Quote from: msallak1 on May 27, 2018, 11:13:09 PM

Quote from: brianmct on April 25, 2018, 08:47:58 AM

Quote from: 4ward on April 25, 2018, 07:59:59 AM

Quote from: brianmct on April 25, 2018, 07:45:32 AM

Quote from: 4ward on April 24, 2018, 02:53:06 PM

strange, but I actually get lower rates with 1.2 on RX480 8G with Uber 3.1 mem timings
(running with -g 2 -w 64 -X 256 --benchmark)

X16r Avermore-1.1 8.4 mh
X16r Avermore-1.2 7.743 mh

X16s Avermore-1.1 8.366 mh
X16s Avermore-1.2 7.711 mh

Interesting. Can you compare the Hamsi kernel hashrates between 1.1 and 1.2? (run with --benchmark-sequence=BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB). It's possible some of the changes I made caused regressions in cards other than the RX580.

exits immediately when I use --benchmark-sequence=anything (even 0123456789ABCDEF) in both 1.1 and 1.2

edit:
I also noticed that I'm hitting the thermal card power limit and it starts throttling
in 1.1 the GPU clock gets throttled to ~1200Mhz and temperature stays around 80c, so it can probably reach even higher speeds with better cooling
in 1.2 the GPU clock is ~1300Mhz and temperature is ~75c

580 is basically the same card, with slightly higher clocks, so should perform similarly

I'll take a look into why --benchmark-sequence isn't working on Windows.

I did some testing on my test rig, and the results are weird.

The Hamsi kernel, when benchmarked by itself (i.e. repeated 16 times), is indeed 35% faster on 1.2 compared to 1.1 (4.2 MHs -> 5.7 MHs). Also, when I benchmark the rest of the algos (0123456789ACDEF), the hashrates are the same between the two versions (as expected, since the only change was with the Hamsi kernel).

However, when I test running all of the algos (0123456789ABCDEF), v1.1 is indeed slightly faster than v1.2 (7.9 MHs vs 7.7 MHs). I'm a bit stumped right now on why this would be the case. So anyways; if you're getting better results on v1.1, then stick with that version for now. I'll see if I can get a patch to v1.2 to address this issue.

All tests were done with -g 2 -w 64 -X 64, by the way. Found this to be the optimal xIntensity on my RX580. When running with -X 256, v1.2 did beat out v1.1 (7.1 MHs vs 6.8 MHs), but both were slower than with -X 64.

I can confirm that I got +8 mh/s with my MSI RX 580 MK2 Armor using stock settings, no bios mod or overclocking. I used these settings : -g 2 -w 64 -X 64 , miner version 1.4

-G 2 does not work on systems with more than six cards , whats another option for that ?