XMR mining thread

[casiofx]

is anyone mining XMR with 1060? If so, what program are you using? I've just noticed on my 1060 rigs that they benchmarked for everything else but xmr.

I just tried for a short while yesterday. My 1060 3GB got like 450h/s with 70% power target

 

[dajeepster]

I just tried for a short while yesterday. My 1060 3GB got like 450h/s with 70% power target

i didn't ask what your hash rate is... that information wasn't asked for. what I asked was is anyone mining XMR with 1060? If so, what program are you using?

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Anybody have hash rates for Hawaii cards? Currently ~2000H/s on a 290, 390X, and 7870 XT all @ 1.1GHz and 6GT/s RAM. Not sure if I can go higher.

 

[casiofx]

i didn't ask what your hash rate is... that information wasn't asked for. what I asked was is anyone mining XMR with 1060? If so, what program are you using?

XMRMINER

Even though i made a mistake, the way you wrote it in bold and underline is fairly rude. Don’t forget I spent my time to reply you, is it hard to say something like “I’m sorry but I would like to know what program you are using instead of the hashrate”?
Remember you are asking for information, so please be polite.

 

[Headfoot]

I found the hash rate informative.

 

[dajeepster]

XMRMINER

Even though i made a mistake, the way you wrote it in bold and underline is fairly rude. Don’t forget I spent my time to reply you, is it hard to say something like “I’m sorry but I would like to know what program you are using instead of the hashrate”?
Remember you are asking for information, so please be polite.

I think it was rude to give information not asked for in the response to my post, nor relevant.

I was asking for specific information... thank you for giving information that wasn't asked for. I underlined, so that the next person would actually give pertinent information relevant to the question. and you did. thank you for the relevant information.

 

[Hitman928]

I think it was rude to give information not asked for in the response to my post, nor relevant.

I was asking for specific information... thank you for giving information that wasn't asked for. I underlined, so that the next person would actually give pertinent information relevant to the question. and you did. thank you for the relevant information.

Do you always insult those who are trying to do you a favor and fulfill your request for help? If it wasn't the exact information you requested, fine, but there's nothing inherently rude in his response but there certainly was in yours as well as your severely passive aggressive follow-up. Casiofx was nicer than he needed to be by following up with the miner he was using.

 

[dajeepster]

Do you always insult those who are trying to do you a favor and fulfill your request for help? If it wasn't the exact information you requested, fine, but there's nothing inherently rude in his response but there certainly was in yours as well as your severely passive aggressive follow-up. Casiofx was nicer than he needed to be by following up with the miner he was using.

in my defense... i didn't have my first cup of coffee that morning yet.

 

[Hitman928]

Just to follow up on my previous post about losing Hash with running Polaris eth mining at the same time, when starting the XMR after eth miner, it sustains the ~1850 H/s rate. Not sure what the difference is but it's working at full speed that way.

In terms of profitability today, XMR is definitely the way to go for Vega.

 

[Headfoot]

I think it was rude to give information not asked for in the response to my post, nor relevant.

I was asking for specific information... thank you for giving information that wasn't asked for. I underlined, so that the next person would actually give pertinent information relevant to the question. and you did. thank you for the relevant information.

Wow, is this a joke? This is straight up absurd

 

[Madpacket]

OK trying to get this thread back on track. Managed to hook up VEGA's (2x56, 1x64) and run a quick test. They seem to be holding steady over 5000Kh/s. Sorry for the blurry pics.

XMR Mining Beasts. 5500H/s https://imgur.com/gallery/zgbEK

I think ideally you should go for 4 x Vega 56 for optimal speed, power, price but you'll need at least 16 - 24GB of RAM and a a dummy plug plus a lot of patience as Wattman resets if you look at it too long. Need to find a reliable way to tweak the cards.

Once they go for MSRP I'll pick up another two Vega 56's and finish this miner. VEGA 64 WC will go back to my main gaming PC.

I know a lot of people crapped on Vega but they found a niche mining Monero and are paying themselves off slowly

 

[Hitman928]

Some XMR mining with Vega findings:

1) HBCC on or off makes no difference for me.
2) The card runs noticeably cooler with XMR vs. Eth.
3) With Vega being the primary card, I can turn the monitor off without it effecting hash rates, however, I had to turn off the option to let the monitor sleep after inactivity.

Running strong at about 1850 H/s and ~190 W - 200 W from the card.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Nice results. It's good to see those figures are replicable. Now we know where all the Vegas will be going for awhile.

 

[thilanliyan]

Is xmr mem intensive like eth?

