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

[ayiphelmy]

this miner is too old... waiting claymore to make improve.....

[vatusasid]

I think the ZEC miner is already very efficient.

And how Fiji and 17.xx.x drivers, bad support 560? I'm waiting for version 12.7

I guess, because just a very few ppl mine with 560s, because they are not so efficient, so worthless to bother with it.

 they are not so efficient as it is not optimized miner

They are not so efficient because they are weak. The bad thing is that 560s are the only available cards atm in stores, but ppl shouldn't really buy them for mining.

Why 7850 is more effective?

I don't think it is more effective, but that is an old card...

7850 - 12.6 - 160sol (1050/1350)
560 - 12.6 - 140sol (1216/1750 timing mod)

560 all parameters should be more effective

The 7850 is an old card, so it is cheaper.

[2018jaydee]

having a hard time getting my vegas over 460h/s with this miner. any ideas?

-ftime 1
-i 8
-tt 65
-fanmax 4900, 4900
-fanmin 3500, 3500
-cclock 1407, 1407
-mclock 1080, 1080
-cvddc 900, 900
-mvddc 900, 900

[counterpointengine]

I am using Claymore ZCash/BTG Miner v12.6 with Windows 10 for some AMD gpu cards.  I decided to mine a different coin that has the Equihash algorithm.  After I open the .bat file Claymore opens and immediately displays in red font "Unknown Option" for the wallet address.  Claymore continues to run, it connects to the mining pool server, the hash rate speed is fine.  Why does Claymore not recognize the wallet address I have entered in the .bat file?  What is wrong?

The wallet address is used with EWBF for my Nvidia card and it works fine with that miner.           

This is what Claymore displays after I run the .bat file:


C:\Users\xxxxxxxx\Desktop\Claymore Miner v12.6>ZecMiner64.exe   -zpool pool.com:5555  -zwal wallet address.worker  -zpsw z  -ftime 1  -i 6  -tt 75  -allpools 1
UNKNOWN OPTION wallet address.worker

[Gataway]

I think the ZEC miner is already very efficient.

And how Fiji and 17.xx.x drivers, bad support 560? I'm waiting for version 12.7

I guess, because just a very few ppl mine with 560s, because they are not so efficient, so worthless to bother with it.

 they are not so efficient as it is not optimized miner

They are not so efficient because they are weak. The bad thing is that 560s are the only available cards atm in stores, but ppl shouldn't really buy them for mining.

Why 7850 is more effective?

I don't think it is more effective, but that is an old card...

7850 - 12.6 - 160sol (1050/1350)
560 - 12.6 - 140sol (1216/1750 timing mod)

560 all parameters should be more effective

The 7850 is an old card, so it is cheaper.

Only use it when your electricity price is low. Otherwise, it might not be profitable.

[galaxy5user]

Claymore's ZCash/BTG GPU Miner v12.6 gives only 28 H/s on RX550 under Windows 7. Is that OK? Also it designates card as "gfx804" instead of "Lexa" which is the name of the chip.

[stealth2600]

Claymore's ZCash/BTG GPU Miner v12.6 gives only 28 H/s on RX550 under Windows 7. Is that OK? Also it designates card as "gfx804" instead of "Lexa" which is the name of the chip.

As others have stated, the RX550 is not very good graphics card for mining. However, it should be capable of much more than 28 h/s. My guess is that Claymore did not code in support for the "Lexa" chip in version 12.6. You may have to try another miner if he doesn't plan to add support for it in his future releases. Also, just to make sure nothing is wrong on your end, please verify that you have the correct drivers installed. You can refer to the first post of this thread for a list of the best drivers to use.

[samasas]

Claymore's ZCash/BTG GPU Miner v12.6 gives only 28 H/s on RX550 under Windows 7. Is that OK? Also it designates card as "gfx804" instead of "Lexa" which is the name of the chip.

As others have stated, the RX550 is not very good graphics card for mining. However, it should be capable of much more than 28 h/s. My guess is that Claymore did not code in support for the "Lexa" chip in version 12.6. You may have to try another miner if he doesn't plan to add support for it in his future releases. Also, just to make sure nothing is wrong on your end, please verify that you have the correct drivers installed. You can refer to the first post of this thread for a list of the best drivers to use.

I think so. But the RX 550 is widely available. Other cards are very scarce.

[Ledaso]

I am using Claymore ZCash/BTG Miner v12.6 with Windows 10 for some AMD gpu cards.  I decided to mine a different coin that has the Equihash algorithm.  After I open the .bat file Claymore opens and immediately displays in red font "Unknown Option" for the wallet address.  Claymore continues to run, it connects to the mining pool server, the hash rate speed is fine.  Why does Claymore not recognize the wallet address I have entered in the .bat file?  What is wrong?

