Topic: R9 Nano Modded Rom - page 27. (Read 60873 times)

148W/32 = 4.65 J/MH. That is very good. For the R9 390 220W/30 = 7.3 J/MH.

For the OP's setting, 460W/132 = 3.5 J/MH.

Sorry for the late answer, I´m not very often here. With my config (which contains a few more tweaks as only overclocking+undervolting) I get an average of ~32 MH/s, peaks up to 40+ MH/s (best as yet were 42.3 MH/s). Short-term drops are certainly also possible, depending on the "mood" ^^ of my pool (Coinotron).

Average 24h power consumption is ~148 watt (without mem), before with stock voltage is was ~168 watt. Noise isn´t very important for me, it runs at a separate room, typically rig-like without case. Most time with 58% fan speed and 63-65°. But best of all is that I managed all this via software. Because I guess if you mod&flash BIOS of your ridiculously-expensive Nano, warranty expires. Bad in case your card conks out, and loweres also the resale value.

How much more energy does the Claymore miner use? I tried on 7990, it seems the temperature is the same.

Hey Nikolaj.

First, i'm not mining on Dwarfpool. For several reasons.

They already have to much hash rate to start with.
I clearly get higher readings on other pools.

I'm currently mining over at ethermine.org

I have a picture here of my Amp Clamp hooked up on my testing rig.
This is with 6x nano all with my second Rom i shared at stock settings. Nothing extra changed.
16.1.1 drivers windows 10 64bit running Genoil Ethminer 1.0.6, doing 132Mh/s

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_cBBoZ_PTwOYTdtTGc1Um9MTW1ELTVuYWhiaDZoMEVFb1Vr
So 570watt


Funny thing, i got the same hash rate with 16.4.1 drivers but a little more energy usage
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_cBBoZ_PTwONTFKbURLUF82UE44S0dtdlNMOHhRcVJxMTFj
575watt


I have indeed tested Claymore's miner with these settings:
dcri 50, running both eth and dcr.

also everything at stock (from my second shared rom, so 800 core clock, 300 memclock).

This gave me 130Mh eth and i believe around 3,2Ghz on DCR.
Downside, it went to 5.1A, so 1120watt.  

I had to down clock my core clock to 650 to get the same wattage as before. Obviously this lead to a serious decrease in hashrate.

I also tested solo mining eth on all 3 of Claymores versions.

All of them obviously used more energy at only a little change in hash rate --> 135 Mh...


At this moment i'm doing a test on Windows 7, just for the fun of it.
it seems that it's not better at all. (hash rate -> energy).

Done a test with 15.12 Crimson drivers. 3.2A, also 132Mh.

Will be doing a lot more testing this week.

Will report back!

Greetings!

Some dwarfpool-side results, with a watt-meter reading, would be gladly appreciated.

Have you tried claymore's dual miner with such low voltages (eth+dcr)?

I suppose that it would be too unstable with blake256.

Keep up the good work ! thank you!

Lower mvddc, better timings, fixed dpm values :-)

What is the difference between this one and the previous one? Did you change other voltages or something else?

I have no experience with HawaiiBiosReader.

But i'm sure you could perfectly modify your bios with a hex editor.

I would advice you to look up some tutorials. It's not "that" difficult.

I do own some 390's as well, so when i find some extra time i'll look into it and report back.

Greetings

Hey Marvell1,

The rom i shared has a mod on the core voltage (-100mV) and a mod on the mem voltage (also -100mV)

You can open afterburner and go even lower.

So if you set (-12) you will have -112mV

You are correct, you cannot reduce the memory voltage with afterburner or any other software.

This has to be done with a hardmod.

The Rom i shared can easily hit 150Mh because you can still set 1000 as core clock (it is stock set at 1000).
Thus giving you full power but with less energy usage.

I will share my second rom as well. I will edit the op.

This one is even more energy efficient.
Although it is set at stock 800Mh Core clock. (you can up this to 1000 in afterburner if needed).

Greetings.

If the R9 390's memory voltage can be reduced. That is excellent. We need no more than 1250 MHz.

I would like your bios but its hash rate is a bit too low for me I have around 8 saphire nanos

I notice on afterburner you cant reduce the memory clock on any cards not even 390s  You can reduice voltage a max of 100mv of course and power tune and core clock.

would this tool work on the R9 Nanos and the 390s to reduce voltage and Memory clock ?

https://github.com/OneB1t/HawaiiBiosReader

or can you provide a new modifed bios that  hashes at around 150mh/s rather than 130ish leaving 30 mhs on the table seems kind of a waste.

I remember back when people mined scrypt some dude made a great deal of a modded BIOS. One of the things I remember is that yes, he said you can shut down whole GPU blocks. The power consumption was greatly reduced - oddly, as the whole point of using compute is to bypass ROP units.
But I don't know if you disable them 'forever' to next reboot or what. I certainly wouldn't do that for cards which are not dedicated to compute only as shutting down the ROPs will make the hardware unable to run any graphics API in existence.

Hey,

i use HxD and a calculator to modify the values.

After that i use Fiji Bios Editor to fix the checksum

Greetings

what tool did you use to mod your nano ?

What do you mean by that?

Can we disable the GPU parts which are not used in the computing so as to save energy?

Did they (AMD) forgot the ROPS on again?

It's unlikely anything to do with the algo or some ratio, and almost certainly to do with mem straps.  Don't think I've ever seen the memory timing ranges posted for fiji cards.  They may align on 250mhz.

i thought the algo was most efficient running in increments of 250mhz..

that seems to hash out with my testing too.. for another 50mhz mem clock you should see nice gains.

For the R9 390, I only run the memory speed at 1200MHz, it can handle lots of computing. The memory is only used about 96% when the core speed is 1080MHz.

True, it's fast enough.

But the issue isn't the bottleneck regarding the GPU core, it's purely the fact that all these "mining algorithms and their miners" aren't designed "yet" to handle this amount of bandwidth. In short, HBM is in a way not yet fully supported..."