[JCE]Fast & stable CN/v8/Heavy/Tube/XHV miner, CPU+GPU, Vega56 1800+ RX580 1200+

[Boss_One]

please do not drop support for old maps on your miner i have better results
r7 370 2gb - monero v7 srb 1.6.9 --495h / s
 --monero v8 srb 1.6.9 --- 366h / s
                   jce 033b2 --- 422h / s
thank you very much for the miner for old video cards

Thanks, and so long, if TeamRed stay far above my miner on RX/Vega, that's what will happen, i'll focus on older cards and CPUs, were i'm the best. It may sound strange i advertise for a competitor in my own topic, but those guys deserve it, they did a really great job. When I came on v7 six month ago, there were an obsolete Claymore 11, Cast which were fast only because it was the first to use correctly the Compute Mode introduced by the beta blockchain, and SRB with perf not that better than the legacy stak/xmrig.

Here we're talking about +5% above SRB, which is already +2% mine. That's a real challenge.

0.33b4 under test, to be released soon.
Heavy: i may gain some +0.1% by backporting the v8 optims, but i'm running out of ideas to get extra speed here.

edit: i benched on my HD6950 and I get... +20% speed. Looks like the older is the card, the higher is my performance gap. It goes from +20% on HD6000 to -5% on Vega.
The 0.33b4 will probably worth to be benched on Vega, still, i may not have +20% but even a +2% would fill in the gap with SRB.

Hello i'm new with your Miner

I've 3 - 6950 card so i'm very interesting by your miner !

On win10 x64 and 14.4 amd driver in auto mod i've NO hash.
i also try on Win8.1 and 14.4 no hash too.

I'vre try -c and manuel config "the gpu_thread_conf"

Could you tell me what to write in the config file for get best HASH ? (i d'idnt fine explanation about parameters)

Thx for your work, i hope u can help me  

[1714606685]

1714606685

[1714606685]

1714606685

[1714606685]

1714606685

[1714606685]

1714606685

[1714606685]

1714606685

[JCE-Miner]

It seems that your miner shows fake hashrate mining heavy on old cards

I don't fake my numbers, and especially not on such a corner market as the old HD7000/6000 mining Heavy. However, the result are intriguing, what version do you use? If that's the B-X, so it could be false negative shares (good shares badly detected as wrong and thus not sent to pool) which would say my hybrid sync still need fixes, even on HD7000.
If that's on the b5/b6, so... i've little explaination so far, except that my new implementation itself (not counting the hybrid parts) is glitchy and already produces a lot of false negative. In such case, it would be a very major bug. I'll do some emergency tests, lucky i've a lot of old cards to test on.

A less extreme explanation would be that you used (explicitly or not) a very high Diff, making your fast card on ease but not your slow cards. In such case, the effective hashrate of the slow cards would start low and converge to the theorical hashrate after a very long time. Like when you mine with CPU on Nicehash.

for HD6950, a user on Github advises to use worksize=32 and multi_hash=864, one one thread.
Take a look at the HD6000 user topic here:
https://github.com/jceminer/cn_gpu_miner/issues/26

Code:

{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 32, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "index" : ...., "multi_hash":864 } 

also try with worksize=16 and 8

edit: hashing Ryo with low Diff (5000) on my dual HD7950 (totaling 845h/s) and 840h/s effective hashrate so far with the B-x, with 1% bad shares, as expected. I strongly advise you redo your test with either a fixed low Diff or your big GPU paused.

[rednoW]

It was b6 version and haven algo.
There was no big gpus, only rx470 4gb that shows really the same hashrate with r9 290x

Code:

08:45:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 395.44 h/s
08:45:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 6: 395.14 h/s - Total GPU 2: 790.58 h/s
08:45:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 7: 785.26 h/s - Total GPU 3: 785.26 h/s

But shares sent and effective hashrate is low for 290x and normal for rx470
It is not diff problem as I had also weak cpu mining along with gpus in this miner windows. It has much lower hashrate but reported and effective values are very close.
So I think it is some kind of hardware errors that I cannot see in miner output or some bug in haven (heavy) code for Tahiti/Hawaii

I confirmed the same problem on another test rig with vega56, rx570 8gb and r9 390 8gb. While vega and rx570 show correct numbers - hawaii 390 card reported more hashrate than actual one based on submitted shares.

First rig was using old Aug23 blockchain drivers. Test rig is using 18.5.1 driver

edit: hashing Ryo with low Diff (5000) on my dual HD7950 (totaling 845h/s) and 840h/s effective hashrate so far with the B-x, with 1% bad shares, as expected. I strongly advise you redo your test with either a fixed low Diff or your big GPU paused.

Please provide settings of your test so I can try to reproduce with my cards

[dnkn]

I'm not sure it's right to mention another miner in this thread but I think it may help the author to fix the heavy hashrate bugs. The thing is that latest xmrig has managed to achieve very good speeds on heavy and it's stable. I've switched all my rigs to test it and it does the job. I'm getting  ~1800h from vega 56 and ~920-960h from 570 4gb and ~400 from r7 370 and ~580-600h from 560 4gb but unstable. So 560s are working with jce 0.33b4
It's open source so it's easy to see how it was achieved.

[JCE-Miner]

that's ok to give the news, and yeah i no longer can pretend i've a high lead on cn-heavy, i'll edit my doc to remove that statement and lower back the fees. i got the lead for... one or two weeks. i expected TeamRed to release a fast Heavy code, not xmrig i admit.

[Boss_One]

for HD6950, a user on Github advises to use worksize=32 and multi_hash=864, one one thread.
Take a look at the HD6000 user topic here:
https://github.com/jceminer/cn_gpu_miner/issues/26

Code:

{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 32, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "index" : ...., "multi_hash":864 } 

also try with worksize=16 and 8

Hi JCE, I'm testing on my 3 - 6950 card with 0.33b4 /0.33b6 i've also try  8 and 16 worksize. But i didn't understand whats is alpha and beta values ?!

2 VTX 6950 2Gb
1 Gigabyte 6950 2Gb
Also A Pitcairn GPU but didn't try yet.

2 os on W8.1 64
1 os on W10 x64

No card mine, and don't have error. I've never seen any hash start 

I post  my config perhaps  and i did it something wrong ?!

My start cmd file

ce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe --no-cpu -c config.txt -o pool.supportxmr.com:5555  -u 44kXLYVXRE############PDcW4kQx+5000 -p 6950_JCE

pause

Log File

Analyzing Processor topology...
AMD Athlon(tm) Processor 1640B
Assembly codename: athlon64
  SSE2    : Yes
  SSE3    : Yes
  SSE4    : No
  AES     : No
  AVX     : No
  AVX2    : No
Found CPU 0, with:
  L1 Cache:    64 KB
  L2 Cache:   512 KB
Detecting OpenCL-capable GPUs...
Found GPU 0, with:
  Vendor:                         AMD
  Processor:                   Cayman
  Device:                       02:00
  Compute-Units:                   22
  Cache Memory:                  0 KB
  Local Memory:                 32 KB
  Global Memory:              2048 MB
  Addressing:                 32-bits
Preparing 1 Mining Threads...

+-- Thread 0 config ------------------------+
| Run on GPU:                     0         |
| Multi-hash:                   864         |
| Worksize:                      32         |
| Factor Alpha                   64         |
| Factor Beta                     8         |
+-------------------------------------------+

Cryptonight Variation: Cryptonight V8 fork of Oct-2018


Starting GPU Thread 0, on GPU 0
Created OpenCL Context for GPU 0 at 000001c29b8c6660
Created OpenCL Thread 0 Command-Queue for GPU 0 at 000001c29d012f80
Scratchpad Allocation success for OpenCL Thread 0
Allocating big 1728MB scratchpad for OpenCL Thread 0...
Compiling kernels of OpenCL Thread 0...
Kernels of OpenCL Thread 0 compiled.
09:02:21 | Monero (XMR/XMV) Mining session starts!

09:02:21 | GPU Compute allocation starts at 80% and reaches 100% after ~5min,
09:02:21 | during this time, the hashrate may be unstable and inconsistent.
09:02:21 | Let the miner warm-up if you're tuning for performance.
09:02:22 | Connecting to mining pool pool.supportxmr.com:5555 ...
09:02:22 | Connected to pool. Now logging in...
09:02:22 | Successfuly logged as 44kXLYVEmkUXRECm8eza1PF###############EJ9cePDcW4kQx+5000
09:02:22 | Pool changes Difficulty to 5000.
09:02:23 | Pool sends a new Job.
09:02:53 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 0.00 h/s - Total GPU 0: 0.00 h/s
09:02:53 | Total: 0.00 h/s - Max: 0.00 h/s
09:03:02 | GPU 0: Temp: 37C - Fan: 24% -- Shares: Good: 0 Bad: 0
09:03:45 | Pool sends a new Job.
09:04:49 | Pool sends a new Job.
09:05:59 | Pool sends a new Job.
09:06:14 | Stop signal received, Quitting...

[Boss_One]

@Boss_One
Can you try XMR-stak on auto config? If it does not work it means that it is not miner problem but rig config (windows/drivers issue).

XMR Stak didn't work with 14.4 driver.... XMRig start hashing but freez or make driver crash and stop hashing.

i've try to reinstall image with new w8.1 OS and try again with 14.4 Driver JCE Miner in auto mode or manual config ==> the driver crash.

[UnclWish]

Tested heavy on xmrig... Speed is lower about 4-5% on RX 588 than max speed on JCE, but stable...
For me xmrig unacceptible - it doesn't work properly on latest drivers! Many compute errors!
JCE, waiting your fixed version!

[JCE-Miner]

xmrig is no longer a clone of Wolf0 miner, they really provide their own code with own optimizations.
Including some i found 6 months ago, but not all, so i don't think they hacked my miner, just they knew where to look for performance, as TeamRed hinted me, and i hinted SRB. Experienced devs facing the same problem find the same solution, normal.

Online is the 0.33b-y

* A lot less tested than a regular version, i hope there's no bugs out there
* Fees lowered back to 0.9% on all algos, as I'm no longer 20% faster than the reference code
* More hybrid, so should eat a bit more CPU
* Bad shares on Heavy fixed, at least i had zero during my 5-hour test session
* Light optim ~2% for HD7000 is backported to HD6000
* It was more stable on my rig, but i'm doubting of such observations

That's the standalone .exe on Github, as for the previous b-x

[polsska]

b-x
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2050MHz mem, drivers 18.11.1, Win 10 1809)

09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 258.57 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 256.64 h/s - Total GPU 0: 515.21 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 253.11 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 258.37 h/s - Total GPU 2: 511.47 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 248.62 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 255.99 h/s - Total GPU 3: 504.61 h/s
09:08:36 | Total: 1531.28 h/s - Max: 1531.28 h/s

b-y
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2000MHz mem, drivers 18.9.3, Win 10 1809)

23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 263.48 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 257.81 h/s - Total GPU 0: 521.28 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 262.63 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 262.63 h/s - Total GPU 2: 525.26 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 260.17 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 256.24 h/s - Total GPU 3: 516.41 h/s
23:42:49 | Total: 1562.94 h/s - Max: 1568.77 h/s

[UnclWish]

b-x
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2050MHz mem, drivers 18.11.1, Win 10 1809)

09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 258.57 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 256.64 h/s - Total GPU 0: 515.21 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 253.11 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 258.37 h/s - Total GPU 2: 511.47 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 248.62 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 255.99 h/s - Total GPU 3: 504.61 h/s
09:08:36 | Total: 1531.28 h/s - Max: 1531.28 h/s

b-y
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2000MHz mem, drivers 18.9.3, Win 10 1809)

23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 263.48 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 257.81 h/s - Total GPU 0: 521.28 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 262.63 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 262.63 h/s - Total GPU 2: 525.26 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 260.17 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 256.24 h/s - Total GPU 3: 516.41 h/s
23:42:49 | Total: 1562.94 h/s - Max: 1568.77 h/s

Wrong comparition - different versions, drivers and even memory freq...

[vtkhuong]

Hi! JCE-Miner
I have RX550/4G and 470/8G run Haven very good. But rx470/4G and RX570/4G is not run, how config in file" config.txt"?

[JCE-Miner]

b-x
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2050MHz mem, drivers 18.11.1, Win 10 1809)

09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 258.57 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 256.64 h/s - Total GPU 0: 515.21 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 253.11 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 258.37 h/s - Total GPU 2: 511.47 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 248.62 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 255.99 h/s - Total GPU 3: 504.61 h/s
09:08:36 | Total: 1531.28 h/s - Max: 1531.28 h/s

b-y
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2000MHz mem, drivers 18.9.3, Win 10 1809)

23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 263.48 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 257.81 h/s - Total GPU 0: 521.28 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 262.63 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 262.63 h/s - Total GPU 2: 525.26 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 260.17 h/s
23:42:49 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 256.24 h/s - Total GPU 3: 516.41 h/s
23:42:49 | Total: 1562.94 h/s - Max: 1568.77 h/s

Wrong comparition - different versions, drivers and even memory freq...

even if the comparison is positive, i've to agree it's wrong until the only change is the miner version.
please tell what config you used and what did you mine.


config file: please take a look at the doc in the github page:
https://github.com/jceminer/cn_gpu_miner

there are some example. the key for test is to set a very low value for multi_hash like 64 to check it starts. if yes, increase it until you find the best value, by steps of 16.
for a 4G card this should be around 800 on two threads, a bit more for 8G
if you mine Heavy or similar, the values should be halved (~400 for a 4G)

[fluxy12]

xmrig is no longer a clone of Wolf0 miner, they really provide their own code with own optimizations.
Including some i found 6 months ago, but not all, so i don't think they hacked my miner, just they knew where to look for performance, as TeamRed hinted me, and i hinted SRB. Experienced devs facing the same problem find the same solution, normal.

Online is the 0.33b-y

* A lot less tested than a regular version, i hope there's no bugs out there
* Fees lowered back to 0.9% on all algos, as I'm no longer 20% faster than the reference code
* More hybrid, so should eat a bit more CPU
* Bad shares on Heavy fixed, at least i had zero during my 5-hour test session
* Light optim ~2% for HD7000 is backported to HD6000
* It was more stable on my rig, but i'm doubting of such observations

That's the standalone .exe on Github, as for the previous b-x

Hello,

Where is the version please ? https://github.com/jceminer/cn_gpu_miner/blob/master/jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe  ?

[JCE-Miner]

yes this is this one, a .exe alone since it's an experimental version.
it's backward compatible with previous 0.33

[polsska]

Wrong comparition - different versions, drivers and even memory freq...

even if the comparison is positive, i've to agree it's wrong until the only change is the miner version.
please tell what config you used and what did you mine.

The frequency was the same at the beginning but I lowered the timing later and there was a decrease in the hasrate. And the drivers always update to the newest, here I just downgraded after problems on 18.11.2 with another program.

Monero v8 -I've used this conf since you released gpu v8. I tested different configurations and this is optimal for my RX 550 from Gigabyte (Hynix Memory), and Bios mod SRBPolaris.

"gpu_threads_conf" :
[
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 0, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 0, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 16, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 8, "delta" : 8, "epsilon" : 8, "zeta" : 8, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":432 },
]

And especially now I came back to 18.11.1, and higher frequency 2050MHz

Quote from: polsska on November 18, 2018, 08:12:28 AM
b-x
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2050MHz mem, drivers 18.11.1, Win 10 1809)

09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 258.57 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 256.64 h/s - Total GPU 0: 515.21 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 253.11 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 258.37 h/s - Total GPU 2: 511.47 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 248.62 h/s
09:08:36 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 255.99 h/s - Total GPU 3: 504.61 h/s
09:08:36 | Total: 1531.28 h/s - Max: 1531.28 h/s

b-y
3x RX 550 2GB (1315MHz core, 2050MHz mem, drivers 18.11.1, Win 10 1809)

09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 258.32 h/s
09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 260.64 h/s - Total GPU 0: 518.95 h/s
09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 259.60 h/s
09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 260.64 h/s - Total GPU 2: 520.24 h/s
09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 260.80 h/s
09:46:11 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 259.55 h/s - Total GPU 3: 520.34 h/s
09:46:11 | Total: 1559.52 h/s - Max: 1559.52 h/s

09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 259.45 h/s
09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 258.01 h/s - Total GPU 0: 517.46 h/s
09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 260.69 h/s
09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 254.39 h/s - Total GPU 2: 515.08 h/s
09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 258.73 h/s
09:57:46 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 258.68 h/s - Total GPU 3: 517.40 h/s
09:57:46 | Total: 1549.92 h/s - Max: 1559.52 h/s

10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 257.45 h/s
10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 256.34 h/s - Total GPU 0: 513.79 h/s
10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 248.79 h/s
10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 256.59 h/s - Total GPU 2: 505.38 h/s
10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 256.69 h/s
10:04:09 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 260.64 h/s - Total GPU 3: 517.33 h/s
10:04:09 | Total: 1536.48 h/s - Max: 1559.52 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 256.04 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 258.11 h/s - Total GPU 0: 514.15 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 267.64 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 251.98 h/s - Total GPU 2: 519.62 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 259.35 h/s
10:04:44 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 259.19 h/s - Total GPU 3: 518.53 h/s
10:04:44 | Total: 1552.29 h/s - Max: 1559.52 h/s

And so on the version of b-x about 1530 h/s it was the maxiumum I achieved.
on x-y there is even 30 h/s more on 3 cards, though it is waving but in this range (1530-1560).
But now i back to 18.9.3.

[Camnates]

xmrig is no longer a clone of Wolf0 miner, they really provide their own code with own optimizations.
Including some i found 6 months ago, but not all, so i don't think they hacked my miner, just they knew where to look for performance, as TeamRed hinted me, and i hinted SRB. Experienced devs facing the same problem find the same solution, normal.

Online is the 0.33b-y

* A lot less tested than a regular version, i hope there's no bugs out there
* Fees lowered back to 0.9% on all algos, as I'm no longer 20% faster than the reference code
* More hybrid, so should eat a bit more CPU
* Bad shares on Heavy fixed, at least i had zero during my 5-hour test session
* Light optim ~2% for HD7000 is backported to HD6000
* It was more stable on my rig, but i'm doubting of such observations

That's the standalone .exe on Github, as for the previous b-x

Is there any improvement for R9 390?

[minekheim]

Hallo JCE ich versuche 2 Tage den JCE Miner von Github zum downloaden. Leider blockiert mir Google Chrom den download. was kann ich tun um diesen Miner zu bekommen ( Sicherheitseinstellung hab ich geändert). Anderen Browser?

[sxemini]

Hallo JCE ich versuche 2 Tage den JCE Miner von Github zum downloaden. Leider blockiert mir Google Chrom den download. was kann ich tun um diesen Miner zu bekommen ( Sicherheitseinstellung hab ich geändert). Anderen Browser?

Du siehst aber schon das wir hier in einen englischen Forum sind und du englisch schreiben musst oder geh in den deutschen Abteil.
Wenn du aber schon probleme hast einfach in Chrome auf Datei behalten zu drücken nach dem download (Downloadtab öffnen nach Download), dann wirds mit dem ganzen rest hier schwierig.

[heavyarms1912]

xmrig is no longer a clone of Wolf0 miner, they really provide their own code with own optimizations.
Including some i found 6 months ago, but not all, so i don't think they hacked my miner, just they knew where to look for performance, as TeamRed hinted me, and i hinted SRB. Experienced devs facing the same problem find the same solution, normal.

Online is the 0.33b-y

* A lot less tested than a regular version, i hope there's no bugs out there
* Fees lowered back to 0.9% on all algos, as I'm no longer 20% faster than the reference code
* More hybrid, so should eat a bit more CPU
* Bad shares on Heavy fixed, at least i had zero during my 5-hour test session
* Light optim ~2% for HD7000 is backported to HD6000
* It was more stable on my rig, but i'm doubting of such observations

That's the standalone .exe on Github, as for the previous b-x

I really appreciate your straightforwardness.

p.s. Seems like detection of iGPU is back