Topic: Claymore's CryptoNote Windows CPU Miner v4.0 - page 27. (Read 565401 times)
MS security Essentials has started flagging this as a trojan. Also any chance of a faster miner?
1 more thing (just found out),
on Xeon E5-1650 processor, use 6 threads for best result.
Tested with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 = none gives more then with 6 threads.
With this processor your minning goes ~290-310 @6 threads.
on Xeon E5-1650 processor, use 6 threads for best result.
Tested with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 = none gives more then with 6 threads.
With this processor your minning goes ~290-310 @6 threads.
of course because your processor has "only" 12MB L3 cache. You need 2MB for one thread.
1 more thing (just found out),
on Xeon E5-1650 processor, use 6 threads for best result.
Tested with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 = none gives more then with 6 threads.
With this processor your minning goes ~290-310 @6 threads.
on Xeon E5-1650 processor, use 6 threads for best result.
Tested with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 = none gives more then with 6 threads.
With this processor your minning goes ~290-310 @6 threads.
Wolf is a hack, but a clever one.
Claymore is an actual developer.
Claymore is an actual developer.
Well, Wolf's is more stable.
I tested it on 4 of my servers.
Never failed of gone down. Works 24h 7days - no problem @90% of cpu usage.
Clay's crash alot of times, but gives more power. If you're monitoring it daily, you then u use it. If not (like set and forget), then use Wolf's.
Wolf is a hack, but a clever one.
Claymore is an actual developer.
Claymore is an actual developer.
so which one is better Claymore's or Wolf's?
Claymore's.Xeon 8 cores - Wolf's = ~190
Xeon 8 cores - Claymore's = ~250
so which one is better Claymore's or Wolf's?
I used to use Wolf and now Calymore - both on W8.1 and Minergate (i5-2500K @ 3.3GHz overlocked to 4.2GHz) -t 3.Wolf - shows 150-180 h/s - and hash rate showed in Wolf command window is the same like you see on minergate web page
Calymore - shows 220-240 h/s - more stable in showing hash rate in Calymore command window than Wolf but on minergate web page the information of hash rate is not as stable as in command window and on Minergare web site I see range from 130 to 280h/s.
My personal feeling is Calymore is slightly better on Minergate. maybe Calymore is more influenced by other work on the PC which is mining.
or you could use YAM XMR miner, it does 220 on my I5 2500 non k edition not OC'ed at t3 plus you can set the donation levels alot lower.
I use claymore's gpu miner and I like it a lot but wolf's looks pretty good too. I have an old Intel celeron 2.7 GHz processor and I'm not sure which one to use for it
so which one is better Claymore's or Wolf's?
I used to use Wolf and now Calymore - both on W8.1 and Minergate (i5-2500K @ 3.3GHz overlocked to 4.2GHz) -t 3.Wolf - shows 150-180 h/s - and hash rate showed in Wolf command window is the same like you see on minergate web page
Calymore - shows 220-240 h/s - more stable in showing hash rate in Calymore command window than Wolf but on minergate web page the information of hash rate is not as stable as in command window and on Minergare web site I see range from 130 to 280h/s.
My personal feeling is Calymore is slightly better on Minergate. maybe Calymore is more influenced by other work on the PC which is mining.
You have to try them both yourself I'm afraid, there's no definitive answer. It depends on your system and there's very little benchmark data available.
so which one is better Claymore's or Wolf's?
I gave a try to the new version and, on i7 920 it's still slower than my super-old cpuminer-multi 1.0.3.
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
what about this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7977109 maybe it helps you. I was not able to make it work, but it is my problem.Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
I did some more tests and ... still bad.
If I use 4 threads I get low hash rate, if I use 8 threads I don't have enough memory and go into slow mode.
Thank you - Calymore is the fastest CPU miner I have ever had.
Calymore, maybe think to update the readme for total noob like me. :-)
Here is my example just in case somebody is "lama" like me: "C:\Claymore CryptoNote CPU Miner v3.4 Beta - POOL\NsCpuCNMiner64.exe" -o stratum+tcp://mcn-bcn.pool.minergate.com:45650 -u email -p x -t 3
Thank you for the new version. Problem with L2 cache is solved and hashes is permanent in time.
Core i7 2600K (3.5 Ghz) - 285 H\s
2 x Xeon E5645 ES (2.5 Ghz) - 370 H\s
Core i7 2600K (3.5 Ghz) - 285 H\s
2 x Xeon E5645 ES (2.5 Ghz) - 370 H\s
I gave a try to the new version and, on i7 920 it's still slower than my super-old cpuminer-multi 1.0.3.
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
what about this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7977109 maybe it helps you. I was not able to make it work, but it is my problem.Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
I did some more tests and ... still bad.
If I use 4 threads I get low hash rate, if I use 8 threads I don't have enough memory and go into slow mode.
I don't have 920 CPU here to test it, so I cannot investigate this issue. If some other miner works better for you then probably you should use it instead.
I gave a try to the new version and, on i7 920 it's still slower than my super-old cpuminer-multi 1.0.3.
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
what about this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7977109 maybe it helps you. I was not able to make it work, but it is my problem.Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
I did some more tests and ... still bad.
If I use 4 threads I get low hash rate, if I use 8 threads I don't have enough memory and go into slow mode.
I gave a try to the new version and, on i7 920 it's still slower than my super-old cpuminer-multi 1.0.3.
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
what about this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7977109 maybe it helps you. I was not able to make it work, but it is my problem. Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
I gave a try to the new version and, on i7 920 it's still slower than my super-old cpuminer-multi 1.0.3.
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
Is that normal? Am I missing anything? If I would get (for myself) at least the same hash rate as the old miner, I would use yours, at least for the failsafe options...
How much hashrate is possible with 7950?
Anyone using this GPU for CryptoNote?
Anyone using this GPU for CryptoNote?
Wrong thread. GPU miner discussion is here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonote-amd-gpu-miner-v113-638915
How much hashrate is possible with 7950?
Anyone using this GPU for CryptoNote?
Anyone using this GPU for CryptoNote?
Xeon-E3 1230v2 (Ivy)
-t 4 240 h/s -> 260 h/s
THX!
-t 4 240 h/s -> 260 h/s
THX!
Jump to: