Can you stop commenting and provide benchmarks? launch your claymore with -benchmark xxx (where xxx is dag).
This is mine: Aorus 580 8GB, ubermix mod, 2195 vram, 1165 core.
DAG 130: 30.2 MH/s
DAG 140: 27.6 MH/s
Can you please provide benchmarks for other cards/models? Especially difference impact on Nvidia models.
edit tested a 1070 (all stock):
30.7 average at every single epoch from 130 to 190.
permalinkembed
[–]planetofthemapes15 2 points 1 day ago
Do you think you'd be able to provide a benchmark with ethminer-genoil's benchmarking function as a comparison? I'd like to see if this is a claymore issue with the architecture rather than a hardware bottleneck.
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 1 point 1 day ago
/u/Koreenium did this below
permalinkembedparent
[–]Rick_Hated_Lori 3 points 2 days ago
I have 2 1070's and neither does 30 on stock, both do 25, both different models.
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 1 day ago
this is true
permalinkembedparent
[–]igotbannedfromranime 4 points 2 days ago
XFX RX580 GTS Black Core Edition 8GB (bios modded)
Currently 29.3Mh/s
140 dag: 26.3Mh/s
150 dag: 23.5Mh/s
Well fuck me, abandon the AMD ship lads and sell your graphics cards before other people catch on
permalinkembedparent
[–]kharlos 7 points 2 days ago
Yes, sell all of your amd cards
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
Well I lost 0.5MH/s with my 390x and DAG 160... either way this is 100% useless since as soon as we hit DAG 160 mining Ethereum will be impossible anyway because that is arround the time when the switch to proof of stake will probably happen.
permalinkembedparent
[–]jedimstr 4 points 2 days ago*
Well considering POS was already put off a few times before... and that the next switch will be to the hybrid POW/POS model where both are active, you'll probably still have a year or two more to go before ETH POW is fully discontinued.
More details here about the Casper Hybrid POW/POS phase and Metropolis POS phase: http://www.coindesk.com/ethereums-big-switch-the-new-roadmap-to-proof-of-stake/
permalinkembedparent
[–]Smagjus 1 point 1 day ago
Does your GTX 1070 use Micron or Samsung memory? My Samsung card only does 30.7 with an 800MHz OC on the memory.
permalinkembedparent
[–]viming 1 point 1 day ago
It doesn't affect my R9 390. Epoch 190 lowers my hashrate by ~1 at most.
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 10 points 2 days ago
Claymore himself commented on this and is looking into fixes for this issue.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg19639137#msg19639137
permalinkembed
[–]kall0r 1 point 1 day ago
MinerGate apparently already fixed it: V. 6.5 – no hashrate drop after DAG epoch switch
permalinkembedparent
[–]Edratuom 3 points 1 day ago
I think this is about a different DAG issue. They supposedly fixed the temporary hashrate drop after a DAG switch (which catch up after some hours), not the overall permanent perfomance drop that is coming related to some GPU architectures we are talking about in this thread. I wish I was wrong, because a solution to this problem would be great.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Michaelphenderson 1 point 1 day ago
That's made me laugh
permalinkembedparent
[–]intertron 1 point 1 day ago*
Interesting. I've never heard of MinerGate. Has anyone ever used it? What are the hashrates compared to Claymore?
Also that post is from October 2016 is it talking about the same DAG issue?
permalinkembedparent
[–]petrokush 7 points 2 days ago
Hm. Should I sell my rx 470 rigs and buy some 1070s instead?
permalinkembed
[–]PoliticalDissidents 2 points 2 days ago
Article explains how to benchmark today how your card will perform with future epoches. So you can test now how fast they'll work for the foreseeable future.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Codyktt 2 points 1 day ago
100% yes. The 1070s will hold value better for when people flood the market with amd cards
permalinkembedparent
[–]Nikolai47 4 points 2 days ago
Sapphire reference RX480 with the first BIOS mod I could find.
