To answer this upfront since it's been asked a few times:

There is no windows version available.

What speeds were indicated before? It's the first time I have seen this miner and it is damn quick, best think since sliced bread. Well done dev and alpha release is very stable for me. I'm actually getting better results than indicated here.

That thread was a different dev/miner.

This is quite interesting. I'll follow this thread for any information about a future Windows version.

Definitely interested, but worried about the PCIE Gen 3 requirement. My larger rigs definitely require Gen 2 settings in the bios due to the number of cards, so don't know how feasible it will be to run this miner except on a couple one or two card computers.

Btw todxx, have you checked out the other thread on potential release of Vega XZC miner? Guy seemed like he was doing it in GCN ASM instead of OpenCL or ROCm... maybe you could pick something up from that thread to optimize your miner/make it compatible with Windows. Assuming he wasn't bs'ing, but the numbers he was throwing around were phenomenal.

Turns out converting my kernels from ROCm to amdgpu-pro/windows is a lot simpler than I expected.
Unfortunately, I first need to waste some time hardening them so we don't have another "coincidental" announcement.

I should have a new version that supports amdgpu-pro drivers on linux in a day or two.  This should make the miner compatible with the typical linux rigs running RX 580s/570s, such as HiveOS and the like.  Windows will take a week or two longer, since I don't even have a windows environment to build/test in right now.

Nice! yeah I'll definitely be waiting for windows as well, since the undervolting/overclocking with Vegas is much easier in windows. Windows 10 is free, and you can do pretty much everything without activating it... not sure what's holding you back but definitely looking forward to this version!

Edit: Also, that's very interesting/coincidental about the other thread for sure... If true, I'd definitely use yours... and that would make his whole rant quite hypocritical. If it is yours, sweet! That means the numbers for this miner are great  but that would also mean your devfee is quite high 

Hopefully, if it really is as simple as dropping your kernel into something like SGMiner, we won't have to wait too long for a windows version. Very excited about this, been in XZC for a while but never had a good reason to mine it.

Yeah, tuning support for Vega on linux is not great.  I believe in kernel 4.17 they will add support for wattman like profiles for overclocking/tuning, but that's a ways out.  I've mostly been running my cards stock, but I also use them mostly for development/testing.

Regarding the other thread, thanks for seeing my side.  Obviously I can't say for sure if it was coincidence or malice, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if he releases anything.  Or even posts again for that matter.
The perf on the current release is already pretty good.  I think people might be getting the wrong impression by the modest hardware settings I used for the hash rates I posted.  I'll see if I can get some numbers from my Vega 64 LC at max powerstate.  I'm sure they'll be impressive and totally useless since that thing burns stupid amounts of power at full throttle.

As for the dev fee, I'm not planning on having a egregiously high dev fee.  I'm currently thinking 3% for the next release.  Even the current relatively high fee in the miner is nowhere near the 25% that guy was talking about.  Unlike what he was saying, I don't need to make quick cash on this algo before XZC switches over to MTP.  I've done work on other algos like lyra2rev2, nist5, skunk, neoscrypt and some others.  I chose to release lyra2z first since my implementation of it has the best perf improvement out of the algos I've worked on (also some like skunk and nist5 are basically dead for GPU mining now, and Claymore beat me to the punch for neoscrypt ).  The next algo I plan to support is lyra2rev2 which should be able to get around ~70Mh/s on a modestly clocked Vega 64.  But first I need to get that windows build out

About the kernels, they are not drop in compatible with sgminer.  Some reverse engineering work and modifications would have to be done.  Before the alpha release, I thought I was being paranoid thinking that someone would go through the effort required to rip them, so I did not spend effort trying to make them hard to rip.  I also think it's a bit of a waste having to spend the time/effort and adding useless junk to the kernels just so they are harder to steal.  Oh well, the next release will have kernels that will have better performance and be much more difficult to rip.

Impressive! 70Mh/s on Lyra2Rev2 would beat out mkxminer... I've gotten it up to 67 on a V64 with high overclock, but 70 @ stock settings? Niceee.

As mentioned above, 3% is quite reasonable. People will pay for good miners, especially new ones where there is no real competition.

As for ripping kernels... don't know much about that, although I do recall Claymore calling out Phoenix's ETH kernels fairly recently. I think you're focused on the right thing, as far as developing goes. There is/will be (at least from my perspective) high demand for more algo flexibility on the AMD side. And the gpus are quite capable if you can fine-tune your kernels to exploit the hardware, particularly the Vegas.

I've got a fair amount of AMD cards, not sure what your hardware constraints are, and am I'm happy to test/run anything you throw my way. Got RX 480s, RX 580s, Vega 56s, Vega 64s, and Vega FEs.

Thanks, I actually started working on lyra2rev2 first, but then quickly realized that lyra2z had much more low hanging fruit for performance improvements.

Here is my reasoning for the 3% fee.  While it is higher than the more common ~2% range for competitive miners, this miner is (to my knowledge) one of the most profitable for AMD hardware currently available.  If you look at whattomine's XZC estimates for revenue based on the hash rates posted in the description, at the time of this post it estimates:
RX 580 - $2.14/day
RX Vega 64 - $4.37/day
These are significantly more profitable than the most profitable coin currently on their front page (currently XMR, with Vega 64 bringing in ~$2.90/day).  And again, the hash rates I've posted are from stock GPUs with no tuning.  Others have reported their rates are higher.  If and when this miner becomes less relatively profitable, either due to competing miners or difficulty increase, I will lower the fee to stay competitive.  I'm not trying to price gouge here.  On the other hand I wouldn't mind getting some return on the several hundred hours of work I've put into this miner.
Edit: I forgot to mention, the miner code is structured to support different fee per algo.  For lyra2rev2 I would go around 2% since I don't believe it would be profitable enough to command the higher fee.  If I can't get it to go significantly faster than a 1080ti, I don't think that justifies much over a 2% fee.

I very much agree with you regarding AMD gpus just not having good software available, and especially for Vega.  Vega has some nice ISA improvements that can yield pretty noticeable perf improvements.  Many of these ISA improvements are not currently supported by OpenCL toolchains, so some hand tuning is required to use them.  For the algos I've looked at so far I can usually get a Vega 64 to perform similarly to, or better than a 1080ti.

Last, but not least, the GPUs you listed are almost exactly all the GPUs the miner currently supports   What OS are you currently running your GPUs under?  If any are under linux, I would be very curious to see how the miner runs with them.  Especially the RX 480 and Vega 56 gpus, as I don't currently have access to any of those.