Quote from: nikoluki on April 12, 2014, 06:10:34 PM

With my r9 280x + hd 7970 I consume less power from the wall with X11 then in Groestl.

Groestl consumes an average of ~415 Watts from the wall giving 15.12Mh/s
while x11 cunsumes an average of ~370 Watts, giving 4.8Mh/s

(with optimal miner parameters for the cards and athalon II X2 270 cpu+4GB memory)
(all measured with a power consumption device plugged into the wall power socket.)

So the conclusion is X11 is more power efficient than Groestl!

This guy says differently:

Quote from: azhago on April 04, 2014, 06:56:23 PM

Someone on the french forum about mining i come from run some tests with a simple rig setup, with 2 x R9 280X

All tests ran with the same frequency etc..
Each algo can be optimized, but for comparison, it's good.

Power at the wall:

Quote

Idle
80-90w

scrypt
550W - 2 x 720khs

Scrypt-N
537W - 2 x 350khs

Scrypt-jane
485W- 2 x 133khs

Groestl
271W - 2 x 7 025khs

Myr-G
295W - 2 x 9 920khs

skein
440 W - 2 x 212 500khs

Keccak
430W - 2 x 316 000khs

X11
285W - 2 x 2 080khs

Result : Groestl is the most gpu friendly algo, for power, temp and noise, even better than X11

a little tuning on one of mine:
4 R9 280x + 1 x 7950.
3 R9 are overclocked at 1250MHz, the 4th at 1150MHz - 1.2v
The 7950 runs at 1100MHz - 1.15v
Memory for all 4 run at 1000MHz
Look at the temp (scrypt : between 75 to 83°C)

Quote

sgminer 4.1.0 - Started: [2014-04-04 20:27:39] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5s):38.01M (avg):37.30Mh/s | A:2108 R:0 HW:0 WU:136.074/m ST: 1 SS: 40 NB: 18 LW: 1538 GF: 0 RF: 0 Connected to Pool 0 (stratum) diff 0.000 as user azhago.2 Block: 244150fe... Diff:101 Started: [20:44:59] Best share: 4.35K -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [P]ool management [G]PU management [Settings [D]isplay options [Q]uit GPU 0: 45.0C 3366RPM | 8.036M/8.035Mh/s | R: 0.0% HW:0 WU:29.886/m I:24 GPU 1: 45.0C 3258RPM | 8.036M/8.035Mh/s | R: 0.0% HW:0 WU:28.166/m I:24 GPU 2: 48.0C 3337RPM | 8.036M/8.035Mh/s | R: 0.0% HW:0 WU:33.747/m I:24 GPU 3: 48.0C 3233RPM | 7.392M/7.378Mh/s | R: 0.0% HW:0 WU:20.878/m I:19 GPU 4: 38.0C 5277RPM | 5.845M/5.835Mh/s | R: 0.0% HW:0 WU:23.396/m I:20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [20:45:30] Accepted 0958aa9c Diff 27/0.000 GPU 4 at Pool 0 [20:45:38] Accepted 0eb6b909 Diff 17/0.000 GPU 2 at Pool 0 [20:45:39] Accepted 1dbce2e6 Diff 0.000/0.000 GPU 0 at Pool 0 [20:45:41] Accepted 181052de Diff 10/0.000 GPU 2 at Pool 0 [20:45:45] Accepted 05700585 Diff 47/0.000 GPU 0 at Pool 0 [20:45:49] Accepted 131f1947 Diff 13/0.000 GPU 1 at Pool 0 [20:45:50] Accepted 06b61d40 Diff 38/0.000 GPU 4 at Pool 0 [20:45:54] Accepted 307ecd9e Diff 1.35K/0.000 GPU 4 at Pool 0 [20:46:02] Accepted 10c2d09e Diff 15/0.000 GPU 0 at Pool 0 [20:46:04] Accepted 126ecee9 Diff 13/0.000 GPU 0 at Pool 0