Claymore's Dual Ethereum AMD+NVIDIA GPU Miner v15.0 (Windows/Linux)

[j2james]

Dear @Claymore

Can you tell me is it normal that I have so different total hashrate? What is the problem? Claymore miner or my GPUs?

ETH: 03/14/18-00:34:32 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 189.318 Mh/s, Total Shares: 3, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:00
ETH: GPU0 31.565 Mh/s, GPU1 31.692 Mh/s, GPU2 31.724 Mh/s, GPU3 31.362 Mh/s, GPU4 31.246 Mh/s, GPU5 31.729 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:34:39 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 175.209 Mh/s, Total Shares: 3, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 31.697 Mh/s, GPU1 30.633 Mh/s, GPU2 31.702 Mh/s, GPU3 27.850 Mh/s, GPU4 26.629 Mh/s, GPU5 26.699 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:34:45 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 187.369 Mh/s, Total Shares: 3, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 30.963 Mh/s, GPU1 31.333 Mh/s, GPU2 31.082 Mh/s, GPU3 31.158 Mh/s, GPU4 31.410 Mh/s, GPU5 31.422 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:34:59 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 4)
ETH: Share accepted (63 ms)!
GPU0 t=40C fan=45%%, GPU1 t=43C fan=46%%, GPU2 t=41C fan=46%%, GPU3 t=38C fan=44%%, GPU4 t=47C fan=48%%, GPU5 t=40C fan=45%%
ETH: 03/14/18-00:35:04 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 188.692 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 31.552 Mh/s, GPU1 31.717 Mh/s, GPU2 31.661 Mh/s, GPU3 31.017 Mh/s, GPU4 31.738 Mh/s, GPU5 31.006 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:35:16 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 173.243 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 31.727 Mh/s, GPU1 28.583 Mh/s, GPU2 28.311 Mh/s, GPU3 28.557 Mh/s, GPU4 28.722 Mh/s, GPU5 27.343 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:35:24 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 186.359 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 31.709 Mh/s, GPU1 31.355 Mh/s, GPU2 29.162 Mh/s, GPU3 31.366 Mh/s, GPU4 31.320 Mh/s, GPU5 31.446 Mh/s
GPU0 t=41C fan=45%%, GPU1 t=44C fan=47%%, GPU2 t=42C fan=46%%, GPU3 t=39C fan=44%%, GPU4 t=48C fan=49%%, GPU5 t=41C fan=45%%
ETH: 03/14/18-00:35:34 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 176.728 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:01
ETH: GPU0 27.605 Mh/s, GPU1 28.760 Mh/s, GPU2 28.791 Mh/s, GPU3 28.812 Mh/s, GPU4 31.660 Mh/s, GPU5 31.100 Mh/s
ETH: 03/14/18-00:35:45 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 190.346 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:02
ETH: GPU0 31.749 Mh/s, GPU1 31.683 Mh/s, GPU2 31.743 Mh/s, GPU3 31.737 Mh/s, GPU4 31.724 Mh/s, GPU5 31.710 Mh/s
GPU0 t=42C fan=46%%, GPU1 t=44C fan=47%%, GPU2 t=42C fan=46%%, GPU3 t=39C fan=44%%, GPU4 t=47C fan=49%%, GPU5 t=41C fan=46%%
ETH: 03/14/18-00:36:04 - New job from eth-eu1.nanopool.org:9999
ETH - Total Speed: 185.858 Mh/s, Total Shares: 4, Rejected: 0, Time: 00:02
ETH: GPU0 28.375 Mh/s, GPU1 31.677 Mh/s, GPU2 31.268 Mh/s, GPU3 31.713 Mh/s, GPU4 31.542 Mh/s, GPU5 31.282 Mh/s

[janding]

I am moving to Phoenix too, dual mining becomes unprofitable, miner is unstable, devfee is huge for Claymore.

I really hope claymore will lower its devfee overall because phoenix miner is much better overall right now and its devfee is 35% lower.

My take on the two miners

I was a Phoenix fan. Ran it for few a few months.
It is good.
Solid miner.
Hash rate was higher.
Dev fee was lower.

However since I started testing Claymore again starting with v 11.3 and now 11.4

It is good.
Solid Miner.
Hash rate the same or even higher for me than Phoenix now.
Feature rich miner, far more detailed features than Phoenix at present.
Just the setting for temp and clocking alone is far better.
Much lower stale share rate by a large factor than Phoenix.
Claymore fixing the stale share rate alone paid for my 1% dev fee they charge.

Gotta give the nod to Claymore at this time.
These are my experiences and my opinions, you're testing may be different than mine.

[peterboy1]

nah, save the hassle. reverted back to v11

no matter what i do with downclocking, i always get random incorrect shares. i dont know whats up with this higher hashrates on latest claymores, but its randomly throwing me a lot of incorrect shares.

[cryptoillusion1]

I am using a modded BIOS and have core voltage = -43mv in afterburner
I want to use Claymore for controlling this and wish to use -cvddc
However I am unsure how to translate the -43mv in AB to claymore- since there are differing voltages at different core clock in the bios whereas in claymore only one voltage is entered.

My bios voltages are as below

MHZ   mV
300   750
588   850
900   850
950   840
980   850
1000   860
1050   870
1100   890
1150   900

[Teress]

It looks Claymore prefers AMD over NVIDIA when doing optimizations. Latest v11.4 on Nvidias is not good. Yeah, stable, but lower overall accepted hashrate on pool. Back to ethminer...

[j2james]

It looks Claymore prefers AMD over NVIDIA when doing optimizations. Latest v11.4 on Nvidias is not good. Yeah, stable, but lower overall accepted hashrate on pool. Back to ethminer...

Agreed about AMD cards. But I tested Phoenix and ethminer today. Phoenix is too slow. Ethminer is more stable, but has less hasrate then Claymore. Thinking about ethminer. May be will run it in one day to see result. But now I'm still using Claymore 10.6.

[Teress]

It looks Claymore prefers AMD over NVIDIA when doing optimizations. Latest v11.4 on Nvidias is not good. Yeah, stable, but lower overall accepted hashrate on pool. Back to ethminer...

Agreed about AMD cards. But I tested Phoenix and ethminer today. Phoenix is too slow. Ethminer is more stable, but has less hasrate then Claymore. Thinking about ethminer. May be will run it in one day to see result. But now I'm still using Claymore 10.6.

Ethminer for my nvidia rigs is the best. Very stable and consistent hashrate, no drops like Claymore. And my accepted hasrate on pool is quite always above my reported. But need more time to tweek gpus memory, what is good for Claymore and Phoenix, is not good for ethminer = neccessary to find new frequencies.

[janding]

Here's a question:
If my biggest and main problem with mining is heat, whats the best way to lower the heat from GPUs?
Should I use lower clocks, is there a command line which tells the miner to mine slower/less intense...?
I'm willing to sacrifice the hash speed for lower temps.
Thanks!

I know others have given some answers on this.
I use this a normal starting point for adjusting my rig.
These are the first tings you should have done.


1st - Make minor voltage decreases in both clocks. Memory and GPU. Separately, adjust them one at a time.
Test it. See what the temp is when mining by using a utility like GPU-Z.
If you get to low the board will stop working.
Keep adjusting to lower the temp.

Try setting the  -eth value to 8 to start, then lower it down one number at a time when testing.
This adjusts the intensity. It will lower the hash rate, but lower numbers will make the GPU run cooler.

Make settings similar to these in the config file.
Your numbers will vary from what mine are shown here.


-tt 67                      # Sets desired temp for a GPU
-ttli 72                    # Sets the max temp for a GPU before miner automatically starts reducing intensity. This will allow the GPU to run a little cooler but still keep running.
-tstop 75                 # Turn GPU off if this temp is reached until the temp gets to the value in -tstart, then start it up again
-tstart 65                # Temp to start mining again if -tstop temp was reached

Be patient It's takes some time and work to fine tune your rig.
If you didn't do testing and monitoring like the above then you probably didn't set it up correctly from the beginning.

[Roadrage68]

I need a little help guys. I have one AMD card (will be adding more) to my 7 card Nidvia rig. I only want to use Claymore for the AMD card. This is my bat file, but it's still running all the cards. Can someone tell me what I need to do to tweak it?

setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100

-di 0

EthDcrMiner64.exe -epool us1.ethermine.org:14444 -ewal 0xfe943a6dabf68375754d07044812f76a0dd01d64 -epsw x

Insert -di 0 into config.txt

Seems to have done it. Thanks again.

Yeah, it's still reading all cards. I don't get  it.

Couldn't you add this to single out AMD cards?   "-platform 1"

[cryptoillusion1]

Hello everyone
I wanted to know if your antivirus was not alarmed by Claymore's latest executable.
This is the first time I have this kind of detection, I got the client on Bitcointalk on the Claymore post, both Mega and Googledrive.
I sent the report on the total virus and it shows me this kind of analysis, nothing reassuring

This is because all av detect miners as a virus-also read FAQ on Page 1

1.Create a folder MINERS (or any name) - add this folder to windows defender exclusion list
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4028485/windows-10-add-an-exclusion-to-windows-defender-antivirus

If required
2.switch OFF windows defender real time protection and download miner to the above folder
3. switch ON windows defender real time protection

[j2james]

Ethminer for my nvidia rigs is the best. Very stable hashrate, no drops like Claymore. And my accepted hasrate on pool is quite always above my reported. But need more time to tweek gpus memory, what is good for Claymore and Phoenix, is not good for ethminer = neccessary to find new frequencies.

Can you comment "But need more time to tweek gpus memory, what is good for Claymore and Phoenix, is not good for ethminer = neccessary to find new frequencies."?

May be you can give me in PM your OC settings for Claymore and for ethminer to compare them to understand how can I play with my settings?

[big al]

nah, save the hassle. reverted back to v11

no matter what i do with downclocking, i always get random incorrect shares. i dont know whats up with this higher hashrates on latest claymores, but its randomly throwing me a lot of incorrect shares.

This is what I've found too with dual mining.  11.3 or 11.4 you have to slow down the cards to get stability but still 4% incorrect shares.

With 11.0 I get slightly slower speeds vs the same card speed but I can turn them up more with stability. I dont have any incorrect shares so far a couple hours in.  The effective speed is much higher.

[Chiko.Chavez]

Yesterday I tried to undervolt my rig and now I am having some major issues, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Code:

Rig is 6x RX 580s (all with mixed Hynix and Samsung memory) on Asus Mining Expert board running blockchain driver with Polaris one click bios.

The usual OC and voltage setting I use in the config file for Claymore's miner are

-cclock 1150
-cvddc 900
-mvddc 950
-mclock 2200

My usual power usage at the wall (when dual mining ETH and XVG) is 1070W, HWinfo usually shows gpu chip power of  97w per card.

The settings I tried were

-cclock 1150
-cvddc 875
-mvddc 925
-mclock 2150

After starting Claymore v 11.4 I went back into the config file and edited the settings back to my usual oc/voltages so that if it crashed it would apply them on reboot.

After about an hour the rig crashed (CCL error gpu 5)it rebooted and it restarted claymore with my usual settings. I noticed that the power usage at the wall had jumped up to around 1285w and HWinfo was showing gpu power usage of around 120w per card. HWinfo and GPU-z were showing that my GPU's were running at the usual clocks/voltages 1150/2200 900/950 so I stopped Claymore and manually restarted my rig.

When it restarted the MB done the initial single beep before posting then tripple beeped and wouldn't post. I powered off the rig, 'flicked the PSU switches off and let it still for a few mins. Powered the rig back up again and same result (single beep, tripple beep not posting).
I powered off the rig unplugged GPU 0 and GPU 1 at the MB, swapped them over (gpu 0 to pcie 1x slot gpu 1 to pcie 16x slot) and the rig posted then booted to Windows went into device manager and it was only picking up 5 of the 6 GPU's (not the GPU that was previously GPU 0).