The wallet address is used with EWBF for my Nvidia card and it works fine with that miner.           

This is what Claymore displays after I run the .bat file:


C:\Users\xxxxxxxx\Desktop\Claymore Miner v12.6>ZecMiner64.exe   -zpool pool.com:5555  -zwal wallet address.worker  -zpsw z  -ftime 1  -i 6  -tt 75  -allpools 1
UNKNOWN OPTION wallet address.worker

Got the same problem

[flekkelek]

I am using Claymore ZCash/BTG Miner v12.6 with Windows 10 for some AMD gpu cards.  I decided to mine a different coin that has the Equihash algorithm.  After I open the .bat file Claymore opens and immediately displays in red font "Unknown Option" for the wallet address.  Claymore continues to run, it connects to the mining pool server, the hash rate speed is fine.  Why does Claymore not recognize the wallet address I have entered in the .bat file?  What is wrong?

The wallet address is used with EWBF for my Nvidia card and it works fine with that miner.           

This is what Claymore displays after I run the .bat file:


C:\Users\xxxxxxxx\Desktop\Claymore Miner v12.6>ZecMiner64.exe   -zpool pool.com:5555  -zwal wallet address.worker  -zpsw z  -ftime 1  -i 6  -tt 75  -allpools 1
UNKNOWN OPTION wallet address.worker

Got the same problem

this is a sample batch file, use your OWN wallet address after the -zwal

[jackbox]

I am using Claymore ZCash/BTG Miner v12.6 with Windows 10 for some AMD gpu cards.  I decided to mine a different coin that has the Equihash algorithm.  After I open the .bat file Claymore opens and immediately displays in red font "Unknown Option" for the wallet address.  Claymore continues to run, it connects to the mining pool server, the hash rate speed is fine.  Why does Claymore not recognize the wallet address I have entered in the .bat file?  What is wrong?

The wallet address is used with EWBF for my Nvidia card and it works fine with that miner.           

This is what Claymore displays after I run the .bat file:


C:\Users\xxxxxxxx\Desktop\Claymore Miner v12.6>ZecMiner64.exe   -zpool pool.com:5555  -zwal wallet address.worker  -zpsw z  -ftime 1  -i 6  -tt 75  -allpools 1
UNKNOWN OPTION wallet address.worker

Got the same problem

You have to replace "wallet address" with the address of your wallet or login name for your mining pool and change "worker" to your worker name. Since there is a space between wallet and address it thinks you are trying to input an option. Also, why are you tlrying to mine the worker without putting in your info to get paid? You also need to change "pool.com:5555" with the URL with the address and port of the mining pool.

[Vlizzjeffrey]

my 7950's do 270 sol with this software, seems about right i guess?

cant believe i got hold of 2 7950's for 150 bucks in these times, not counting on any huge profits ofcourse, just some hobby mining.

[adaseb]

my 7950's do 270 sol with this software, seems about right i guess?

cant believe i got hold of 2 7950's for 150 bucks in these times, not counting on any huge profits ofcourse, just some hobby mining.

You might be able to get 300 sol if you do a little overclock with core and memory.

Try 1100/1575 or something like that and see if its stable.

Yes you got really lucky.

I remember you could buy the 7950 BRAND NEW for like $199 back in end of 2013.

[jkminkov]

for some reason one rig cannot mine zen or btg on multipoolhub and equihash on nicehash, zcash and zclassic works fine, -allpools 1 won't change, gpu load is flat line and miner says 20s work time out, tripple checked ports' numbers and tested on another.

[wtfonly16]

for some reason one rig cannot mine zen or btg on multipoolhub and equihash on nicehash, zcash and zclassic works fine, -allpools 1 won't change, gpu load is flat line and miner says 20s work time out, tripple checked ports' numbers and tested on another.

theres an option called esm or edm or something along those lines (check readme), set it to 2.

[Rutdam]

my 7950's do 270 sol with this software, seems about right i guess?

cant believe i got hold of 2 7950's for 150 bucks in these times, not counting on any huge profits ofcourse, just some hobby mining.

You might be able to get 300 sol if you do a little overclock with core and memory.

Try 1100/1575 or something like that and see if its stable.

Yes you got really lucky.

I remember you could buy the 7950 BRAND NEW for like $199 back in end of 2013.

That is right. I still use my 7950 to run the ZEC. I get about 250H/s with 830/1250 as I undervolt a lot.

