Deleted

[djm34]

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

if you don't measure power usage, you might not find big difference, also if you just tried an algo might not be significant either...

This is a bit thin, what you say here (and I am not defending amd or else... as I am rather an nvidia guy...).

[1714820538]

1714820538

[1714820538]

1714820538

[1714820538]

1714820538

[1714820538]

1714820538

[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

if you don't measure power usage, you might not find big difference, also if you just tried an algo might not be significant either...

This is a bit thin, what you say here (and I am not defending amd or else... as I am rather an nvidia guy...).

Yes you're right, tested it on 3 algo's, quark, X11 and Sia

Difference was close to nothing on all 3 algo's

I should get me a new meter to see how much electricity it was pulling.

I'll order one tomorrow :-)

[Katerich]

wow 
I have VGA more than that but the size is really big

[djm34]

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

if you don't measure power usage, you might not find big difference, also if you just tried an algo might not be significant either...

This is a bit thin, what you say here (and I am not defending amd or else... as I am rather an nvidia guy...).

Yes you're right, tested it on 3 algo's, quark, X11 and Sia

Difference was close to nothing on all 3 algo's

I should get me a new meter to see how much electricity it was pulling.

I'll order one tomorrow :-)

try also a memory hard algo (with the fury X), those algo doesn't use any memory so basically it is just the performance at doing calculation. Not sure it should really change a lot, they just depend on the number of core/shader/thread

[sp_]

Yes you're right, tested it on 3 algo's, quark, X11 and Sia
Difference was close to nothing on all 3 algo's
I should get me a new meter to see how much electricity it was pulling.
I'll order one tomorrow :-)

What hashrate do you get in  the quark algo on the 390x?

[sp_]

AMD Radeon Fury X : Fiji XT   
AMD Radeon Fury: Fiji PRO   
AMD Radeon R9 390X: Hawaii XT
AMD Radeon R9 290X: Hawaii XT

It looks like wolf0 can make some more Bitcoins. the furyx and fury chips are probobly not compatible with the hawaii bin files..
Without wolf's bin's the furyx will run x11 slower than the 7970


The 7970 is a 4 year old design (the first cards came around Jan 9, 2012)

[sp_]

A single 980ti is aleady doing 23MHASH on the default clocks. (quark)

[Eliovp]

A single 980ti is aleady doing 23MHASH on the default clocks. (quark)

Fury X will beat that :p

Got a new 390x today, it's running fine now

Will order a meter and post my findings later this week.


Greetings

[MaxDZ8]

I have no idea how you guys insist on top-end cards. They have a well known premium.
It looks to me the card to buy is 380. It seems very affordable around here and Tonga has byte-lookup instructions. With recompiled kernels there could be a nice speedup (or not...).

As a side note: 7750 can do well in excess of 2 qubit MHS with publicly available kernels. Users able to run it on big cards (I don't remember which card) told me they go over 10M. I'm inclined to believe another 50% is possible.

[sp_]

I have working hawaii bins that will work on the new cards for qubit and quark.

Around 15MHASH +++ on the 390x.

Please donate 0.1 BTC to my BTC adress and I will tell you how to do it.

[MaxDZ8]

380 is rebranded 285.

Who cares. The shelf price is at least 30% lower here.

So, maybe it's the same thing to you. It isn't to me.

[sp_]

http://cryptomining-blog.com/5201-trying-out-the-new-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-for-crypto-currency-mining/

The Quark and qubit performance was pretty good, the rest needs some more work... Lyra2RE and neoscrypt is slooow...

