Topic: Claymore's ZCash/BTG AMD GPU Miner v12.6 (Windows/Linux) - page 342. (Read 3839163 times)
Any news from Dwarfpool? I have the same problem.
The largest theft is on FLYPOOL!!!!! They are stealing a lot of shares. DEV, leave home the stories with shares, don't be ridiculous
What driver for amd need.. windows 10. Give link please.
RX 480: 100 watt consumption / 230 sols = .43 sol per watt...
GTX 1070: 150 watt consumption / 370 sols = .41 sol per watt...
GTX 1070: 150 watt consumption / 370 sols = .41 sol per watt...
RX 480: 2.3 Sol/s per watt
GTX 1070: 2.47 Sol/s per watt
Nicehash EQM looks very good: http://cryptomining-blog.com/8386-new-faster-nicehash-eqm-zcash-nvidia-optimized-miner/
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
Shares are counted:
Quote
accumulated up to now ca.1935232 precalculation precalculation* wait for block
This number is being increased, only stats are missing.
Hey guys, just wondering what your hashrates were for a 1070? I hear they hash at about 100 watts, but I can't seem to get a solid figure on hashrate.
With my RX 480's (on Clay's 9.1 miner), I'm doing about 230 sol/s at 1333/2100 with a decent under-volt.
So I'm thinking of building a new rig, and so I'm wondering if I should go with maybe 2 1070's. My power is already cheap, but at current zcash price, it takes me about 4 months to ROI on an RX 480. So would 1070's ROI faster?
What is your guys' hashrates with a 1070 on Claymore 9.1, and approx what is your power consumption? Thanks so much!
With my RX 480's (on Clay's 9.1 miner), I'm doing about 230 sol/s at 1333/2100 with a decent under-volt.
So I'm thinking of building a new rig, and so I'm wondering if I should go with maybe 2 1070's. My power is already cheap, but at current zcash price, it takes me about 4 months to ROI on an RX 480. So would 1070's ROI faster?
What is your guys' hashrates with a 1070 on Claymore 9.1, and approx what is your power consumption? Thanks so much!
Per my limited testing on the new eqm version, I can get my 1070s *which are NOT the good memory type* to about 300 sol/s at 108 watts, no mods Afterburner set to 60% TDP +500 mem clock -200 core clock.
I suspect someone that played more with settings could better that efficiency some, especially on 1070 models with better memory.
Optimal settings for me *so far* net a bit over 330 sol/s on 140ish watts, 80% TDP +500 mem stock core clock in Afterburner.
My pair of RX 470s manage a little over 200 sol/s each on v9.1 (one is at 201 the other 206), which is quite nice for a pair of cards that cost me $332 with shipping (less than ANY f my single 1070s).
My best settings so far:
+170 core, +500 mem, 65% TDP => 330h/s. This pulls around 120W
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
In my case it was very easy: 78ms->3000ms, so I have changed it to another pool...
Dwarfpool loosing miners
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
In my case it was very easy: 78ms->3000ms, so I have changed it to another pool...
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
I am mining as usual, shares are accepted and no rejects.
Looks like just Web backend died, it happened before some times.
Not so good for sure to mine without stats, but everything was recovered and recalculated.
Your decision to leave or not, but I think no reasons to worry much based on past experience.
Anyway I am not Dwarf-related so can't guarantee anything.
I'm staying, as you say its showing all shares as accepted as normal.
I have emailed Dwarf to let them know about the problem so hopefully we will have stats back shortly
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
I am mining as usual, shares are accepted and no rejects.
Looks like just Web backend died, it happened before some times.
Not so good for sure to mine without stats, but everything was recovered and recalculated.
Your decision to leave or not, but I think no reasons to worry much based on past experience.
Anyway I am not Dwarf-related so can't guarantee anything.
Code:
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:12:56 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 4)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:02 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (188 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=34%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=54C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:48 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 1)
ZEC: Share accepted (250 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=34%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:58 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 3)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:19 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=34%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:45 - New job from zec-eu1.dwarfpool.com:3333
ZEC - Total Speed: 1130.672 H/s, Total Shares: 5596, Rejected: 5, Time: 25:52
ZEC: GPU0 187.960 H/s, GPU1 188.916 H/s, GPU2 187.811 H/s, GPU3 189.769 H/s, GPU4 187.552 H/s, GPU5 188.664 H/s
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:46 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 4)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:52 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 3)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:15:25 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=34%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=54C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:15:32 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 0)
ZEC: Share accepted (187 ms)!
quick Q. What is the difference between sols/s vs. Hash/s. Or are they the same?
Other coins miners including Bitcoin and Ethereum calculate hash of some data that should be within some limitations. Miner for Zcash uses EquiHash algorithm, where not only lot of hashes calculated, but they also should be sorted and compared to find similar pairs (thus the algorithm name EquiHash). Such found pair is a solution to some math problem, more than just a single hash. So actually miner sends to pool such solutions. But they often called hashes while they are in reality more than just hashes.This is also the reason why old miners used a lot of CPU: GPU calculated a lot of hashes and passed them all to CPU to sort and compare. Latest miner versions offload CPU and do this on the GPU directly returning just good solutions. But this also explains why there is no Dual miner for this: because now both GPU is busy calculating hashes and VRAM is also busy for sorting huge lists of them.
Something wrong with dwarfpool
0 workers, 0 hashrate
0 workers, 0 hashrate
Yes, I confirm. I woke up and I saw on the dwarf page that my worker is @ 0 sols....