[jeffnc]

Sorry if this is discussed previously but can't find it.

I'm using zecminer via NiceHash, but I think that's irrelevant.  Last night the program switched to zecminer as the most profitable, but when the program ran, it reduced the intensity, thereby dropping the revenue by an order of magnitude.  (I noticed GPU temp was only 44C).  I verified this by running zecminer by hand.  When it starts, it says the graphics card doesn't have enough memory, so it reduces intensity to 4, rendering it pretty much a waste of time.  It makes no difference if the higher intensity is a default or if I specify it explicitly as a parameter value, it still gets dropped.  All recommended environment values appear to be set correctly.

Windows 10, AMD R9 270X, 2G, 15.2 driver

Is there a workaround for this?  I could take this msg at face value, but I could have sworn I ran this previously on a different computer with the exact same model card and it ran at high intensity.  (On second thought, I think that one was running the newest AMD drivers - wonder if that might make a difference?)

[jeffnc]

Last night the program switched to zecminer as the most profitable, but when the program ran, it reduced the intensity, thereby dropping the revenue by an order of magnitude.  (I noticed GPU temp was only 44C).  I verified this by running zecminer by hand.  When it starts, it says the graphics card doesn't have enough memory, so it reduces intensity to 4, rendering it pretty much a waste of time.

OK so I got curious and went to the trouble of setting up the older system again.  Apparently the default intensity when zecminer runs is 6, on a scale of 0-9.  It gives the error msg that there is not enough GPU memory on both systems, and drops to 4. At which setting performance is awful.

But, on my previous system, I see that I had the intensity explicitly set to 3.  Setting it to 3 on both systems cranked up the speed to max, as far as I can tell.

This makes no sense to me, but it's what's working right now.

On a side note, for some reason Nicehash is running CryptoNight on my previous system, and Equihash (Claymore's zecminer) on this system (exact same GPUs, as noted previously.)  They have different speed CPU's, etc. so that might have something to do with it.

[andersh]

I'm trying to get v12.6 to work on Ubuntu 14.04.1. I have to stay on this version due to my old graphics cards (HD7950).

When I try to run it, I get the following error:

Code:

./zecminer64: relocation error: ./zecminer64: symbol _ZNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEC1EPKcRKS3_, version GLIBCXX_3.4.21 not defined in file libstdc++.so.6 with link time reference

Through adding ppa:ubuntu-toolchain-r/test, I believe I have a later version available, i.e. GLIBCXX_3.4.24.

Code:

strings /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 | grep LIBCXX
GLIBCXX_3.4
GLIBCXX_3.4.1
GLIBCXX_3.4.2
GLIBCXX_3.4.3
GLIBCXX_3.4.4
GLIBCXX_3.4.5
GLIBCXX_3.4.6
GLIBCXX_3.4.7
GLIBCXX_3.4.8
GLIBCXX_3.4.9
GLIBCXX_3.4.10
GLIBCXX_3.4.11
GLIBCXX_3.4.12
GLIBCXX_3.4.13
GLIBCXX_3.4.14
GLIBCXX_3.4.15
GLIBCXX_3.4.16
GLIBCXX_3.4.17
GLIBCXX_3.4.18
GLIBCXX_3.4.19
GLIBCXX_3.4.20
GLIBCXX_3.4.21
GLIBCXX_3.4.22
GLIBCXX_3.4.23
GLIBCXX_3.4.24
GLIBCXX_DEBUG_MESSAGE_LENGTH

[edit]Have found that v12.5 works. But would appreciate any help on getting the latest version working[/edit]

[Farstdury]

Sorry if this is discussed previously but can't find it.

I'm using zecminer via NiceHash, but I think that's irrelevant.  Last night the program switched to zecminer as the most profitable, but when the program ran, it reduced the intensity, thereby dropping the revenue by an order of magnitude.  (I noticed GPU temp was only 44C).  I verified this by running zecminer by hand.  When it starts, it says the graphics card doesn't have enough memory, so it reduces intensity to 4, rendering it pretty much a waste of time.  It makes no difference if the higher intensity is a default or if I specify it explicitly as a parameter value, it still gets dropped.  All recommended environment values appear to be set correctly.

Windows 10, AMD R9 270X, 2G, 15.2 driver

Is there a workaround for this?  I could take this msg at face value, but I could have sworn I ran this previously on a different computer with the exact same model card and it ran at high intensity.  (On second thought, I think that one was running the newest AMD drivers - wonder if that might make a difference?)

Did you set the PC virtual memory to high value? It should be about 4G for each GPU.