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Results:
– X11 default: 6.778 MHS
– X11 Wolf0 Mod: 8.123 MHS (closed source)
– X13 default: 5.614 MHS
– X13 Wolf0 Mod: 7.176 MHS (closed source)
– X15 default: 4.69 MHS
– X15 Wolf0 Mod: 6.335 MHS (closed source)
– Quark modified: 22.37 MHS (windows only, closed sgminer and kernal sources)
– Qubit modified: 21.15 MHS (windows only, closed sgminer and kernal sources)
– Neoscrypt default: 147 KHS
– Lyra2RE default: 287 KHS
– Lyra2RE Pallas Mod: 450 KHS

[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

Without the private kernals (only using  the opensource kernals), the furyx perfoms a bit slower than an overclocked 280x.
Lyra and neoscrypt is dead slow...

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Results:
– X11 default: 6.778 MHS
– X13 default: 5.614 MHS
– X15 default: 4.69 MHS
– Neoscrypt default: 147 KHS
– Lyra2RE default: 287 KHS
– Lyra2RE Pallas Mod: 450 KHS

quark: ?
qubit: ?

[djm34]

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

Without the private kernals (only using  the opensource kernals), the furyx perfoms a bit slower than an overclocked 280x.
Lyra and neoscrypt is dead slow...

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Results:
– Neoscrypt default: 147 KHS
– Lyra2RE default: 287 KHS
– Lyra2RE Pallas Mod: 450 KHS

there are most likely doing something wrong  
they need to play a bit with parameter tuning... technically the high memory bandwidth should allow a lot faster than the 290x and most likely anything around

[pallas]

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

Without the private kernals (only using  the opensource kernals), the furyx perfoms a bit slower than an overclocked 280x.
Lyra and neoscrypt is dead slow...

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Results:
– Neoscrypt default: 147 KHS
– Lyra2RE default: 287 KHS
– Lyra2RE Pallas Mod: 450 KHS

there are most likely doing something wrong  
they need to play a bit with parameter tuning... technically the high memory bandwidth should allow a lot faster than the 290x and most likely anything around

lyra2re depends much on latency, so the added bandwidth may not be of help, especially if they traded bandwidth for latency (did they?) ;-)
Results from algos which do not use global memory access are more interesting than those, IMHO: we could see if the "same wattage but more shaders" equation is true.

[sp_]

there are most likely doing something wrong  
they need to play a bit with parameter tuning... technically the high memory bandwidth should allow a lot faster than the 290x and most likely anything around

The miners need some more free DJM34 hardcore coding. Can you do it? I will donate 0.02BTC

[djm34]

there are most likely doing something wrong  
they need to play a bit with parameter tuning... technically the high memory bandwidth should allow a lot faster than the 290x and most likely anything around

The miners need some more free DJM34 hardcore coding. Can you do it? I will donate 0.02BTC

sure if someone is willing to donate a fury X first 

[djm34]

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

Without the private kernals (only using  the opensource kernals), the furyx perfoms a bit slower than an overclocked 280x.
Lyra and neoscrypt is dead slow...

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Results:
– Neoscrypt default: 147 KHS
– Lyra2RE default: 287 KHS
– Lyra2RE Pallas Mod: 450 KHS

there are most likely doing something wrong  
they need to play a bit with parameter tuning... technically the high memory bandwidth should allow a lot faster than the 290x and most likely anything around

lyra2re depends much on latency, so the added bandwidth may not be of help, especially if they traded bandwidth for latency (did they?) ;-)
Results from algos which do not use global memory access are more interesting than those, IMHO: we could see if the "same wattage but more shaders" equation is true.

I would expect smaller latencies (assuming it is related...) as the memory is pretty close  to the gpu

[pallas]

According to this page:

http://support.amd.com/en-us/download

The drivers for radeon 300 and fury series are available for windows 8.1/7 64bit only.
I'm wondering if they work correctly with the standard driver on linux and what about opencl.
Let's hope they upload the linux version soon!

[platinum4]

I am sure they will but in the mean time you could do a dual boot of the windows 10 beta release for free and later this month it will activate to 100% genuine and just use that os for mining. I haven't had any issue with 8.1 software and drivers running on 10.

lmao you won't be convincing pallas to switch to Windows anytime soon