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

[Simon_Grape]

Did ZEC's difficulty just double? I'm literally submitting half as many shares than I was an hour ago with the same hashrate. Or is it just flypool?  

share rate can flux


but flypool is up to 15.6 MH

before clay 8  flypool was at 12.8 MH

FLY pool rised (finaly) sharediff from 1000 to 2000. So half less shares is same as before.

When you say "finally" what do mean? I'm not trying to be an ass but how is this good? If I'm submitting less shares, I'm getting less of a payout, correct? Or am i missing something?

less shares but each share is worth more than before

Did ZEC's difficulty just double? I'm literally submitting half as many shares than I was an hour ago with the same hashrate. Or is it just flypool? 

Same here, I could not understand it and then I saw they are showing the shares for less than an hour. Check the bars and you will see the time of each share count. Number of shares PER HOUR is more but they are counting in less than hour blocks ?? Why idk


I was wrong, the less than hour count was only during transition in how the shares are counted

all miners submitting less shares, so proportionately it changes nothing for you, but it reduces web traffic.

Oh ok.. Thx guys.

[Zaducis]

Claymore you are our benefactor! Thank you!

[naeme18720]

I'm not understand for mining zec that server Asia us China...  I'm can is better use.. Please help me

[Rusguy]

This is the quote I was refering to:

"Memory bandwidth:

RX480: 256 GB/s
390X: 384 GB/s

ZEC uses a lot of memory operations. Do you still think that RX480 can work as fast as 390X?"

I never said the 480's can do as much as 390's
Please read posts carefully

Yes I know the differences that's why I said  that the 480's can do better than what they do right now if tweaked as per their OWN advantages

I also have 390x's and I am really happy with them although they burn much more than the 480's for those of us that do pay for electricity

In terms of raw computing power, the 390 has 2560 processors, while the 480 only has 2304 cores. The 390 memory is also faster.

I never compared these 2 GPU's in my posts
But since we are doing this please note that the 2304 cores of 480 are giving out in reality more than 2800
While the 390's in reality give out 2600

If I find the article from experts I will post it in my next post

http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/1611/50/c49233949b53.jpg


As for the fact that 480 390 gives so much, I think all the same mistake in the code. I enclose a screenshot of my 480 so, it issues at 190 i6? So take a look at the load on the memory controller !!! He is always loaded with no more than 50%
It turns out there is the load limit that is, if correct the error in the code while working with the controller, and if the load Lift at least 90%, then the rate should be about 360M / h is just slightly less than the 390 - 384M / h but better enegroefektivnosti 480 model 110-150 watts.

That is half of the memory 480 is not used, so the picture is seen in the temperature GPU VRM temperature1 67C, and the second is the same in a simple GPU VRM temperatura2 26C

Most likely a problem in the new processor 480 used, it works with the other memory technology, not as in the previous models. Claymore's application writes on the old technology this reason, even older models such as the 7790 cards and the like get such speeds, as well as 480 in the growth of only 15-20% with each version

[bardacuda]

Hi,


just to know: who could tell me the hashrate for 7850 and r9 270 not overclocked and undervolted.

Since Version 8.0 i'am thinking about to switch my rigs from ethos (ethereum) to W 7 64-Bit and claymore (zcash)

thx

r7 370 currently 110h/s stock 985mhz core.
7850 is the same? r7 265 too.... right now i'm confused (thanks amd)

Let's mak it more easy:

r7 370 is a rebranded r7 265... r7 265 is a rebranded HD 7850.... TDP 110w, doing 110H/s (Trinidad / Pitcairn pro)
r7 370x is a rebranded r9 270x... r9 270x is a rebranded HD 7870 XT... TDP 150-180w, doing a bit less than 110H/s. (Trinidad xt, Pitcairn XT)

Why a r7 370 (7850) beats a 270x? I don't know... theyre the same "chip" in different editions (pro vs xt)...somehow it does, thanks to the drivers, and AMD.

note: R7 265 overclocks like a motherf*cker. It's one of the weirdest cards AMD has ever made

thx but as far as i know ist a R7 265 a rebranded HD 7850 and a r7 370 a rebranded r 9 270 (without x)

so R7 370 = R9 270 = 110 H/s
so R7 265 = HD7850 = 92 H/s    ??

have a nice day

7870XT is actually a Tahiti chip with more disabled cores and a smaller memory bus which is more similar to Pitcarn. It's a weird card but think of it as more of a 7930.

r7 370 is actually a "pro" chip meaning it has 1024 sps like the 7850 and r7 265, but for some reason seems to perform more like a 1280 sp "XT" chip. They must have made some minor performance tweaks. The r9 270s are the same as 7870s and 270Xs with 1280 sps but most were voltage locked and so just couldn't clock as high without BIOS mods.

chip wise/core count wise: 7850 = r7 265 = r7 370  <  7870 = r9 270 = r9 270X = 370X  <  7870XT

Newegg has some sales. Buying a card today.

Which is better for Zcash now and Eth later?

1- PowerColor PCS+ Radeon R9 390 DirectX 12 AXR9 390 8GBD5-PPDHE 8GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support ATX Video Card

2- XFX Radeon RS RX 480 DirectX 12 RX-480P836BM 8GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card

Thanks

r9 390 is better for ZCash now purely in Sol/s terms because of it's ~+50% more memory bandwidth (and more cores)...but if your power cost is a significant portion of your revenue it could be less profitable in $/day terms (though not likely). It depends on your power cost and price of the coin.

RX 480 is much closer to (though still slower than) a 390 in ETH mining. The lower power cost makes it almost surely more profitable in terms of $/day.

[citronick]

Hi Claymore,

Not complaining but.... do you have anymore surprise versions coming?

Any early heads-up will save me a couple more hours of sleep :-)

I have just tightened all the screws on v8 for all my rigs... running 100 miles per hour.... box fans at full blast!

Next version ... hopefully those RX480s can be improved further -- the other card types are already mining at supersonic speeds.

Thanks and great job!

[needhelp2]

I'm not understand for mining zec that server Asia us China...  I'm can is better use.. Please help me

Try each of the pools and see which one was lowest #

ZEC: 11/25/16-13:28:55 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 0)
ZEC: Share accepted (125 ms)!  <<<<<<<<<<<<< HERE

[manotroll]

Is there any way to send the program shows the speed of ras?

[reb0rn21]

I don`t know how exact you can adjust memory access to GPU memory, but ppl that compare and cry here thet RX 4xx should be fast as 390x should first learn that any architecture is different, the driver is accessing GPU memory as best as it can, if zcash need many small accesses and if 256bit bus is not wide enough its logical that 384 or 512bit bus will be better, even when we know with 2xx and 39x GPU and memory clock is more "aligned" and in sync then on RX cards which usualu work 11xx/2000

CRYING here RX4xx is pointless if you know NOTHING about internel GPU arhitecture and even less about zcash prof of work algo and how its computed

[naeme18720]

I'm not understand for mining zec that server Asia us China...  I'm can is better use.. Please help me

Thanks for help..I'm testing


Try each of the pools and see which one was lowest #

ZEC: 11/25/16-13:28:55 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 0)
ZEC: Share accepted (125 ms)!  <<<<<<<<<<<<< HERE

[Rusguy]

I don`t know how exact you can adjust memory access to GPU memory, but ppl that compare and cry here thet RX 4xx should be fast as 390x should first learn that any architecture is different, the driver is accessing GPU memory as best as it can, if zcash need many small accesses and if 256bit bus is not wide enough its logical that 384 or 512bit bus will be better, even when we know with 2xx and 39x GPU and memory clock is more "aligned" and in sync then on RX cards which usualu work 11xx/2000

CRYING here RX4xx is pointless if you know NOTHING about internel GPU arhitecture and even less about zcash prof of work algo and how its computed

Even if 480 and memory bandwidth 256bit bus still only used 50% of its capacity !!! And I think that the manufacturer knowingly went to such a move is likely for this new chip Polaris dostochno and bandwidth 256bit bus, with his new memory controller that provides a slightly lower performance than the 390 !!!
Sorry for my English


That would see the controller load from 390 models think it will give a small concept in this issue

[lithiumviper12]

Hi guys I have a question. I have 4 RX 480's. For some reason, 3 of them are hashing around 180mh, but the other one is only doing 40mh. Is there anything you can recommend to fix my issue? I have asus h170 pro gaming mb, and a 1200psu, 8gb ram, 120ssd, windows 10.

[Jinx99]

Hi guys I have a question. I have 4 RX 480's. For some reason, 3 of them are hashing around 180mh, but the other one is only doing 40mh. Is there anything you can recommend to fix my issue? I have asus h170 pro gaming mb, and a 1200psu, 8gb ram, 120ssd, windows 10.

If you have some performance issues - check GPU-Z "sensors" tab.

[bardacuda]

I don`t know how exact you can adjust memory access to GPU memory, but ppl that compare and cry here thet RX 4xx should be fast as 390x should first learn that any architecture is different, the driver is accessing GPU memory as best as it can, if zcash need many small accesses and if 256bit bus is not wide enough its logical that 384 or 512bit bus will be better, even when we know with 2xx and 39x GPU and memory clock is more "aligned" and in sync then on RX cards which usualu work 11xx/2000

CRYING here RX4xx is pointless if you know NOTHING about internel GPU arhitecture and even less about zcash prof of work algo and how its computed

Even if 480 and memory bandwidth 256bit bus still only used 50% of its capacity !!! And I think that the manufacturer knowingly went to such a move is likely for this new chip Polaris dostochno and bandwidth 256bit bus, with his new memory controller that provides a slightly lower performance than the 390 !!!
Sorry for my English


That would see the controller load from 390 models think it will give a small concept in this issue

R9 290 MC usage:

Do you also know if you want to check if a algo is memory limited, you can go into GPUZ and check out the MCU (memory controller unit) and see the load on it?

I think this is wrong.  Although I primarily mine using Linux, I have a Windoze box that I use for testing cards.  GPU-z appears to show only external bus bandwidth use (to the GDDR), and not the utilization of the bandwidth between the controller and core.  In practical terms, a miner kernel may be using 200GB/s of memory bandwidth, but a significant percentage of it can be from the L2 cache.  The collision counter tables in SA5 would be an example of this.

Do you have a source for this hypothesis? In all memory restricted algos that correlates to MCU usage. Pretty sure it pertains to any sort of memory overload, bandwidth or bus width...

My knowledge of the AMD GCN architecture (and computer architecture in general), and my experience writing OpenCL.

[tc61]

anyone running into an out of memory error? win 10 16gb ram rx480

[Rusguy]

I don`t know how exact you can adjust memory access to GPU memory, but ppl that compare and cry here thet RX 4xx should be fast as 390x should first learn that any architecture is different, the driver is accessing GPU memory as best as it can, if zcash need many small accesses and if 256bit bus is not wide enough its logical that 384 or 512bit bus will be better, even when we know with 2xx and 39x GPU and memory clock is more "aligned" and in sync then on RX cards which usualu work 11xx/2000

CRYING here RX4xx is pointless if you know NOTHING about internel GPU arhitecture and even less about zcash prof of work algo and how its computed

Even if 480 and memory bandwidth 256bit bus still only used 50% of its capacity !!! And I think that the manufacturer knowingly went to such a move is likely for this new chip Polaris dostochno and bandwidth 256bit bus, with his new memory controller that provides a slightly lower performance than the 390 !!!
Sorry for my English


That would see the controller load from 390 models think it will give a small concept in this issue

R9 290 MC usage:

https://i.imgur.com/UX0NIVb.png

Do you also know if you want to check if a algo is memory limited, you can go into GPUZ and check out the MCU (memory controller unit) and see the load on it?

