Hi guys,
I'am mining on Windows 7 with 1x HD7990 (GPU 1 +2), 2x R9 290x (GPU 3+4) 1x R9 390 (GPU 5). As seen in the picture the GPU usage with all cards but the HD 7990 fluctuates between 0% and 100% every few seconds - no difference in solo- and poolmining. No special settings, I just used a straight forword windows tutorial and installed the newest Catalyst drivers (yes - noob

). I had to underclock the HD 7990 and the two 290x cards for heating reasons, the 390x is a little bit overclocked - temperatures are all around 80 - 85 C°.
Is this fluctuating GPU usage normal? Thanks for your help .
Comments
The 7990 will run hot and I underclock mine too, but the 290 and 390's should handle stock or higher speeds and stay under 70C.
Temps are about 74F in my office.
Does anyone else nows more about those spikes and if or if not they effect mining speed.
I'am not sure if I understood everything you said correctly, but would I even benefit from raising the kernel run time? Or wouldn't everyone benefit from it, since the GPU doesn't have to re-launch that often. From what you said those GPU-spikes seem reasonable.
Thank you again for your detailed answer
85 is borderline toast.
I have a [email protected] 42 to 45mh+-
try this
ethminer -G --opencl --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 8192*128 -t 2
should be smooth as silk..
And I will try that command thank you
Edit: wow cool thanks, it really runs smoother and even faster
What settings do you recommend for a rig 1x7990 + 4x290?
I usually tried below based on stilt recommendations to adapt especially for the 290s I have. Is there a computed way of determining those settings?
ethminer -G --opencl --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 32768
Thanks
Anyone have a list / info?
I played around a bit with them and found some sweet spots for my rigs, and some bad spots, but don't really know 100% how they affect mining/GPU function.
https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/comment/19289/#Comment_19289
So when I see this : --cl-global-work 8192*128
What does the *128 do?
Also I've noticed if you raise up the #8192 to a high number, the hash rate becomes very erratic. And sometimes shows 0 hash rate mixed in with actual numbers.
You're overstating this by a lot. Those are absolutely acceptable temperatures, and hardware can and will get way hotter than that (think notebooks, blade servers etc). Even judging from the fact that thermal throttling doesn't take place until 94°C, everything below 95° is basically considered alright by AMD themselves.
Only thing you really lose is some power/energy efficiency (resistance decreases), and maybe a bit on lifetime of the GPUs' thermal interface material.
for some reason if I hit 90° my system shuts down, and I tried the card on 2 separate rigs/motherboards. probably my card.. Yes-server room :-)
so I have been playing with my numbers --cl-local-work xx,
I tried 64, 128, 256 and noticed the higher the hash rate but more erratic.
@256
I hit 88MH/s with 1/4 of the time
I hit 64MH/s with 1/2 of the time
I hit 43MH/s with 1/4 of the time
@128
I hit 66MH/s with 1/2 of the time
I hit 54MH/s with 1/2 of the time
@64
I hit 54MH/s with 3/4 of the time
I hit 43MH/s with 1/4 of the time
128 or 256 is my favorite "for me"..
Note: I think dividing/multiplying --cl-global-work 8192*128 like davethetrousers said, dealing with OS overhead & tradeoff between GPU time being utilized,
It makes a difference crunching to memory & processes differently, I use to use the * in the old bitcoin cuda mining days,
For my system I have 32gb of ECC/chipkill ram and 2 E5-2650 CPUs, I have been running --cl-local-work 128 --cl-global-work 9220*264 lately..(I know odd numbers)
I get 54 to 66MH/s on average. I am trying to find 59steady..
Sometimes get 0 hashes is not good,, I never get 0 hashes,, 43MH/s is as low as I've ever seen,,
try lower settings..
I hope you find good settings for your world!!
1st : "Also I've noticed if you raise up the #8192 to a high number, the hash rate becomes very erratic. And sometimes shows 0 hash rate mixed in with actual numbers."
2nd : I was replying to the *128 addition from before. "When that is set it seems to increase the reported hash rate though and be much more stable than using 16384 or 32768 as the number directly."
When I raised the numbers to 16384 or higher sometimes it showed '0' as hash rate. When I use 8192*128 it does now, just as I wrote it.
TY as usual.