getting more mhash/s

[hmongotaku]

Hi folks.
 I have just gotten back from a 4 month hiatus. Back when bitcoins selling for under 3-4 bucks. Anyways back in 2011. I was running fine with guiminer with phoenix kernel hashing out 350-400 Mhash/s on 5850s. Using phatk 3% mod on 12.1/2.2 sdk running at 900/300 specs.

Nowadays with the new guiminer and different kernels I cant' even reach the old ratings. Hitting 300-340 million hashes per sec at most. I'm running with poclbm on guiminer with the code, "-v -w128 -f25". Any help is welcomed.

[TheHarbinger]

Hi folks.
 I have just gotten back from a 4 month hiatus. Back when bitcoins selling for under 3-4 bucks. Anyways back in 2011. I was running fine with guiminer with phoenix kernel hashing out 350-400 Mhash/s on 5850s. Using phatk 3% mod on 12.1/2.2 sdk running at 900/300 specs.

Nowadays with the new guiminer and different kernels I cant' even reach the old ratings. Hitting 300-340 million hashes per sec at most. I'm running with poclbm on guiminer with the code, "-v -w128 -f25". Any help is welcomed.

If you have updated your AMD drivers/SDK that is most likely what is causing the lower hashrate.

[Ram]

Amd Sdk 2.5 with catalyst 11.12 works very good.

or jou could just run catalyst 11.11c, but you might get a 100% cpu bug. I've only gotten bug with 3 of my 7 systems though.

[ssateneth]

Amd Sdk 2.5 with catalyst 11.12 works very good.

or jou could just run catalyst 11.11c, but you might get a 100% cpu bug. I've only gotten bug with 3 of my 7 systems though.

11.11 and prior either always have cpu bug, or maybe have CPU bug. I can verify that 11.12 and 12.1 never have CPU bug. They also work great for any 5xxx/6xxx card. They are also compatible with 2.1 SDK which is the fastest SDK you want to run with any 5xxx and 60xx-68xx card, but if you cant figure out how to install 2.1 sdk and use it, use 2.4 or 2.5 (3% slower than 2.1). 11.12 and higher have 2.6 SDK with them, which is really slow and bad, and -only- recommended (even required) if you're using a 7xxx card. You will have to find a way to install 2.4/2.5 on top of 2.6 in order to revert to the faster SDK.

As far as the miner to use, a large population will tell you to use cgminer, but I prefer phoenix because it gives me about 1-2% more mhash than cgminer (stupid variable intensities. even setting a high intensity is still variable, which is why its slower).

[-ck]

As far as the miner to use, a large population will tell you to use cgminer, but I prefer phoenix because it gives me about 1-2% more mhash than cgminer (stupid variable intensities. even setting a high intensity is still variable, which is why its slower).

Not debating what you find in hashrate difference, but correction: high intensities are not variable, reporting looks like it is because of the asynchronous nature of the threads reporting back their hashes done. Only the longterm average is accurate and only after enough time has passed since it's an all time average of true hashes done which will include any dips across longpoll etc. There is no variable intensity in anything but dynamic mode in cgminer.

[ssateneth]

As far as the miner to use, a large population will tell you to use cgminer, but I prefer phoenix because it gives me about 1-2% more mhash than cgminer (stupid variable intensities. even setting a high intensity is still variable, which is why its slower).

Not debating what you find in hashrate difference, but correction: high intensities are not variable, reporting looks like it is because of the asynchronous nature of the threads reporting back their hashes done. Only the longterm average is accurate and only after enough time has passed since it's an all time average of true hashes done which will include any dips across longpoll etc. There is no variable intensity in anything but dynamic mode in cgminer.

Sorry if I came off attacking/crabby, must've not been well rested when I posted it. I probably related it to DiabloMiner, which, when I used it, only allowed a variable amount of nonces per run and could only change it through a framerate argument, and thought if the hashrate was shaky, like DM, it must have a variable amount of nonces per run. But the async nature would make sense too, thanks for clearing that up.