I'd like to test it on Win7 firstly, I don't like Win10 with its paranoid defender, updates, two control panels, etc. Anyway, I will try to make it work in Win7, if it fails I'll try Win10.

Ya, the fix seems to be exclusive to Win10 but people are getting 30+mh/s now with the 1070s.

I have a GTX 960 in my desktop system and the only way to get more than 3mh/s is to use a build of Genoil's miner on CUDA 6.5 and use the older 347 nvidia drivers. Then I get around 10mh/s with it.

Sorry again for OT but scryptr, have you tried xcn with those 960's?

I under volt to 990 mV of the core voltage and can get 27.5 MH/s with 978/1000 MHz. The power consumption is about 160W on the wall.

Hey Guys,

i need a bit help.. i am just switching my rigs to mine with Claymores mining (i do have alot of R9 Nanos).. for testing purpose i started moving 1 rig with 5 R9 Nanos to mine with Claymores Miner.. i justed to mine with EthMiner on local proxy with hashrate around 125Mh.. no moving to Claymore Miner i only get 82Mh and 4900Mh on Sia.. i was setting global and local worksize when i was connecting with Ethminer to the proxy.

is such difference normal form 125Mh to 82Mh.. if not does anyone have pointer?

Thnx!

ps on ethminer with proxy the card where getting close to 80c now they are at 70 and even some cooler.. so it seems the cards aren't going all out?

XCN, I remember 750ti did 5MH on djm´s miner, 960 could be profitable if it is doing more. Nethash is already 3GH but still could be worth checking.

Claymores miner does 8-9MH on 290x so nice nvidia advantage there, atleast on 750ti.

XCN JUST HAD A PRICE SPIKE--

I checked it out, looked at the thread, and tried to find a current CCminer for it.  DJM34's work is from 2014, about v1.02 of CCminer.  I found a CudaMineer binary, but haven't been able to launch it yet.  Claymore's miner for XCN has recent.y been updated for Win10, and sits at v2.2; his is the most current GPU miner available.  SuprNova pool for XCN just re-opened.

I will fiddle with it later, I have a rig to build.       --scryptr

Is the explicit check for "AMD hardware" (through the OpenCL provider, it seems) really necessary?
I was curious how the new in-tree opensource "amdgpu" Linux driver with Mesa's OpenCL 1.x implementation might performs but your miner refused to start.
It's supposed to handle mining workloads (the Mesa wiki explicitly mentions mining) unless you have OpenCL >1.2 code. The 4.5-RC1 kernel is also supposed to be able to control things like GPU and RAM clock speeds through sysfs variables (so, ADL won't be mandatory either, although I guess the number of the available controls is very limited at this point, so ADL should probably be preferred for now).


I saw many claiming it's possible. I use a dead HDTV motherboard as a phantom display (one HDMI cable per system should suffice, so one board might provide for 3-4 "rigs" and you can pull one from any dead TV). I think those who succeeded might use some older VGAs which still have internal DAC (digital/analog converter for analog D-sub output) and they automatically claimed the DAC as their phantom display.

I use a headless linux rig, well... I try to use lunix in all my PCs

At the end I solved that problem installing X, but only the core.

Then add the enviroment variable DISPLAY.


Don't forget add the information in the X file conf:


Reboot, and see if your problem is solved.