At the minute, 27-28MH/s DAG 140: 23.5MH/s DAG 160: 18.2MH/s
permalinkembed
[–]flagtaker 3 points 2 days ago*
Is this speculative?
permalinkembed
[–]merkaloid 5 points 2 days ago
He says Claymore has a benchmark feature that you can check performance using future DAG epochs
permalinkembedparent
[–]Iamthebst87 3 points 2 days ago
I went beyond the 160 all the way up to 190 it saying at that point 16MHs. Isn't there a possibility that this benchmark is flawed?
permalinkembed
[–]Koreenium 1 point 2 days ago*
With each new epoch my mhs drops by 0.2 which means that with epoch 190 I would lose 12mh/s and I am currently doing 29.8 mh/s.
permalinkembedparent
[–]could-of-bot 1 point 2 days ago
It's either would HAVE or would'VE, but never would OF.
See Grammar Errors for more information.
permalinkembedparent
[–]ozone63 1 point 2 days ago
Seems like it is a linear extrapolation. Not sure how he came up with it.
I think we have bigger things to worry about (POS, difficulty, etc). It's not like I am going to sell all of my cards and rebuild at this point anyway.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Iamthebst87 2 points 2 days ago
Yeah, my cards will hit ROI at the end of July. I guess at that point what happens happens.
permalinkembedparent
[–]newfulluser 1 point 1 day ago
I mean if you can sell your 180$ cards for +300$ on ebay and then buy nvidias that don't have that problem..
permalinkembedparent
[–]-Coolwhip3- 3 points 2 days ago*
RX480 8GB Gigabyte G1 Gaming, 1185 core @ 940mV, 2200 mem @ 950mV, no bios mod.
Epoch 130: No loss (~26.7Mh/s)
Epoch 140: 1.1Mh/s loss (~25.6Mh/s)
Epoch 150: 4.4Mh/s loss (~22.2Mh/s)
Epoch 160: 7Mh/s loss (~19.7Mh/s)
... Epoch 190: 11Mh/s loss (~15.7Mh/s)
Claymore maxes out @ epoch 199 for me. Curious as to what is affecting this drop. Anyone have numbers for a 1060?
permalinkembed
[–]RAZR_96 3 points 2 days ago
I get 22MH/s on all epoch with a 1060 6GB.
Epoch 190: 1, 2
permalinkembedparent
[–]deadsix6 3 points 1 day ago
RX 470 4GB :
DAG 120 : 27.4 (past)
DAG 130 : 27.2 (will hit on 20/06/2017)
DAG 140 : 25.3 (will hit on 31/07/2017)
DAG 150 : 22.2 (will hit on 11/09/2017)
DAG 160 : 19.5 (will hit on 22/10/2017)
This is scary. Should we jump ship and sell all RX 470/480's at the current inflated prices, and get GTX 1070's???
permalinkembed
[–]polk4134 3 points 1 day ago
might as well wait for vega, unless they are all out of stock.
permalinkembedparent
[–]gemtin 3 points 1 day ago
How did You know when next DAG will hit?
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 1 day ago
he guesses
permalinkembedparent
[–]moon53 1 point 17 hours ago
Can I know how to test DAG? Link plz? I'd like to test for other cards
permalinkembedparent
[–]PoliticalDissidents 2 points 2 days ago
It says the more memory the less impact but then says 290s don't see much of a difference but Polaris cards do. Though lowest VRAM 470/480/570/580 are 4GB and so are 290s.
permalinkembed
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
512bit memory bus vs 256bit
permalinkembedparent
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago
290s have 512?
1080/1070 has 256, 1060 has 192..
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
Yes the 290 has a GIANT GPU core, much bigger than a 1070 or 1080 with a huge 512bit memory bus. It is a high end 800$ GPU from 2012... and still beats the 1060 almost 5 years later.
permalinkembedparent
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago
Can you do the benchmark?
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
I lost 0.5Mh/s with my 390x with DAG 160
permalinkembedparent
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago
Can you please provide a screenshot of the two benchmarks?
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 3 points 2 days ago*
This is a 390x with a huge overclock at 1300MHz core clock and 1300MHz memory clock, dont expect these numbers without a watercooler and a bit of luck.
Current numbers
DAG 160
edit: noooo I am stupid, DAG 160 was with no fee....
Here is the real one /u/ep1939 /u/planetofthemapes15
https://puu.sh/wnXwU/dc7a769b00.png
edit2: As you can see I lost like 0.6Mh/s
edit3: ups... and that was with 1300MHz memory, normal clock is 1500MHz. So there is still a lot of room left =P 1750MHz overclocks are easily possible too
permalinkembedparent
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago
That's an impressive hashrate.
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 2 points 2 days ago
How many watts are you pulling?
permalinkembedparent
[–]twmac 5 points 2 days ago
a 390 .. ALOT
permalinkembedparent
continue this thread
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
https://puu.sh/wnXaT/67fdd0b4c7.png
I have no idea what the total system uses though
permalinkembedparent
[–]DeltaPositionReady 1 point 2 days ago
It's wack, My XFX 290 gets 29 MH/s while my AMD 480s get 27 MH/s.
Although the 290 has 4 more compute units and the Memory Clock is something like 5000MHz over my OC'd 280s at 2200.
permalinkembedparent
[–]juggarjew 0 points 2 days ago
Its also a power hungry pig compared to a 1060, btw, youd need to compare it to a 1080 if we are being far. compare high end to high end.
290's were a disaster when they came out, throttling hard. Theres a reason AMD housefire is a thing.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 1 point 2 days ago
Well right now it is cheap and cant compare to the 1080, I was only explaining why it has such a huge memory bus compared to other GPUs that are more expensive, newer and faster.
Of course power consumption is a different thing
permalinkembedparent
[–]Robbbbbbbbb 2 points 2 days ago
Except 1070s have 256-bit lanes and they're not affected.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
Because its about total gb/s where clockspeed is importand too. Besides that I learned that this is caused by the speed of the vram and the architecture of the GPU.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6i1r5c/ethereum_hashrate_drop_for_radeon_rx400rx500_gpus/dj3ckli/
permalinkembedparent
[–]PoliticalDissidents 1 point 2 days ago
Any idea if 8GB Polaris cards will be fine given more memory?
permalinkembedparent
[+]Karavusk comment score below threshold (5 children)
[–]Arrow222 2 points 2 days ago
Not too worried, our cards would have long paid for themselves. We can also mine etc, musicoin or other eth variants.
permalinkembed
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago
etc's epoch's the same right now if not ahead (131).
permalinkembedparent
[–]Arrow222 1 point 1 day ago
Ah, you are right. They will still be good for musicoin (only 10% less profitable than eth now) or ubiq (20-25% less profit than eth)
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 1 day ago
how to mine MUSIC? any pool out there?
permalinkembedparent
[–]cjmapope 1 point 21 hours ago
IT BEGINS
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 21 hours ago
tell me jaaaaaaaaaa.
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 21 hours ago
ah, i see. just use the current available pool with claymore. hell yeah, lets do it :D
permalinkembedparent
[–]kallebo1337 1 point 20 hours ago
the pool can't connect. used websites instructions. will recheck later :P
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 2 points 2 days ago
So I was about to get into ether mining with 1060 6GB x6. Does this ruin this plan now?
permalinkembed
[–]RAZR_96 5 points 2 days ago
No, I tried 130 to 190, no change in speed.
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 3 points 2 days ago
thanks for checking into that. Much appreciated.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Skaggzz 1 point 1 day ago
are 1060's better than 1070's in terms of time to payoff? I can't find good numbers on NVidia cards especially when dual mining sia/eth is concerned.
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 1 point 1 day ago
yeah - if you're looking for the quickest ROI the 1060 looks the way to go.
You can pickup 1060 6GB models for $239 after rebate.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Skaggzz 2 points 1 day ago
How much better is a 1070 though if i can get it cheap? how do the sia/eth hash rates compare
permalinkembedparent
[–]themoop78 1 point 15 hours ago
The 1060 6gb should be about 2/3 of the performance of the 1070 after both are overclocked, from what I can gather.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Skaggzz 1 point 14 hours ago
But at a little bit worse of a wattage per performance number?
permalinkembedparent
[–]themoop78 1 point 15 hours ago
The day after I picked up a 1060 6gb, the prices on the same unit shot up to $300. Now 1060's are the only cards you can find and most are on back order or the prices are jacked up.
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 1 point 14 hours ago
I've picked up 6 for $239 ($259-$20 rebate) from Frys and Microcenter.
I've also noticed Amazon PrimeNow has $275 1060s and some $370~ 1070s
permalinkembedparent
[–]themoop78 1 point 13 hours ago
Would love to see a link for the 1070s.
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 1 point 13 hours ago
Here's the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 WINDFORCE OC for $368 on PrimeNow thats in my area.
https://primenow.amazon.com/dp/B01HHCA1IO?qid=1497981521&m=A2FG2K2764OCTK&ref_=pn_sr_sg_0_img_A2FG2K2764OCTK
permalinkembedparent
[–]themoop78 1 point 10 hours ago
"Currently Unavailable".
It's all going fast.
permalinkembedparent
[–]spoofter 1 point 6 hours ago
Yep - depends on where you live for PrimeNow. Its available for me.
permalinkembedparent
[–]foo-foo-a 2 points 2 days ago
um... unload ur rx's to me!!!
permalinkembed
[–]Koreenium 2 points 2 days ago*
Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ 8gb (custom timing strings)
core: 1130mhz, memory: 2230mhz, voltage for both: 900mv
Claymore:
epoch 130: 30 mh/s
epoch 140: 27.1 mh/s
epoch 150: 23.4 mh/s
epoch 160: 20.9 mh/s
epoch 170: 19.1 mh/s
epoch 180: 17.8 mh/s
epoch 190: 16.7 mh/s
permalinkembed
[–]planetofthemapes15 2 points 2 days ago
150? 190?
permalinkembedparent
[–]Koreenium 2 points 1 day ago*
Claymore:
epoch 130: 30 mh/s
epoch 140: 27.1 mh/s
epoch 150: 23.4 mh/s
epoch 160: 20.9 mh/s
epoch 170: 19.1 mh/s
epoch 180: 17.8 mh/s
epoch 190: 16.7 mh/s
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 1 point 1 day ago
Thanks! If you get a chance, I'm curious to see if these benchmarks match the results from genoil ethminer's benchmark functionality.
The important questions are: - is this an issue with claymore's implementation specifically? - can it be reproduced in other miners? - if so, is there a workaround that can be implemented for Polaris?
Claymore was made aware of it and is now looking into the issue.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Koreenium 2 points 1 day ago*
I did some rough calculating in order to find out what block number corresponds to what DAG so these numbers may not be correct. (Genoil wants block number for benchmarking)
Note that I did not use same settings, core clock, memory clock etc with genoil.
Genoil:
Epoch 130: 27.9 mh/s
Epoch 140: 26.2 mh/s
Epoch 150: 24.1 mh/s
Epoch 160: 21.7 mh/s
Epoch 170: 19.9 mh/s
Epoch 180: 18.2 mh/s
Epoch 190: 17.1 mh/s
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 1 point 1 day ago
Thanks, that's interesting. I'd be really curious to see if we see the same degradation as you posted on the GTX 1060's or if it's also degradation-less. I'll be able to check in a day or two (i have some 1060's sitting in their boxes at the moment).
What was the block numbers you were using per epoch? I'd like to see if I can match your test in an even comparison.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Koreenium 3 points 1 day ago
I don't know how accurate these block numbers are but here is what I used:
Epoch 130: 3870000
Epoch 140: 4170000
Epoch 150: 4470000
Epoch 160: 4770000
Epoch 170: 5070000
Epoch 180: 5370000
Epoch 190: 5670000
permalinkembedparent
[–]planetofthemapes15 1 point 1 day ago
You're the MVP of the thread my friend.
permalinkembedparent
[–]shaft_of_gold 1 point 1 day ago
are you using 1060 3gb's by any chance? love to know how you went and if you had similar results to the RX480
permalinkembedparent
[–]crownpuff 2 points 1 day ago
Can anyone test the 3 gb 1060 or the 1050 ti? I would but mine aren't here yet.
permalinkembed
[–]gemtin 3 points 1 day ago
There is no change for me on gtx1060 3gb. Even on DAG160 Im getting the same resoults as now: 22.5-23 MHs.
permalinkembedparent
[–]DEVGRU1 1 point 2 days ago
hmm
permalinkembed
[–]shaft_of_gold 1 point 1 day ago
anybody know if this epoch test can be done with awesome miner?
