SRBMiner Cryptonight AMD GPU Miner V1.9.3 - native algo switching

[goodminer]

Is this possible to mine with cpu in this miner and if yes, how?

[Sx5000]

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about ....

[abg00]

Next version in a day or two

have a litle trouble

algo heavy

cards rx470-570 4gb
double treads work fine
in config "intensity" : 29, "double_threads" : true

single treads dont work with error
Error CL_INVALID_BUFFER_SIZE when creating scratchpad buffer for DeviceID 0 (Thread 0)
in config "intensity" : 57, "double_threads" : false

if set intensity 0 setting 44 and slow rate
same rig work fine with config "intensity" : 58, "double_threads" : false
same drivers version 18.2.1 same swap size 60gb for 12 card same windows version 1709

[Vince34]

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about .... http://prntscr.com/jshefy https://prnt.sc/jsh8gp

Good point Sx5000 !
I'm waiting for Dok's reply..

[doktor83]

sorry but this is similar to the ones like : "calculator shows 50% more profit then i get. why is that?"

Not at all like this. It shows not the calculator, but the miner. The calculator does not calculate the profit, but the efficiency of finding shares. So this efficiency is lower than stated. Just want to understand why. If you are used to deal with everything superficially - your right.

Forgive me, doctor Here you have 2 pictures with arrows, compare, can understand what I'm talking about ....

Good point Sx5000 !
I'm waiting for Dok's reply..

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

[doktor83]

I used the proxy with SRBMiner with good results, and tested with XMR-stak also. However, I need to add TLS support and that means I have to learn more stuff. I could also employ the max allowed difficulty in the pool switch too, it may be another parameter in the coin-switch (auto coin switch is in the works, not working ). When thing get stable enough for SRB (it never does, it's a continuous fight against new drivers and windows updates and new algos) but if at all, coin switching through job json would be super awesome (without miner restart ;=) ), to overcome the namespace problems (everybody is calling some algo differently) since there's no set standard for algo names, you could go with e.g. "_SRB_powtype": "CryptonightV7" , so the proxy can add that to the job json..

But in future if the algo names follow standards, pools can send the "powtype" for any job, this way they can signal miners any algo change due to forks etc. with no problems, so hashrates are not lost with people trying to guess when the fork is going to happen, e.g. they could send "CryptonightHeavy" for block 30000, and "HavenAlgo" for block 30001 so the change would be seamless (even for miners that would need a restart, they would restart at the proper time!), this would be very good for a comfortable transition to new algos. A man can only dream

Coin switching for the same algo shouldnt be hard, your proxy sends info in json which coin to mine, minert just switches to the pool/wallet for that coin, and continues to mine.

If you manage to make it stable enough ("it never does, it's a continuous fight against new drivers and windows updates" )) ), i can make SRBMiner compatible with it.

[sheepman]

Got something weird happening when mining IPBC, if I just use my Vega 56 on its own it gets 3800h/s but when I mine alongside my RX 550's it drops to 3000h/s even though intensity etc. is all the same.

Anyone got any ideas?

[Sx5000]

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?

[ripcurrent]

Can anyone suggest the proper intensity setting for a vega 56 ... if I use the default it crashes...

[UnclWish]

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?

I made calculations another way, but I'm agreed that there is something wrong...
You calculate what speed miner gives and must. I calculate how much shares miner must give with mining speed and how much it findes.
Miner gives less founded shares for speed that it indicates.
i calculate next way:

My speed is 2150 h/s. In hour - 2150 h/s * 3570 (-30 sec devfee) = 7675500 h. Now devide by difficulty - 7675500 h / 200007 = 38.38 shares. But real founded shares is about 33-34 in hour...

[doktor83]

I know you all have your conspiracy theories that a miner must steal your hashrate, but i will have to dissapoint you.
Your math is bad, to get average of something you divide total with something, in this case :

Total time in seconds since connected to pool / total number of sent shares (good & bad)

And end of story. This is how you get average time needed to find a share.

Sorry im not stealing 9% of your hashrate.

Your case:
Mining time 15 hours, 3 minutes 10 seconds = 54190 sec (in this case this can be taken because you did not have pool disconnects)
Total shares : 1213
Average : 54190 / 1213 = 44.6 sec

Now check your screenshot.

Thanks for the reply, dear! There were no thoughts about theft of hash. Based on your mathematics, you can calculate the real hash of the miner 1213 * 240000 = 291120000 total hash. 291120000 h / 54190 sec = 5372 h/s. Why then this figure is obtained, not 5800? What am I doing wrong?

too much theory guys.  Better take a 24,48h average from the pool, at the end that's what really matters.
If you get numbers you don't like, switch mining software

Don't get mad, but i really don't have time and nerves for these kind of things.

I mean if your point isn't that the miner/me is stealing from you, then what is it? What are you trying to say ?

[MaxMidnite]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

[UnclWish]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

[MaxMidnite]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

[dingdongtobias]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

Try this :

{
"cryptonight_type" : "normalv7",
"intensity" : 54,
"double_threads" : true
}


DOKTOR, i am with you i know you are not stealing our hash. Just keep up the good work and ignore smartboys 

[heavyarms1912]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

For RX570/RX580
If 4gb cards.  59 intensity, wksize 8, dual threads
If 8gb cards   114-120, wksize 8, dual threads

[Sx5000]

too much theory guys.  Better take a 24,48h average from the pool, at the end that's what really matters.
If you get numbers you don't like, switch mining software

Don't get mad, but i really don't have time and nerves for these kind of things.

I mean if your point isn't that the miner/me is stealing from you, then what is it? What are you trying to say ?

Yes, I will obey your advice about 24 hours and the change of the miner, thx. You do not steal a hash, since all the shares that the miner finds reach the pool. But the hasht at this point is actually lower than the miner draws. Why this happens, I do not know. I came here for help, because I did not have enough of my knowledge. But if you do not know, then I do not have anyone else to turn to ...

[MaxMidnite]

I know there more juice to this miner!

I'm using the latest 1.5.9 with 6x RX580s.
On Claymore 11.3 DevFree I get about 5200 H/S
On this one I get about 4890 H/S if lucky.
Something is not right, I think the kernel settings need tweaking or not working correctly.

Not sure why lower hash on some of the cards with same settings?

[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU0:    843 H/s [T: 56c, RPM: 2179, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU1:    773 H/s [T: 65c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU2:    804 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2020, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU3:    784 H/s [T: 64c, RPM: 2132, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU4:    843 H/s [T: 53c, RPM: 2883, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 14:11:25] GPU5:    843 H/s [T: 43c, RPM: 2992, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]

If you're compare with Claymore - you use v7 algo. Isn't it?
You must set right intensity in SRB for your cards, not auto. On Claymore you also not got max speed...

Thanks for the reply.

Yes its V7 algro, I always used auto setting.
Do you have recommended Intensity setting? not sure if you have similar setup?

For RX570/RX580
If 4gb cards.  59 intensity, wksize 8, dual threads
If 8gb cards   114-120, wksize 8, dual threads

Hi man + others

Thanks for the info, these are my new set of results; (double threads = true)

I cannot push this over 86 with 80 being most stable (5200+ hash)

ALL CARDS ARE 8GB

"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU0:    896 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU1:    842 H/s [T: 72c, RPM: 2128, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU2:    848 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2031, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU3:    852 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2127, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU4:    893 H/s [T: 54c, RPM: 2918, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU5:    893 H/s [T: 44c, RPM: 3036, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] Total:   5224 H/s


If I do I get this error:
 Error CL_MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE when calling clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for kernel 0 for DeviceID 1 (Thread 3)

[Sx5000]

Hi man + others

Thanks for the info, these are my new set of results; (double threads = true)

I cannot push this over 86 with 80 being most stable (5200+ hash)

ALL CARDS ARE 8GB

"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU0:    896 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU1:    842 H/s [T: 72c, RPM: 2128, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU2:    848 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2031, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU3:    852 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2127, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU4:    893 H/s [T: 54c, RPM: 2918, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU5:    893 H/s [T: 44c, RPM: 3036, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] Total:   5224 H/s


If I do I get this error:
 Error CL_MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE when calling clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for kernel 0 for DeviceID 1 (Thread 3)

Set the intensity 72, it is the best for v7 at 588, decreasing temporarily the memory frequency for the test.
588 with such settings should produce about 950-970 hashes v7

[MaxMidnite]

Hi man + others

Thanks for the info, these are my new set of results; (double threads = true)

I cannot push this over 86 with 80 being most stable (5200+ hash)

ALL CARDS ARE 8GB

"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 86, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU0:    896 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU1:    842 H/s [T: 72c, RPM: 2128, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU2:    848 H/s [T: 60c, RPM: 2031, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU3:    852 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2127, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU4:    893 H/s [T: 54c, RPM: 2918, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] GPU5:    893 H/s [T: 44c, RPM: 3036, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:09:52] Total:   5224 H/s


If I do I get this error:
 Error CL_MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE when calling clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for kernel 0 for DeviceID 1 (Thread 3)

Set the intensity 72, it is the best for v7 at 588, decreasing temporarily the memory frequency for the test.
588 with such settings should produce about 950-970 hashes v7

Huum its like little difference but more stability.


"gpu_conf" :
[
   { "id" : 0, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 1, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 2, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 3, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 4, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0},
   { "id" : 5, "intensity" : 72, "worksize" : 8, "threads" : 2, "kernel" : 0}
]
}

[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU0:    920 H/s [T: 59c, RPM: 2187, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:5]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU1:    704 H/s [T: 74c, RPM: 2124, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:1]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU2:    872 H/s [T: 63c, RPM: 2027, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:4]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU3:    850 H/s [T: 67c, RPM: 2152, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:3]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU4:    920 H/s [T: 57c, RPM: 2901, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:2]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] GPU5:    920 H/s [T: 45c, RPM: 3037, CC: 1150 MHz, MC: 2175 MHz][BUS:6]
[2018-06-08 15:38:53] Total:   5186 H/s

Not sure why some of the GPU produce different results, all are same really