 

[Hitman928]

Is xmr mem intensive like eth?

Yes, maybe not quite as much but still intense.

 

[thilanliyan]

Have you done any core clock testing to see how far you can bring it down without losing too many hashes?

 

[OTG]

Have you done any core clock testing to see how far you can bring it down without losing too many hashes?

I need to put all my notes in one place, but I have an MSI RX580 that went from 606 to 666 H/s raising core clock from 900MHz@750mV to 1450MHz@1100 mV. I forgot to write down the power draw from GPUz but I'm sure it was a pretty huge jump.
This is in Windows 10 using xmr-stak-amd, in EthOS it's doing 640 H/s with the core at 1365 and memory at 2250.
The hash rate dropped pretty steadily as the core clock dropped, but IIRC power usage really dropped off a cliff when I went from 800 mV to 750. Like from ~90 W to 70 W (core only in GPUz). That may have been ETH tho...

 

[ozzy702]

I have two 480s I'm thinking of switching over to XMR. Anyone mining on them and if so what are your settings for claymore's miner? I'm getting really low hashrates compared to what everyone says I should be.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Good question, and I'm glad you brought this thread back up actually. ETH mining may go out the window sometime in the next 6-12 months depending on how well-received FFG is (which is on a testnet now) so XMR mining may be the best haven for most ETH miners in the future.

Sadly I do not have any 480s or 580s for comparison.

 

[ozzy702]

I'm open to using any other miner as well. I've been cpu mining on xmr-stak and it works great. For reference, my two cards are only pulling a total of 705 H/s which is from what I can tell about what one card should pull.

Thoughts?

 

[thilanliyan]

There's an XMR miner from Claymore isn't there? I'd start there.

I'm using Vegas which do well with Cast XMR miner.

 

[ozzy702]

There's an XMR miner from Claymore isn't there? I'd start there.

I'm using Vegas which do well with Cast XMR miner.

For the GPUs I used Claymore, it's working but the hash rate is ~ half what it should be.

 

[thilanliyan]

For the GPUs I used Claymore, it's working but the hash rate is ~ half what it should be.

Blockchain driver maybe? My hashrate is terrible with Vegas unless I'm using the blockchain driver.

 

[coercitiv]

I have two 480s I'm thinking of switching over to XMR. Anyone mining on them and if so what are your settings for claymore's miner? I'm getting really low hashrates compared to what everyone says I should be.

Good question, and I'm glad you brought this thread back up actually. ETH mining may go out the window sometime in the next 6-12 months depending on how well-received FFG is (which is on a testnet now) so XMR mining may be the best haven for most ETH miners in the future.

Unless you're getting 800h/s already there's no point in optimizing the Claymore settings, just run with the default since the bottleneck is elsewhere (driver config or memory settings). Anyone getting 350-400h/s on 480/580 should check whether Compute mode is enabled or reinstall proper drivers. Stock 580 should do 500-600h/s with default settings on any miner. I strongly recommend latest Compute capable driver since the Aug Blockchain driver has some issues with lowering chip voltage on some big Polaris cards, and it's a pitty to run at 1.1V when 950mV or even 850-875mV is possible.

I had one 580 8GB running on Claymore 9.7, then Claymore 10.2 and then XMR Stak after more testing. Claymore 10.2 seems to offer better hashrates over 9.7 and XMR Stak, but in my experience locally reported hashrates did not reflect in long (24h-48h) averages on the pool side. After trying different settings and combinations I moved to XMR Stak which reports lower local hashrates... but they reflect properly on the pool side. On Claymore I tried settings between -h 1800 and 1890, anything beyond that seems to use too much VRAM so performance drops.

The 580 with modded straps or mining BIOS straight from the vendor does 800h/s with as low as 1Ghz GPU clock. If you don't care about power usage and have Samsung memory you might push towards 1000h/s, though this was never my aim since I'm trying to stay within 1050Mhz and 850mV.

PS: if you try out XMR Stak, take note it has the habit of occasionally crashing the driver when exiting the application, the only workaround I know ATM is to disable the network adapter: the miner will automatically idle and become safe to close.

 

[PhonakV30]

XFX 290 double dissipation ( with custom cooler) 900Mhz/1250Mhz is around 650h/s while RX480 1338Mhz/2000Mhz ~ 780h/s ( Claymore CryptoNote AMD GPU Miner v10.2 Beta )
Total power consumption = 490w , also Ryzen 1600x at 3950mzh around 350h/s ( xmr-stak-cpu )