AMD OpenCL Momentum miner

[drr0ss]

could some one help me out why i get this error when i load up 6 gpu

5 gpu work great but 6th always crash

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ennp3d6nmetiov/Photo%20Jun%2002%2C%208%2000%2034%20PM.jpg

That seems to be a driver error because the memory addresses are negative. But I'm wondering why the addresses are 32bit long. Do you use a 64bit Windows (I guess 8.1) and which Catalyst driver do you use?

@NaN,
Obviously with 5 card modification works, at least that is written in the previous  billyboy402 post :)
So, this is driver error, you can't use more than 5 card on one mainboard, driver not support this.
(try to find in forum modified ati driver (edited inf file) that support 6 cards)

That is my previous question: in  is this configuration with six card, works with other miners with other coin mining?

[NaN]

could some one help me out why i get this error when i load up 6 gpu

5 gpu work great but 6th always crash

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ennp3d6nmetiov/Photo%20Jun%2002%2C%208%2000%2034%20PM.jpg

That seems to be a driver error because the memory addresses are negative. But I'm wondering why the addresses are 32bit long. Do you use a 64bit Windows (I guess 8.1) and which Catalyst driver do you use?

[drr0ss]

could some one help me out why i get this error when i load up 6 gpu

5 gpu work great but 6th always crash

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ennp3d6nmetiov/Photo%20Jun%2002%2C%208%2000%2034%20PM.jpg

with other miner, on other alt coin, is working well?

[billyboy402]

could some one help me out why i get this error when i load up 6 gpu

5 gpu work great but 6th always crash

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ennp3d6nmetiov/Photo%20Jun%2002%2C%208%2000%2034%20PM.jpg

[Ykw]

The 14.6 is faster than 14.4 for me. 10400 cpm vs 9300 cpm,dual 290x,1000/1250
I didn't test 13.12 though

windows or linux?

[lilunxm12]

The 14.6 is faster than 14.4 for me. 10400 cpm vs 9300 cpm,dual 290x,1000/1250
I didn't test 13.12 though

[old_pioner]

Why different memory usage and floating gpu load? (94-98%) 2 7870 card.

4295cpm its good? 8sh/min

[jeanjean15]

Thanks for the answer.

Anyway , i hope that a solution will be found because 290x is the future of AMD graphic cards .

Perhaps with the next driver ?!

[NaN]

Mantle is an API for the graphics pipeline and we are doing compute workloads. Besides, the best API does not help if the driver is slow.

[Ykw]

As I mentioned many times, the "slowness" of R9 290(X) seems to be caused by the driver. Every kernel executes much faster than on a R9 280X, but the card (or the driver) is not able to overlap the execution of the kernels like it is the case with the 280X. On Windows the 3 kernels are completely processed sequentially, so the Linux version is faster because at least one kernel is able to overlap with another kernel. Perhaps a different set of kernels which only need less than 1GB memory will circumvent this behaviour, but I can't give any guarantees because the R9 290(X) has different ACEs than the 280X, too.

Has Mantle the ability to get higher performance? Can it be compiled for this? Or does it need to be "ported" to this SDK?

[NaN]

As I mentioned many times, the "slowness" of R9 290(X) seems to be caused by the driver. Every kernel executes much faster than on a R9 280X, but the card (or the driver) is not able to overlap the execution of the kernels like it is the case with the 280X. On Windows the 3 kernels are completely processed sequentially, so the Linux version is faster because at least one kernel is able to overlap with another kernel. Perhaps a different set of kernels which only need less than 1GB memory will circumvent this behaviour, but I can't give any guarantees because the R9 290(X) has different ACEs than the 280X, too.

[jeanjean15]

Hi .

is anybody know if there will be an optimized version for radeon 290 and 290x , please ?

Thanking you in advance for your answer .

[Ykw]

@Ykw

I did the experiment for you :)
So, on screenshot you can see the vga1 that is connected on pcie 16x first cmd window, on second cmd window is vga2 on pcie 1x.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3YMX5z3l5htQ21UbGgtZzZ3Vlk/edit?pli=1
There is, however, one catch ;)
The vga1 is sapphire 280x dual oc elpida memomry
Vga2 is Asus 280x  direct cu 2 Hynix memory ;)
I think that Asus is better vga ;)
Anyway, in principle, there is no difference from that of which slot the card is attached.

Very nice... thanks for the time...

There is only one chance to know for sure.. switch cards..

My 290X does not change much with memory... frequency.. but timming would be a different matter... so.. i can give some credit for what you say.. but still... not sure if the huge difference is only card... assuming you have all frequencies the same..

[drr0ss]

@Ykw

I did the experiment for you :)
So, on screenshot you can see the vga1 that is connected on pcie 16x first cmd window, on second cmd window is vga2 on pcie 1x.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3YMX5z3l5htQ21UbGgtZzZ3Vlk/edit?pli=1
There is, however, one catch ;)
The vga1 is sapphire 280x dual oc elpida memomry
Vga2 is Asus 280x  direct cu 2 Hynix memory ;)
I think that Asus is better vga ;)
Anyway, in principle, there is no difference from that of which slot the card is attached.

[Ykw]

I know I am being.. a bit annoying.. but if you get the chance.. can you run 2 instances.. separate.. and report the speeds..? =) although you have 280Xs... I would like to see if there is difference over the two PCIe you are using.. over that board.. when and if you get a chance of course.. and.. by the way.. thanks in advance.. =)

@Ykw
From some hours I am running on coin that I don't want to break the miner :)
However this experiment I've done in the past, no big difference on running separate process (one instances to each device).
I remember that I got a little worst collision summary than one instance on all devices (-t 0,0,1,1.....e.t.c.).

if it is on the pci bus, then we must increase but only from 100 to 110 Mhz and get 10% more performance

When.. you have time... and patience..
What I would like to see is which card gets the lower performance... =) the one that uses the PCIe from the CPU directly or the one from the ICH7 (in your case).