So...?
Any news?
Cant seem to find anything related to R9 fury and mining.
Topic: Deleted - page 3. (Read 16318 times)
I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclocked
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"
1140kh/s)
core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"
1140kh/s)core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...
It's not a 750ti card. It's a 750 with 1gb of memory , 512 shaders overvolted and heavily overclocked. The user Rednow posted it in my thread some time back.
I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclocked
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card" 1140kh/s)
core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"
1140kh/s)core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...
It's not a 750ti card. It's a 750 with 1gb of memory , 512 shaders overvolted and heavily overclocked. The user Rednow posted it in my thread some time back.
These numbers are abit inaccurate because the highend cards are running on lower default clockrates.
An overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.
Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod release 52:
The clock is 1510/1620(*2)
I don't know from where you are getting those number tbh, my card never did anything like with your version... it was at best 770kh/s overclockedAn overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.
Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod release 52:
The clock is 1510/1620(*2)
(anyway still far away from my new version with my "bad card"
1140kh/s)core 1500MH/s 3200MH/s, well don't even think my card can do that...
These numbers are abit inaccurate because the highend cards are running on lower default clockrates.
An overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.
Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod release 52:
The clock is 1510/1620(*2)
An overclocked 1mb 750 can be overclocked stable run at almost 6mhash/s quark wiith only 512 shaders.
Here is lyra2re on a 1gb 750 with 512 shaders using ccminer sp-mod release 52:
The clock is 1510/1620(*2)
NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):
quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
980 (19MHASH)
970 (15.5MHASH)
960 (10MHASH)
750ti (6MHASH)
A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti
The performance between 980ti and 970 is 23/15.5=1.48. The processor difference is 2816/1664=1.69
The performance between 980 and 970 is 19/15.5=1.22. The processor difference is 2048/1664=1.23
Why 980Ti is less efficient per core? Is that limited by power?
Well you have to also remember the binaries make the cards use more power and run hotter, I feel like you aren't taking that into consideration, but the 390x's will work with the hawaii bins.
yes, they use more power.. The problem is that the optimal quark kernal needs a modified sgminer in order to work. The modified bin files is not enough. My slow 1.25x faster kernal will work on the old sgminer, and I can generate hawaii bins..
Wolf0 hasn't leaked his quark work yet I think, but there is a Russian? kernel/sgminer windows exefile out there, but without hawaii bins. only tahiti.
The current global hashrate on the quarkbased coins is around 150GHASH/s. This is around 75 000 Radeon 280x gpu's using the opensource miner. But the sharks use private kernals that are 5-6 times faster... The rental sites are currently paying around 0.5 BTC per GHASH..
This meens that around 75BTC ($18,750) is mined per day in the quark algo alone..
This is $6 843 750 per year in mining revenue.
Enough to power one of these:
I doubt that they will be slow, you are talking about something that is not seen or tested come here when then can claim that they are slower
Without optimized code and a bether compiler the new cards will mine slow. this is simple math.
If the new card is 4x faster than the 280x, it will still mine slower than the 280x without a optimized miner.
Wolf0's quark implementation is 5.5.x faster than the opensource miner in the quark algorithm.
Note that the stolen wolf0 binaries for x11,x13,x15 binaries will most likely not work on the new hardware, so you are stuck with the opensourceminer. I doubt that wolf0 will be kind enough to compile new binaries and hand them out for free, but he will probobly sell them.
The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:
x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s
wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):
x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster
My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):
quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)
NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):
quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
980 (19MHASH)
970 (15.5MHASH)
960 (10MHASH)
750ti (6MHASH)
A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti
I doubt that they will be slow, you are talking about something that is not seen or tested come here when then can claim that they are slower The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:
x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s
wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):
x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster
My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):
quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)
NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):
quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
980 (19MHASH)
970 (15.5MHASH)
960 (10MHASH)
750ti (6MHASH)
A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti
Note that the stolen wolf0 binaries for x11,x13,x15 binaries will most likely not work on the new hardware, so you are stuck with the opensourceminer. I doubt that wolf0 will be kind enough to compile new binaries and hand them out for free, but he will probobly sell them.
The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:
x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s
wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):
x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster
My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):
quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)
NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):
quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
980 (19MHASH)
970 (15.5MHASH)
960 (10MHASH)
750ti (6MHASH)
A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti
The current speed of the opensourceminer on the 280x is around:
x11: 4,4mhash/s
x13: 3Mhash/s
x15: 2.5mhash/s
quark: 2mhash/s
qubit: 3.5mhash/s
wolf0's private AMD kernal speeds on the 280x (in MHASH/s):
x11: 6,5 mhash/s (1.47x faster)
x13: 5,0 mhash/s (1.66x faster)
x15: 4.5 mhash/s (1.50x faster)
quark: 11 mhash/s (5.50x faster)
qubit: 10 mhash/s (2.80x faster
My private AMD kernal(more speed and kernals are coming):
quark: 4,5mhash/s (2.25x faster)
NVIDIA sp-mod(open source):
quark: 980ti (23MHASH)
980 (19MHASH)
970 (15.5MHASH)
960 (10MHASH)
750ti (6MHASH)
A Fury X mining quark with the opensource kernal will be slower than a 7950 with the wolf0 kernal.. and 3x slower than the NVIDIA 980ti
is there a set date for when we will be seeing the fury cards in stores? Read somewhere that they will be in short supply at the release.
Thanks for the post. I will be following the cards release. I have been thinking about busting out some of my old GPU rigs. 
Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.
Well the more power of the gpu the better hashrate it should have, so I wouldn't be surprised at all about them spouting out bigger numbers.The R9 290(x) does not have per core mining performance increase over 79xx.
I mean per core performance. The performance of 290x is about 2816/2048= 1.4 times, not higher than 7970. I hope Fury XT performance is 4 times of 7970 with double core count (4096/2048=2).
Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.
Well the more power of the gpu the better hashrate it should have, so I wouldn't be surprised at all about them spouting out bigger numbers.The R9 290(x) does not have per core mining performance increase over 79xx.
Let wish those enhancement is not limited to games.
Does this 2X performance/watt applies only to Nano or all Fury series?
yes the nano seems like an interesting card, will probably get one for mining.
the fury with HBM memory could probably be very interesting with memory hard algo
.
Jump to: