going to let dwarfpool settle in but so far the vardiff port works great. Maybe other pools can try it for themselves and learn from it. Will see how it holds up over the next week. I had good luck with dwarf on eth and even better solo. Thats why i ask if claymore would provide a solo option. If i can point this miner to sammy proxy or something close im familiar with setting that up. Anyone know if that will work? Then i wouldnt need to bother claymore with feature to solo straight to wallet.
BR
Topic: Claymore's ZCash/BTG AMD GPU Miner v12.6 (Windows/Linux) - page 451. (Read 3839163 times)
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
Yes that is correct because the miner is currently not well optimized for the RX series or its drivers. We need those optimizations ASAP
Mine get 207h/s @ 155w wall
Yes and when optimized should be doing probably at least 260 h/s @ 140w at wall
PowerColor 7850 1GB
Win 10
mod Bios
Claymore v.8.0
106 Sol
super
ty Claymore
Win 10
mod Bios
Claymore v.8.0
106 Sol
super
ty Claymore
Hey all,
Wanting to build another mining rig using this older cpu, motherboard and RAM (below). I have this stuff kicking around, will Zcash mining work with 4GB of DDR2? This motherboard supports a maximum of 4GB DDR2 so I can't add any more sticks
I was planning on buying an RX470 4GB for this rig. I have a decent 600 Watt power supply which will be plenty and planning to use Windows 7. thanks
AMD ATHLON 64+ 3200 2.0 GHZ SOCKET AM2 CPU
2 X 2GB DDR RAM (4GB TOTAL)
XMS2 CORSAIR 800 MHZ
ASUS M2N68-AM SE2
SOCKET A MOTHERBOARD
Wanting to build another mining rig using this older cpu, motherboard and RAM (below). I have this stuff kicking around, will Zcash mining work with 4GB of DDR2? This motherboard supports a maximum of 4GB DDR2 so I can't add any more sticks
I was planning on buying an RX470 4GB for this rig. I have a decent 600 Watt power supply which will be plenty and planning to use Windows 7. thanks
AMD ATHLON 64+ 3200 2.0 GHZ SOCKET AM2 CPU
2 X 2GB DDR RAM (4GB TOTAL)
XMS2 CORSAIR 800 MHZ
ASUS M2N68-AM SE2
SOCKET A MOTHERBOARD
If you're only going to have 1 or 2 cards - that should be fine.
thanks for your help !
Dwarf pool started.
I am testing it. But the calculated speed is around 10% higher than the speed reported by Claymore. I also used the flypool, the speed is 6% below Claymore. I am not sure which one is better.
Like any other pool, dwarf will take some time before showing stable results
Yea give it some time. Dwarfpool is the most stable and consistent pool I've ever mined with.
I feel like a crack addict.. waiting for my next Claymore fix. DT's are starting to set in. Shakiness, cold sweats, cant eat, always thirsty - 
.
Just kidding Claymore, Take your time man!
Claymore = ultimate drug pusher. He get's ya hooked quick!
. Just kidding Claymore, Take your time man!
Claymore = ultimate drug pusher. He get's ya hooked quick!
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
Yes that is correct because the miner is currently not well optimized for the RX series or its drivers. We need those optimizations ASAP
Mine get 207h/s @ 155w wall
Dwarf pool started.
I am testing it. But the calculated speed is around 10% higher than the speed reported by Claymore. I also used the flypool, the speed is 6% below Claymore. I am not sure which one is better.
Like any other pool, dwarf will take some time before showing stable results
Dwarf pool started.
I am testing it. But the calculated speed is around 10% higher than the speed reported by Claymore. I also used the flypool, the speed is 6% below Claymore. I am not sure which one is better.
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
I would say it's impossible!
GPU-z info I guess
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
I'm pretty sure that the 280x are in the 180-210w range ... that's certainly the case with 1100 core clockThat's weird.
Yeah, I agree on that.
I think the minimum TDP of a R9 280x is 170W so maybe the information was mis-inputted in the table (180W not 130W)
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
I would say it's impossible!
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
I'm pretty sure that the 280x are in the 180-210w range ... that's certainly the case with 1100 core clock That's weird.
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
Yes that is correct because the miner is currently not well optimized for the RX series or its drivers. We need those optimizations ASAP
So according to the table, a R9 280x (205 sol/s@130W) is more efficient than a RX 480 (205 sol/s@180W) ?
That's weird.
That's weird.
driver crimson 16.11.5 on line
good hash with rx 480....i do an average of 200 h/s
Can you submit your result's here -> https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=ZCash_mining_GPU_Comparison
I know a couple of people that has RX 480 but cant get past 200 Sol/s
Tried to submit mine but doesn't let me save changes for some reason
Wanted to add this line:
Sapphire
RX 480 8GB Nitro(mod)
206
1350
2100
5
Claymore 8.0
What mod did you use for your RX480 please? I'm only getting 180 sol/s on my rx480's and even worse on my rx470's
16.11.4
Demarsac
If you want you can add it.
1. compute unit in CGN 1.3(RX 480) is more efficient the same in CGN 1.1 (R9 390) on 15% mostly because of the prefetch and cashing.
2. RX 480 has direct acces to ISA, but you should write you code on lower levels to take advantage from that
3. in games RX 480 is able to compensate brute force of the CGN1.1 by optimizations in geometry units like excluding the poligons of the zero sizes, because of the new index cash end etc.
So the question is can we get same +15% in math tasks if we use high level languages? I thinks its hard to achive if its possible at all. Cahes and prefecth are not able to give big advantage, and maybe only low level direct access can give something, but then you have to write special version just for RX470/480 cards.
But again, RX480 are very good from power point of view. I can take 190-195H/s with 0.95-0.975V voltages if i dont care about power costs, and 180H/s with 0.92V!,temps below 60C if I need power efficiency. Also you can use cheaper PSU for the rigs with RX480.
And again, I wouldn expect that RX480 will perfom close to 390X, till someone will start to develop special miner for RX480
2. RX 480 has direct acces to ISA, but you should write you code on lower levels to take advantage from that
3. in games RX 480 is able to compensate brute force of the CGN1.1 by optimizations in geometry units like excluding the poligons of the zero sizes, because of the new index cash end etc.
So the question is can we get same +15% in math tasks if we use high level languages? I thinks its hard to achive if its possible at all. Cahes and prefecth are not able to give big advantage, and maybe only low level direct access can give something, but then you have to write special version just for RX470/480 cards.
But again, RX480 are very good from power point of view. I can take 190-195H/s with 0.95-0.975V voltages if i dont care about power costs, and 180H/s with 0.92V!,temps below 60C if I need power efficiency. Also you can use cheaper PSU for the rigs with RX480.
And again, I wouldn expect that RX480 will perfom close to 390X, till someone will start to develop special miner for RX480
The ethereum miner is not specifically developed for the RX series but the RX cores are performing as should over there. I do not think a separate miner is needed, only some more focus on the RX series cards.
bonjour frenchiii dudutti you are welcome (j'aime bien voir des français )
and i confirm me too in dwarfpool More share than flypool is the hash never goes below what claymore miner displays is good
(j'aime bien voir des français )and i confirm me too in dwarfpool More share than flypool is the hash never goes below what claymore miner displays is good
anybody can use Miner Manager for Send epool in Ver 8 ? i can't
read OP ! since v8, managment port is read only by default. You'll have to specify -mport 3333 (or whatever port you use) to enable config change from miner manager
Get used to read history.txt when you update the miner, you'll know what's new
Jump to: