Claymore's CryptoNote AMD GPU Miner v11.3

[xneoenx]

@Claymore, we need a new XMR miner!

Claymore, you have done so much work on ZEC miner .... BUT XMR is more profitable to mine vs ZEC, so what are you waiting for? Just wondering.....

Cause Im guessing its already pushed to its limit. Besides you have wolf0's miner which gives you a +2% - +5% better performance with 0% fees. And ZEC has Optiminer doing 290 h/s, so obviously Id prioritise optimising what is still relevant in terms of my income.

[Trimegistus]

@Claymore, we need a new XMR miner!

Claymore, you have done so much work on ZEC miner .... BUT XMR is more profitable to mine vs ZEC, so what are you waiting for? Just wondering.....

Cause Im guessing its already pushed to its limit. Besides you have wolf0's miner which gives you a +2% - +5% better performance with 0% fees. And ZEC has Optiminer doing 290 h/s, so obviously Id prioritise optimising what is still relevant in terms of my income.

Claymore never optimized this miner for the 4xx GPUs

[Qazo]

@Claymore, we need a new XMR miner!

Claymore, you have done so much work on ZEC miner .... BUT XMR is more profitable to mine vs ZEC, so what are you waiting for? Just wondering.....

Cause Im guessing its already pushed to its limit. Besides you have wolf0's miner which gives you a +2% - +5% better performance with 0% fees. And ZEC has Optiminer doing 290 h/s, so obviously Id prioritise optimising what is still relevant in terms of my income.

I wanted to try wolf0's miner but I never ran it successfully, I set up everything in config file but when I click on  miner.exe it start and turn off immediately
Can you please share my your config file for it?
Do I need to delete other algorithms from folder (blake, groestl)?

thank you

[xneoenx]

I wanted to try wolf0's miner but I never ran it successfully, I set up everything in config file but when I click on  miner.exe it start and turn off immediately
Can you please share my your config file for it?
Do I need to delete other algorithms from folder (blake, groestl)?

thank you

Post the above question on Wolf's thread, and I and others will be happy to help.

[xneoenx]

Claymore never optimized this miner for the 4xx GPUs

I don't think it can be optimized miner side. From what I read from Elivop / wolf0's threads, the timings of CAS and RAS needs to be altered to get your mining speed of rx480/470 to 850 h/s stable with 900 - 950mv.
Im trying to learn the hex to CAS / RAS and all the other crap, but Im not too smart as they are. The closest I got was 810 h/s on MSI Armor 480 with samsung. But I was just shooting in the dark.

[carlo_0000]

I wanted to try wolf0's miner but I never ran it successfully, I set up everything in config file but when I click on  miner.exe it start and turn off immediately
Can you please share my your config file for it?
Do I need to delete other algorithms from folder (blake, groestl)?

thank you

Post the above question on Wolf's thread, and I and others will be happy to help.

but i don't think you must clic on miner.exe   you need to make a bat file

[Trimegistus]

Something like:

Code:

sgminer.exe -c sgminer.conf

[carlo_0000]

i use the 1375 timing bios @ 1920 memory for 767mh  stable for more than a day
for the sapphir 470 4G   if your board support higher memory speed than speed faster
but mine it s 1930 for the worse and 1950 for the best   so i run 1920

[exortis]

hi friends
RX 480 8gb for -a ? and -h ?
must be

[ray_saeed]

i use the 1375 timing bios @ 1920 memory for 767mh  stable for more than a day
for the sapphir 470 4G   if your board support higher memory speed than speed faster
but mine it s 1930 for the worse and 1950 for the best   so i run 1920

Are your cards Hynix, Elpida or Samsung?

[wacko]

1375 strap timings at ~ 1900 MHz sounds very much like Hynix.

[carlo_0000]

i use the 1375 timing bios @ 1920 memory for 767mh  stable for more than a day
for the sapphir 470 4G   if your board support higher memory speed than speed faster
but mine it s 1930 for the worse and 1950 for the best   so i run 1920

Are your cards Hynix, Elpida or Samsung?

Hynix @ 1750

i had a 480 Elpida but i send it back for an 470 Hynix, was not able too mod that bios

[ginmac]

Hi, what settings for Dwarfpool - vardiff? I still only fixed 10000 (port: 8050).

[coinscrow]

FREE RIG STATUS TOOL!
BTCTalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1772780.0


Supports every Claymore miner!
ZEC / ETH / ETC / XMR /

Site screenshot: http://prnt.sc/e3l3ru
TELEGRAM BOT (instant notification, if rig down): http://prnt.sc/e411qb

Public Profile working example: https://minerstat.xyz/public/bFwoCrBXlL.html

Register here: https://minerstat.xyz/

[Termie]

Hi, what settings for Dwarfpool - vardiff? I still only fixed 10000 (port: 8050).

There are no diff setting for Dwarfpool. All ports working with fixed 10000 there, for whatever reason.

[jesup]

Hello. I'm using 3 miners for XMR:

• Claymore's CryptoNote GPU miner 9.7 on ref. radeon 6970 2gb.
• Claymore's CPU miner (set 6 threads) on 6C-12T Xeon X5650 @ 4GHz, tripple channel DDR3-1809 10-12-12-28-1T, 3.5Ghz Northbridge
• and the last one is tsiv cuda miner on Palit JetStream GTX 1070

The first gives about 400 H/s, the second 260 H/s and the last one shows about a 430 H/s. So, the question is why gtx 1070 sux that much compared to the 6 years old HD6970? At the same time CPU works too well compared to GPU-s. This way used 6970 looks like a nice choice in case of free energy.

[wacko]

So, the question is why gtx 1070 sux that much compared to the 6 years old HD6970?

I think the reason is that no one really worked hard on a cryptonight miner that is efficient with nvidia Pascal cards. It's not that nvidia sucks at XMR in general, GTX 750 Ti for example were pretty good at it (and might actually be a better purchase than HD6970 if power consumption matters).
P.S. I've just sent you a PM about CPU mining (since it's offtopic here).

[bitkachu]

Hi all,

I have 2 rigs for testing.
First with just single SAPPHIRE RX470 8GB, second with two SAPPHIRE RX470 8GB
Heres the weird part... I used 60 minutes as a scale to test

First Rig:
Speed: 690 h/s, Total Shares: 394, Rejected 0, Mining time: 01:00

Second Rig:
Speed: 1378 h/s, Total Shares: 397, Rejected 0, Mining time: 01:00

Is this behavior normal? Both number of total shares are almost the same

[ccccccc7]

Can anyone care to explain the terms SHARE FOUND (target 6156) vs SHARE FOUND (target 12121)?
Target 6156 is from single GPU rig whereas Target 12121 is from dual GPU rig

My guess would be target=difficulties?
If my guess is correct.. then it would explain why the total shares found for both single GPU and dual GPU rig is almost the same

As I understand it, share size or target size defines the target amount of hashes in a share and the lowest number of hashes the pool will accept.

The larger share target on your dual GPU system is because most pools as using variable difficulty (vardiff) by default which increases the share/target size when higher hashrates are detected.

This is done to reduce network load - the pool receives the same total number of hashes but in a more efficient way.

I do not like vardiff and I recommend to set static difficulty where possible

[Ursul0]

Hi all,

I have 2 rigs for testing.
First with just single SAPPHIRE RX470 8GB, second with two SAPPHIRE RX470 8GB
Heres the weird part... I used 60 minutes as a scale to test

First Rig:
Speed: 690 h/s, Total Shares: 394, Rejected 0, Mining time: 01:00

Second Rig:
Speed: 1378 h/s, Total Shares: 397, Rejected 0, Mining time: 01:00

Is this behavior normal? Both number of total shares are almost the same

proper vardiff maybe.
what's your pool/port?