no qualms about stealing from other bitcoiners whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
Better yet, I hope the forum admins turn his IP in to the cops of his local area. Even better if he's posting from work, and the IP leads them straight to it. We admins are dicks, but not those kind of dicks. Unless its Friday, then here comes the bourbon. |
|
|
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
It exists just because some really are faster. If its not for you, just choose the largest (which is 256 on any AMD hardware). That's what I was wondering, is there any reason to use a larger or smaller work size, apart from any speed differences? For example, does a small work size reduce the risk of stales? Does a larger work size use less wattage? I don't think it has anything to do with either of those things, that was just an example of the type of difference it might make. Why do I feel like I'm not asking this right....? I guess I'm asking if, apart from hashing speed, work size has any effect on any other part of the total process? It doesn't change anything outwards. The hardware itself has optimum ways of using work, and even though 4 wavefronts (64*4 = -w 256) is supposed to be always optimum if you have enough registers (at -v 2, we do, higher -vs, not so much although -v 2,1 fits on vliw5 hardware (but not vliw4)). Its just that for some reason some people are faster on -w 128, and they shouldn't be. They just are. Might as well abuse it while you can. |
|
|
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
It exists just because some really are faster. If its not for you, just choose the largest (which is 256 on any AMD hardware). |
|
|
|
I don't have permission, but I can't be caught because I'm the only person smart enough in IT to figure out what's going on! Then they probably wouldn't notice if you just took a few computers home with you for your "pockets benefit", either... As a matter of fact, they dont. I've taken 10+ sticks of RAM, a few PSUs, tons of HDDs, printer power supplies, a laptop, a PC Ebay FTW You do know that is considered a criminal act by US Federal Law, right? And you do realize advocating illegal acts are against forum rules, right? |
|
|
|
|
Dear OSX users:
Apparently OSX not only requires -w 64 to work, but it also requires -na to work as well.
|
|
|
|
I use P2Pool, but it works fine here. What arguments are you using? Because it should be -o localhost -r 9932, no -u or -p required
Really? The guide I read said I had to put in a user and pwd, and tie it to the bitcoin.conf file. I'll try it without extra tags and see if that works better. Thanks! You only need a -u -p and edit bitcoin.conf if you intend to solo mine. |
|
|
|
Sorry to cross post this, but I just realized you guys may be able to help better with my problem. I'm trying to get my 7970 hashing in P2Pool, but I can't seem to get it configured correctly with diablominer. It works fine with cgminer, but I get better hashrates with diablo.  Anyone got this combo (diablominer+P2Pool) working? I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine. Is there a log file or something I can post that will help track down the issue? I followed the setup instructions in the first few posts of the P2Pool thread, but they don't seem to address diablo specifically, and I think I'm just missing some minor (but important) bit of string to get it hashing. Any help appreciated. I use P2Pool, but it works fine here. What arguments are you using? Because it should be -o localhost -r 9932, no -u or -p required |
|
|
|
|
Seriously, where is it? I waited a whole damned month.
|
|
|
|
I see, thanks as always for the responses DiabloD3.
Do you know if there are plans to put those kinds of controls into DM at some point?
Possibly. I'm considering the idea of rewriting the entire thing in C, which makes doing what cgminer does with ADL very easy. |
|
|
|
So before I start going through every page of this 70 page thread...
Are there flags or a way to set core/mem clocks, voltage, and fan speeds with Diablominer?
Wanted to try it out with the -f flags to mine while gaming but didn't see any mention of these sorts of options so far in Diablominer the way CGMiner does.
Nope, DM can't control those yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
