Claymore's ZCash/BTG AMD GPU Miner v12.6 (Windows/Linux)

[texv]

can anybody moving from v11.1 on windows to linux tell me if you see any difference in speed please.

For me [2 x (4 x Rx480 8GB)]
Windows version --> 1040-1020
Linux Version --> 980-990

[1714132775]

1714132775

[1714132775]

1714132775

[1714132775]

1714132775

[1714132775]

1714132775

[jeremyf327]

Has anyone tried the new 17.1.1 AMD drivers for RX 480's yet? I am not feeling brave.

[z0n0]

Claymore how old are you? 

[kirilvvbg]

Claymore how old are you? 

Irrelevant...

[ghostfaceuk]

can anybody moving from v11.1 on windows to linux tell me if you see any difference in speed please.

For me [2 x (4 x Rx480 8GB)]
Windows version --> 1040-1020
Linux Version --> 980-990

So a lowering of hash rate, what about temps and fan speeds?

[espressodelisi]

can anybody moving from v11.1 on windows to linux tell me if you see any difference in speed please.

Here is my linux miner output:
ZEC - Total Speed: 813.780 H/s, Total Shares: 464, Rejected: 3, Time: 00:48
ZEC: GPU0 171.829 H/s, GPU1 255.613 H/s, GPU2 119.854 H/s, GPU3 266.483 H/s


GPU0: Asus Radeon r9 280x : Faulty fan problem, that's why it's underclocked. Could not modify bios to undervolt. Could run 1050:1500 clocks if run single.
GPU1 and GPU3: Powercolor radeon r9 280x. Modified bios to undervolt. Good cards. Happy with them.
GPU2 : Asus radeon r9 270. Could not modfy bios to undervolt. thats why its underclocked.


and GPU clocks:
rig1@rig1:~$ .local/bin/atitweak -s
0. AMD Radeon R9 200 Series      (:0.0)
    engine clock 850MHz, memory clock 850MHz, core voltage 1.2VDC, performance level 3, utilization 97%
    fan speed 95% (5841 RPM) (user-defined)
    temperature 65 C
    powertune 0%
1. AMD Radeon R9 200 Series                           (:0.1)
    engine clock 1050MHz, memory clock 1500MHz, core voltage 1.175VDC, performance level 3, utilization 97%
    fan speed 80% (2852 RPM) (user-defined)
    temperature 56 C
    powertune 0%
2. AMD Radeon (TM) R9 200 Series (:0.2)
    engine clock 850MHz, memory clock 850MHz, core voltage 1.215VDC, performance level 3, utilization 98%
    fan speed 90% (3156 RPM) (user-defined)
    temperature 53 C
    powertune 0%
3. AMD Radeon R9 200 Series                           (:0.3)
    engine clock 1050MHz, memory clock 1500MHz, core voltage 1.175VDC, performance level 3, utilization 97%
    fan speed 85% (3022 RPM) (user-defined)
    temperature 60 C
    powertune 0%


My PSU is a 80+ Bronze edition 1000W PSU. it's not enough if all the cards run full speed, so I need to underclock some of the cards.

Running ubuntu 14.04 with AMD 15.2 drivers.

Setting up and using windows is not easy so I do not use windows. I am too old to learn how to use windows. Linux is easy.

[espressodelisi]

can anybody moving from v11.1 on windows to linux tell me if you see any difference in speed please.

For me [2 x (4 x Rx480 8GB)]
Windows version --> 1040-1020
Linux Version --> 980-990

So a lowering of hash rate, what about temps and fan speeds?

For temps and fan speeds, I'm  using atitweak utility in linux. Setting the fans and clocks with it when I start the rig and monitoring the fans and temps with it too.

here is the set.sh on my rig to set fans and clocks:
-----------------
echo "setting clocks and fan speeds..."
#aticonfig --od-enable
.local/bin/atitweak --adapter=0 --set-engine-clock=850 --set-memory-clock=850 --performance-level=all --set-fan-speed=95
.local/bin/atitweak --adapter=1 --set-engine-clock=1050 --set-memory-clock=1500 --performance-level=all --set-fan-speed=80
.local/bin/atitweak --adapter=2 --set-engine-clock=850 --set-memory-clock=850 --performance-level=all --set-fan-speed=90
.local/bin/atitweak --adapter=3 --set-engine-clock=1050 --set-memory-clock=1500 --performance-level=all --set-fan-speed=85
#
echo "Setting finished. Now showing status..."
~/.local/bin/atitweak -s
-----------------


And using ~/.local/bin/atitweak -s
command, I can monitor temps.

[Gregorz]

Just now is available the Windows driver 17.1.1. Anybody tried it with the last version of Claymore Zcash?

[john1010]

Just now is available the Windows driver 17.1.1. Anybody tried it with the last version of Claymore Zcash?

I tried this one and nothing happened.. It same with other driver, there is no changes in speed, the only changes is the relive for gamers and you can't use bios modding..

[Gregorz]

Just now is available the Windows driver 17.1.1. Anybody tried it with the last version of Claymore Zcash?

I tried this one and nothing happened.. It same with other driver, there is no changes in speed, the only changes is the relive for gamers and you can't use bios modding..

I installed it and Claymore 11.1 works only a few minutes and blocks computer (a proof machine with a single RX 470 card) and is needed a hard reset.

[TheMiningDwarf]

Does mclock work on linux ?

[TimLev]

Interesting fact: after modification timings Gigabyte HD7950 gives stable ~330H/s with 1% rejected. (1190/1470) - Pic 1

If increase mem frequency up to 1500, GPU gives ~361 H/s. But about 15% of rejected. In log file appears strings of buffer overflow. - Pic 2

https://yadi.sk/i/SHGnaZM739jvER
Pic 1

https://yadi.sk/i/dRQtFiZW39jvLu
Pic 2


What does this buffer overflow mean ? Obviously, hashrate indexes is not very accurate ?

[a1unicorn]

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

[TheMiningDwarf]

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

Are you overclocking ?

[TimLev]

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

Had such happiness with one card. In my case, solution was a significant drop in temperature. Probably some radio elements lost characteristics with age and at high temperature becomes unstable.

[a1unicorn]

Are you overclocking ?

No, using stock cards.

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

Had such happiness with one card. In my case, solution was a significant drop in temperature. Probably some radio elements lost characteristics with age and at high temperature becomes unstable.

What temps did you have before/after? My GPUs are hashing at around 68-74 C.

[G_Crypt]

v11.1 Linux version released.

Thank you.

Thanks Claymore, keep up the good work 😀

[adaseb]

Interesting fact: after modification timings Gigabyte HD7950 gives stable ~330H/s with 1% rejected. (1190/1470) - Pic 1

If increase mem frequency up to 1500, GPU gives ~361 H/s. But about 15% of rejected. In log file appears strings of buffer overflow. - Pic 2


Pic 1


Pic 2


What does this buffer overflow mean ? Obviously, hashrate indexes is not very accurate ?

What voltage do you have to overvolt to get it stable at 1190 Mhz core?

[TheMiningDwarf]

Are you overclocking ?

No, using stock cards.

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

Had such happiness with one card. In my case, solution was a significant drop in temperature. Probably some radio elements lost characteristics with age and at high temperature becomes unstable.

What temps did you have before/after? My GPUs are hashing at around 68-74 C.

what are your command line in the miner &?

[igorsantos]

Anyone else have a 'GPU #0 returned incorrect data!' error? Happens on GPU #0, 1 of my 4 Saphhire R9 280xs, after about 6 hours of mining. It's always the same GPU returning the error, while the others are fine.

Are you overclocking ?

Usually this occurs due to the intensity.