R9 280x thwartes R9 Nano?

TermieTermie Member Posts: 130
Hi,

currently I´m using a MSI R9 Nano 4GB and a R9 280x 3GB for mining.
In principle I´m pleased with them, hashrate is ~52 MH/s.
But I notice GPU load drops at the Nano, while the 280x runs at 99% of time at 99% load.
So the R9 280x possibly thwartes the Nano? What can I do to avoid this?

image


When I start (Genoil's) ethminer, it never finds the Nano. Only with -t 2 cl-global-device/platform I get
the miner to run, but it still finds the R9 280x only then. Only because of hashrate I can see
that the Nano will be used also by ethminer.

What can I do that the Nano will be used as primary card? Thanx for a few hints and comments.

Comments

  • HelioxHeliox Member, Moderator Posts: 633 mod
    you could try a few things.

    The fact is that you're using two different GPU's with different chips.

    But that should work perfectly though.

    Try 16.4.1 drivers, i have a rig with a mix of cards and that driver works perfectly.

    Also try Claymore's miner to see if your gpu load will be at 100% (if not after driver update).

    Please report back :)
  • TermieTermie Member Posts: 130
    ok, try Claymore's now for an hour or two.
    GPU load is almost 100% now at both cards.
    But at last submitted shares will show if its worth this 1% dev fee.
  • HelioxHeliox Member, Moderator Posts: 633 mod
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    Termie said:

    ok, try Claymore's now for an hour or two.
    GPU load is almost 100% now at both cards.
    But at last submitted shares will show if its worth this 1% dev fee.

    After the 1% dev fee I've been earning on around 5-10% more then with genoil or stock ethminer, so I'd say it's worth it.
  • TermieTermie Member Posts: 130
    After three test-hours yesterday I can confirm 5-10% - but less, not more.
    With Genoil's and not-perfect GPU load I always get ~85 - 102 shares/hour. With Claymore's (ETH-only) and almost full GPU load the shares are dropping to 70 - 78 shares/hour. Config

    EthDcrMiner64.exe -mode 1 -epool pool:port -ewal wallet -eworker worker -epsw x -dbg -1 -etha -1 -ethi (tried 8+16)

    So in my case - more load, more heat, less ETH, dev fee - I can´t see any advantage.
  • disturbiliciousdisturbilicious CanadaMember Posts: 24
    There's only two explanations I can think of: pool luck, and driver version.

    I've been using Claymore's miner for a while now in ETH-only mode on rigs running AMD driver version 15.12 & 16.1. There haven't been any negative side-effects (temperature/power consumption increase), and I've seen gains similar to those posted by @work .
  • HelioxHeliox Member, Moderator Posts: 633 mod

    There's only two explanations I can think of: pool luck, and driver version.

    I've been using Claymore's miner for a while now in ETH-only mode on rigs running AMD driver version 15.12 & 16.1. There haven't been any negative side-effects (temperature/power consumption increase), and I've seen gains similar to those posted by @work .

    Yup, exactly the same here :)
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @Termie 3 hours isn't anywhere near long enough to discount luck, as others have pointed out.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    is it safe to use the 16.x drivers now? 16.1 or 16.4.1 as stated in this thread.

    I thought they caused a significant decrease in hashrate, like 20%?
Sign In or Register to comment.