I think this is wrong.  Although I primarily mine using Linux, I have a Windoze box that I use for testing cards.  GPU-z appears to show only external bus bandwidth use (to the GDDR), and not the utilization of the bandwidth between the controller and core.  In practical terms, a miner kernel may be using 200GB/s of memory bandwidth, but a significant percentage of it can be from the L2 cache.  The collision counter tables in SA5 would be an example of this.

Do you have a source for this hypothesis? In all memory restricted algos that correlates to MCU usage. Pretty sure it pertains to any sort of memory overload, bandwidth or bus width...

My knowledge of the AMD GCN architecture (and computer architecture in general), and my experience writing OpenCL.

Loading controller slightly higher than the 480, but the GPU BPM temperature2 temperature is about the same as the GPU BPM temperature1, there is likely to interfere with the speed of the memory controller already that little bandwidth 256bit bus

[KrokoTill]

r7 370 is actually a "pro" chip meaning it has 1024 sps like the 7850 and r7 265, but for some reason seems to perform more like a 1280 sp "XT" chip. They must have made some minor performance tweaks. The r9 270s are the same as 7870s and 270Xs with 1280 sps but most were voltage locked and so just couldn't clock as high without BIOS mods.

chip wise/core count wise: 7850 = r7 265 = r7 370  <  7870 = r9 270 = r9 270X = 370X  <  7870XT

Regarding clocks - I had in past 270x Sapphire Toxic and MSI Hawk models and now I have a MSI Gaming 370 4GB model. Max 100% stable clock I could achieve with all of them is 1200 MHz. Only difference is, that on 270x cards voltage was unlocked and I was able to downvolt them to 1150 mV, but on 370 it is fixed to 1162 mV. Nice thing about the 370 is that while it is doing 128 sol/s desktop responds well enough and I can work at the same time and it is quiet and not too hot. So I do not know about "pro" or not, but I like the card. With v8 I had to reduce GPU clock from 1200 to 1175 because it was not 100% stable any more.

[topgeek]

I have something I cannot figure out and was wondering if any of you gents have an idea.

Two computers.
Each has an idential MSI RX480 8G in it.
Both are running Claymore v8.
Both are using an identical start script - except the worker name.

The one miner preiodically reports the GPU temp and fan % - which I really like.
The other doesnt

Here is a screen capture showing the difference:
https://snag.gy/YAPBXj.jpg


Anyone have any ideas?
cheers and thanks

[Jinx99]

Anyone have any ideas?

Press "s" on that miner when it runs.

[KrokoTill]

I don`t know how exact you can adjust memory access to GPU memory, but ppl that compare and cry here thet RX 4xx should be fast as 390x should first learn that any architecture is different, the driver is accessing GPU memory as best as it can, if zcash need many small accesses and if 256bit bus is not wide enough its logical that 384 or 512bit bus will be better, even when we know with 2xx and 39x GPU and memory clock is more "aligned" and in sync then on RX cards which usualu work 11xx/2000

CRYING here RX4xx is pointless if you know NOTHING about internel GPU arhitecture and even less about zcash prof of work algo and how its computed

Even if 480 and memory bandwidth 256bit bus still only used 50% of its capacity !!! And I think that the manufacturer knowingly went to such a move is likely for this new chip Polaris dostochno and bandwidth 256bit bus, with his new memory controller that provides a slightly lower performance than the 390 !!!
Sorry for my English


That would see the controller load from 390 models think it will give a small concept in this issue

On my 290 memory controller load is rarely over 60%. Big difference is that beside 290 memory bus being 2x wider, memory runs at 1250 MHz vs 2000 MHz on your 480. This means that you can do all possible tricks but no way can use that tight timings as on 290 at 1250 MHz or 390 at 1500 MHz. OK suppose that you reduce mem clock on 480 to 1500 or 1250 MHz to get the same timings but then you still do not get the speed that is possible with 2x wider bus.