I shut down the rig, unplugged the GPU at the riser and PSU and rebooted (posted and booted to Windows with no issues), I started Claymore (started mining fine) and when I checked HWinfo/GPU-z same result previous clock/voltage settings with higher gpu power usage (120w per card) than usual.

I stopped Claymore, shut down the rig, unplugged the rig at the wall, put GPU's in there original positions, moved the bios switch on the GPU that wasn't being picked up to 'silent mode' and booted the rig up.

It posted and booted into Windows but was running really odd, mouse movements, opening windows etc were slow and sluggish. I then moved the bios switch back to original position then used ATIflash via cmd to 're flash all cards back to original bios, uninstalled driver via DDU and rebooted the rig. Reinstalled blockchain driver, rebooted and mouse movements, opening windows etc were still slow and sluggish.

Used ATIflash via cmd and flashed all GPU'S with bios I had them running on previously (one click Polaris Bios Editor). Applied atikmdag-patcher and rebooted, things were still running slow and sluggish, ran claymore and it started mining with all 6 GPU'S at original config setting, getting the same Mh/s but all the GPU's are still using more power than they usually would (120w per GPU and whole rig 1285w at wall).

Apologies for how long this is but I wanted to give a good idea on what is happening, what I have tried already etc.

Thoughts? Anyone had a similar issue that the have managed to resolve? Thanks in advance to anyone that can help me.

Ps

How do I put this into one of the 'box thing's' so it doesn't take up so much room on the page?

Thanks cryptoillusion1

[muzuca]

Finally the last version of claymore is stable on my rigs. After some problems, now everything is working just fine. Thanks!

[muzuca]

I saw a post over here from npool asking everyone that mine just with GPUs, to try mine using cpu too. I do the test and even my G4400 is dong very well with some altcoins, using just 1thread. So, thanks for the tip, and I really think that is something very nice to do.

[Metroid]

This is what I've found too with dual mining.  11.3 or 11.4 you have to slow down the cards to get stability but still 4% incorrect shares.

With 11.0 I get slightly slower speeds vs the same card speed but I can turn them up more with stability. I dont have any incorrect shares so far a couple hours in.  The effective speed is much higher.

The incorrect shares is due to the speed boost claymore did, claymore increased memory intensity for the boost and now to make it right people need to reduce their memory clock speed.

[peterboy1]

This is what I've found too with dual mining.  11.3 or 11.4 you have to slow down the cards to get stability but still 4% incorrect shares.

With 11.0 I get slightly slower speeds vs the same card speed but I can turn them up more with stability. I dont have any incorrect shares so far a couple hours in.  The effective speed is much higher.

The incorrect shares is due to the speed boost claymore did, claymore increased memory intensity for the boost and now to make it right people need to reduce their memory clock speed.

this is my theory as well.

i have sleepless nights already trying to stabilize my rig.

[big al]

Finally the last version of claymore is stable on my rigs. After some problems, now everything is working just fine. Thanks!

What version did you come from and what changes did you make? Gains?

[romansteel]

Hey guys just wanted to check if anyone is mining with 1080s. I have 2 x 1080s in my set-up and they both average about 21 mh/s on the claymore miner...this seems 4-5 mh/s too slow or is that just me?

[big al]

This is what I've found too with dual mining.  11.3 or 11.4 you have to slow down the cards to get stability but still 4% incorrect shares.

With 11.0 I get slightly slower speeds vs the same card speed but I can turn them up more with stability. I dont have any incorrect shares so far a couple hours in.  The effective speed is much higher.

The incorrect shares is due to the speed boost claymore did, claymore increased memory intensity for the boost and now to make it right people need to reduce their memory clock speed.

Is it also possible those with modified ram straps are seeing more issues?