Deleted

[kingcolex]

.

[djm34]

the fury with HBM memory could probably be very interesting with memory hard algo

[grouper fish]

yes the nano seems like an interesting card, will probably get one for mining. 

[Oscilson]

Does this 2X performance/watt applies only to Nano or all Fury series?

[Oscilson]

Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.

[Oscilson]

Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.

Well the more power of the gpu the better hashrate it should have, so I wouldn't be surprised at all about them spouting out bigger numbers.

The R9 290(x) does not have per core mining performance increase over 79xx.

[Oscilson]

Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.

Well the more power of the gpu the better hashrate it should have, so I wouldn't be surprised at all about them spouting out bigger numbers.

The R9 290(x) does not have per core mining performance increase over 79xx.

What are you talking about? a 290x gets better hashrate compared to a 7950 or a 7970 it may be less of a gap due to algorithm but it is definitely better.

I mean per core performance. The performance of 290x is about 2816/2048= 1.4 times, not higher than 7970. I hope Fury XT performance is 4 times of 7970 with double core count (4096/2048=2).

[Dr Charles]

Thanks for the post. I will be following the cards release. I have been thinking about busting out some of my old GPU rigs.

[grouper fish]

is there a set date for when we will be seeing the fury cards in stores? Read somewhere that they will be in short supply at the release.

[sp_]

Note that the stolen wolf0 binaries for x11,x13,x15 binaries will most likely not work on the new hardware, so you are stuck with the opensourceminer. I doubt that wolf0 will be kind enough to compile new binaries and hand them out for free, but he will probobly sell them.

The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:

x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s

wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):

x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster

My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):

quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)

NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):

quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
          980 (19MHASH)
          970 (15.5MHASH)
          960 (10MHASH)
          750ti (6MHASH)

A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti

[qwep1]

Note that the stolen wolf0 binaries for x11,x13,x15 binaries will most likely not work on the new hardware, so you are stuck with the opensourceminer. I doubt that wolf0 will be kind enough to compile new binaries and hand them out for free, but he will probobly sell them.

The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:

x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s

wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):

x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster

My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):

quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)

NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):

quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
          980 (19MHASH)
          970 (15.5MHASH)
          960 (10MHASH)
          750ti (6MHASH)

A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti

I doubt that they will be slow, you are talking about something that is not seen or tested come here when then can claim that they are slower

[sp_]

I doubt that they will be slow, you are talking about something that is not seen or tested come here when then can claim that they are slower

Without optimized code and a bether compiler the new cards will mine slow. this is simple math.

If the new card is 4x faster than the 280x, it will still mine slower than the 280x without a optimized miner.
Wolf0's quark implementation is 5.5.x faster than the opensource miner in the quark algorithm.

[sp_]

Well you have to also remember the binaries make the cards use more power and run hotter, I feel like you aren't taking that into consideration, but the 390x's will work with the hawaii bins.

yes, they use more power.. The problem is that the optimal quark kernal needs a modified sgminer in order to work. The modified bin files is not enough. My slow 1.25x faster kernal will work on the old sgminer, and I can generate hawaii bins..
Wolf0 hasn't leaked his quark work yet I think, but there is a Russian? kernel/sgminer windows exefile out there, but without hawaii bins. only tahiti.

The current global hashrate on the quarkbased coins is around 150GHASH/s. This is around 75 000 Radeon 280x gpu's using the opensource miner. But the sharks use private kernals that are 5-6 times faster... The rental sites are currently paying around 0.5 BTC per GHASH..
This meens that around 75BTC ($18,750) is mined per day in the quark algo alone..

This is $6 843 750 per year in mining revenue.

Enough to power one of these:

[BitmoreCoin]

NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):

quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
          980 (19MHASH)
          970 (15.5MHASH)
          960 (10MHASH)
          750ti (6MHASH)

A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti

The performance between 980ti and 970 is 23/15.5=1.48. The processor difference is 2816/1664=1.69
The performance between 980 and 970 is 19/15.5=1.22. The processor difference is 2048/1664=1.23

Why 980Ti is less efficient per core? Is that limited by power?

[sp_]

These numbers are abit inaccurate because the highend cards are running on lower default clockrates.

An overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable  run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.

Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod  release 52:

The clock is 1510/1620(*2)

[djm34]

These numbers are abit inaccurate because the highend cards are running on lower default clockrates.

An overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable  run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.

Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod  release 52:

The clock is 1510/1620(*2)

I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclocked
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"   1140kh/s)

core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...

[sp_]

I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclocked
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"   1140kh/s)

core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...

It's not a 750ti card. It's a 750 with 1gb of memory , 512 shaders overvolted and heavily overclocked. The user Rednow posted it in my thread some time back.

[djm34]

I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclocked
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"   1140kh/s)

core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...

It's not a 750ti card. It's a 750 with 1gb of memory , 512 shaders overvolted and heavily overclocked. The user Rednow posted it in my thread some time back.

I am confused,  what are the hashrate numbers a ti and a standard 750 and the price differences if you could? I am looking into building a 750(ti) rig in the near future.

the price difference is (or was) about 20-30euros so not much, but 1gb is a no go for mem hard algos (which is a bit surprising here with lyra) and the overclocked is mind blowing (probably gpu blowing too...) it is something like 200MHz higher (both core and mem) than what I use...  (the bios might have been moded too)

[page14]

So...?
Any news?

Cant seem to find anything related to R9 fury and mining.

[Eliovp]

I got an R9 390x this weekend.

My first impression.

I ran it next to a Sapphire R9 290X 8Gb Mem, hash rate was almost exactly the same. If you didn't know they were different, you wouldn't have noticed.

What it "did" very well, and yes, it "did" it.. haha, was OC, Sapphire is known to be able to OC very good.
This was no exception.

+ that it stayed almost 10degrees cooler then the 290X
Maybe that's a coincidence, maybe not.

10 min after i did some tests, i rebooted and it never came alive again.

So for those interested in buying a 390x. Think Twice... Buy a 290x, which does the same thing but cheaper!


As soon as The Fury X arrives (next week it seems) i'll be posting my findings.


Greetings