permalinkembed
[–]shaft_of_gold 1 point 1 day ago
1060 GTX 3GB using standard latest Claymore miner v9.5
Stock 129 epoch
22.2 22.4 22.4 22.3 22.4 22.4 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.4 Average: 223 / 10 = 22.3
mean = 22.3
Benchmark DAG 130 test
22.7 22.7 22.2 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.2 22.5 Average: 225.3 / 10 = 22.53
mean = 22.5
Benchmark DAG 160
22.5 22.4 22.5 22.3 22.5 22.3 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.3 Average: 224.3 / 10 = 22.43
mean = 22.4
Benchmark DAG 180
22.4 22.4 22.4 22.2 22.2 22.4 22.2 22.4 22.4 22.3 Average: 223.3 / 10 = 22.33
mean = 22.3
Benchmark DAG 181
CUDA error - cannot allocate big buffer for DAG. Check readme.txt for possible solutions
permalinkembed
[–]shaft_of_gold 1 point 1 day ago*
could not replicate the DAG 181 error on a 1060 GTX 6GB or a 1070 GTX all the way up to DAG 199
permalinkembedparent
[–]sabbycon 1 point 1 day ago
So even if we had 6/8GB version the DAG is still too big for them?
permalinkembedparent
[–]shaft_of_gold 1 point 1 day ago
There were no issues on the 1060 6gb or 1070, ie: should be fine if you have 6gb+ ram on an nvidia board.
The hashrate slow down on the AMD's seems to be related to dag size, but it could be a programming issue with the miners and how they work out hashrate when benchmarking? Guessing here though.
Either way, still seems that you need the same amount of gpu ram as the size of the DAG file regardless of if it's an AMD or nvidia card.
Almost at DAG 130 now, so 50ish more epochs to go before 3gb cards start failing. 3-6 months I guess?
permalinkembedparent
[–]FcoEnriquePerez 1 point 1 day ago
So, at what DAG there's gonna be another cyrpto more profitable than ETH for RX cards?
permalinkembed
[–]StrogeTA 1 point 1 day ago
Can someone please bench a 1050 Ti?
Would be willing to send a little Eth or SIA your way.
permalinkembed
[–]alexsinov 1 point 2 hours ago
Just did two benchmarks for my miner and the results for single mining are as follows:
DAG 160: 22.2xx Mh/s DAG 190: 20.1xx Mh/s
Didn't do benchmarks for dual mining, but I can tell you theat for DAG 130 the performance is as follows:
Single ETH: 24.2xx Mh/s Dual ETH/Sia: 23.1xx Mh/s
I have 3 x R9 380, custom BIOSes.
permalinkembed
[–]PhoBoChai 2 points 2 days ago
This article is misleading since it implies a weakness in Polaris, but it's actually about memory capacity since lots of miners went with 4GB variants to save $$.
It's the death of 3 and 4GB GPUs for mining ETH as DAG size grows above their memory capacity. As data is stream in memory, it takes more cycles to generate the same output basically so performance will drop further as DAG size grows.
These GPUs have to be switched over to Equihash where it's not memory sensitive.
8GB GPUs can carry on as usual for a long time.
permalinkembed
[–]ep1939 14 points 2 days ago
No, even 8gb is affected, I run the benchmark myself (posted the results below).
I'm interested tho how's 290/390s, furys and nvidia cards not affected.
permalinkembedparent
[–]GuessWhat_InTheButt 2 points 2 days ago*
It's because it is about memory bandwith, not size.
permalinkembedparent
[–]ep1939 2 points 2 days ago*
Still, I don't understand how it would affect less Nvidia and Fury/290 cards.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 3 points 2 days ago
The memory bus AND the clock speed together make the actual speed in gb/s for mining. You need to consider both.
But yes I expected the 1060 to tank hard because of this too but for some reason it doesnt seem like it will be effected by much... which doesnt make any senese. Probably some architecture stuff that Nvidia included. They do compress stuff way better than RX GPUs in their vram so maybe that is causing it to need less vram and still be fast enough
390x vs 480, look at the gb/s
permalinkembedparent
[–]juggarjew 3 points 2 days ago
Yes, since maxwell I believe nvidia has been strong on memory compression. That's why on average nvidia cards have a smaller memory bus. This is most welcome news for nvidia folks, in the coming months we might even see 1060 and 1070 sell out fully like RX cards.
permalinkembedparent
[–]Karavusk 2 points 2 days ago
AMD seems to improved that by a lot with Vega though (which will take some time to come out). I still dont think that they will fully sell out (they currently kinda are though, atleast the cheaper ones) because now AMD and Nvidia had some time to react
permalinkembedparent
[–]PhoBoChai 2 points 2 days ago
1060 is 192 bit and even less bandwidth.
Wait and see how it turns out, since in theory, DAG size is to stress memory capacity & latency.
permalinkembedparent
No comments:
Post a Comment