I checked the miner and I saw that the connection with dwarf's EU server went down from 78ms yesterday to 3000ms now
That's why I have request:
@Claymore
Could you make a new switch that the connection could be change to failover if the lag is over some threshold (like in my case above)?
Thanks.
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
quick Q. What is the difference between sols/s vs. Hash/s. Or are they the same?
It's the same thing (not really, but for informational purposes, its the same).
quick Q. What is the difference between sols/s vs. Hash/s. Or are they the same?
Yes, I confirm. I woke up and I saw on the dwarf page that my worker is @ 0 sols....
I checked the miner and I saw that the connection with dwarf's EU server went down from 78ms yesterday to 3000ms now
That's why I have request:
@Claymore
Could you make a new switch that the connection could be change to failover if the lag is over some threshold (like in my case above)?
Thanks.
Quote
I believe you can get 300 H/s at 100W or 370 at 150W. I can't confirm as I don't own any. Also, Claymore is AMD only.
Yeah, that probably sounds more realistic... If that is the case, it would seem the 1070 is only a little more efficient than the RX 480.
RX 480: 100 watt consumption / 230 sols = .43 sol per watt...
GTX 1070: 150 watt consumption / 370 sols = .41 sol per watt...
Now, I guess for someone with a huge power bill, that would make sense for multiple rigs. But on my end... With only about 4 cents per kilowatt hour, I would need to get a 1070 for $350 or less to meet the same ROI as an RX-480. Plus, I only have two rigs.
I guess for multiple rigs, high power cost etc, it makes sense to go with 1070's. Less power consumption, more hashing power on a single rig (less boards, CPU and RAM to buy, etc... Not so much for me though, at least at the moment... Though if I could find a 1070 for $350, I'd buy several in a heartbeat considering all those factors...
370 at 150 watt is not the good choice, do 300 sol at 100 watt, that is 0.3 sol per watt, actually i'm not sure about the 150watt with 370 sol, it could be less, my gpu can't reach that speed you need a palit
V9.1 with my HD7990's i get 201H/S per chip (400-405 in total, MSI brand), really good increase!
That's it? I have a MSI 7950 heavy overclocked doing stable 220-225
Can't push the 7990s as hard due to twice the heat generation (almost) in the same space.
yes im on stock bios and settings too, these babies are my winter handwarmers!
used to overclock them years back on other algos and nearly paid the price of melted power PCI-E cables! (not riser)
Hey guys, just wondering what your hashrates were for a 1070? I hear they hash at about 100 watts, but I can't seem to get a solid figure on hashrate.
With my RX 480's (on Clay's 9.1 miner), I'm doing about 230 sol/s at 1333/2100 with a decent under-volt.
So I'm thinking of building a new rig, and so I'm wondering if I should go with maybe 2 1070's. My power is already cheap, but at current zcash price, it takes me about 4 months to ROI on an RX 480. So would 1070's ROI faster?
What is your guys' hashrates with a 1070 on Claymore 9.1, and approx what is your power consumption? Thanks so much!
With my RX 480's (on Clay's 9.1 miner), I'm doing about 230 sol/s at 1333/2100 with a decent under-volt.
So I'm thinking of building a new rig, and so I'm wondering if I should go with maybe 2 1070's. My power is already cheap, but at current zcash price, it takes me about 4 months to ROI on an RX 480. So would 1070's ROI faster?
What is your guys' hashrates with a 1070 on Claymore 9.1, and approx what is your power consumption? Thanks so much!
Per my limited testing on the new eqm version, I can get my 1070s *which are NOT the good memory type* to about 300 sol/s at 108 watts, no mods Afterburner set to 60% TDP +500 mem clock -200 core clock.
I suspect someone that played more with settings could better that efficiency some, especially on 1070 models with better memory.
Optimal settings for me *so far* net a bit over 330 sol/s on 140ish watts, 80% TDP +500 mem stock core clock in Afterburner.
My pair of RX 470s manage a little over 200 sol/s each on v9.1 (one is at 201 the other 206), which is quite nice for a pair of cards that cost me $332 with shipping (less than ANY f my single 1070s).
V9.1 with my HD7990's i get 201H/S per chip (400-405 in total, MSI brand), really good increase!
That's it? I have a MSI 7950 heavy overclocked doing stable 220-225
Can't push the 7990s as hard due to twice the heat generation (almost) in the same space.
Claymore,
what is causing this issue? I'm seeing this problem on multiple rigs with V9 and V9.1
....
what is causing this issue? I'm seeing this problem on multiple rigs with V9 and V9.1
....
Try to connect a display or a dummy plug to one of the PCI-E cards.
It seems to me that you use for primary graphics the onboard gpu and the miner (or ATI driver) can't control the fan speed, target temperature, etc. A display or a dummy plug will solve this problem. You need to connect the plug for only a few seconds.
Maybe that cause the crash too.
GPU hang is 100% hardware issue. Either GPUs too undervolted, too overclocked, or PSU is unstable, or has bad ripple suppression.
As far as dummy plug, this only affects temperature control, and possibly stuck idle clocks, it would not cause a crash. Attempting to mine with onboard graphics will crash, but this shows every card in rig crashing pretty much at same time, indicating a big hardware issue.
I meant that maybe the cards are overheated and that caused the crash. Anyway it is good to know these values and can control the fans and target temp.
Of course if you use to much overclock and/or undervolt that is the main problem.
Jump to: