Win7 x64
H7970 3 GB und R 290x 4GB
treiber 14.7



HD 7970 3GB mit der alten version -t 0,0
4350 c/m / 8,564 sh/m / ART 51,2 /
yppool zeigte vorher ca. 500 shares / stunde

nun ca. 522 mit -g 3

mit -g 2 nun 548.2344

[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 34807593 <-> 31142041 #1583 @ 1411199619
09:54:27 | 4729 c/m | 9.348 sh/m | VL: 1583 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.99 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 6017830 <-> 20959402 #1584 @ 1411199628
09:54:37 | 4730 c/m | 9.345 sh/m | VL: 1584 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.99 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 46599595 <-> 19235475 #1585 @ 1411199637
[GPU09:54:470 | /Thread1] share found: 43668374730 c/m |  <-> 31508192 #1586 @ 1
411199641
9.348 sh/m | VL: 1585 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0.00%) | ART: 46.99 ms
(45.15/25.26/21.82)
09:54:57 | 4730 c/m | 9.339 sh/m | VL: 1586 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.98 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 28263039 <-> 59413920 #1587 @ 1411199663
09:55:07 | 4730 c/m | 9.335 sh/m | VL: 1587 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.98 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 33604240 <-> 32661113 #1588 @ 1411199668
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 50270733 <-> 31274101 #1589 @ 1411199669
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 52756443 <-> 38478603 #1590 @ 1411199670
09:55:17 | 4730 c/m | 9.344 sh/m | VL: 1590 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.98 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 22979443 <-> 57851025 #1591 @ 1411199684
09:55:27 | 4730 c/m | 9.341 sh/m | VL: 1591 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.98 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 55906226 <-> 46963632 #1592 @ 1411199685
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 11417531 <-> 19904417 #1593 @ 1411199687
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 20314749 <-> 47068814 #1594 @ 1411199688
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 53505502 <-> 58464656 #1595 @ 1411199689
09:55:37 | 4730 c/m | 9.355 sh/m | VL: 1595 (100.00%) | RJ: 0 (0.00%) | ST: 0 (0
.00%) | ART: 46.98 ms (45.15/25.26/21.82)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 43725428 <-> 63306583 #1596 @ 1411199695



R290x mit der alten version hatte ich
5589 c/m 11,05 sh/m Art 2.521
yppool zeigte vorher ca. 600 shares / stunde

nun ca. 678 / stunde mit -g 3

ergebnisse mit -g 2 jetzt 639.1185



[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 33748386 <-> 35618717 #1877 @ 1411199825
09:57:48 | 5385 c/m | 10.88 sh/m | VL: 1876 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 17525394 <-> 52341323 #1878 @ 1411199829
09:57:58 | 5385 c/m | 10.88 sh/m | VL: 1877 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 14617726 <-> 6890464 #1879 @ 1411199842
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 38661900 <-> 46006068 #1880 @ 1411199844
09:58:08 | 5385 c/m | 10.88 sh/m | VL: 1879 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 26735365 <-> 63453004 #1881 @ 1411199849
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 28685236 <-> 21170837 #1882 @ 1411199851
09:58:18 | 5385 c/m | 10.88 sh/m | VL: 1881 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 11390410 <-> 18951283 #1883 @ 1411199859
09:58:28 | 5384 c/m | 10.87 sh/m | VL: 1882 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 33041294 <-> 29876442 #1884 @ 1411199874
09:58:38 | 5384 c/m | 10.87 sh/m | VL: 1883 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 6091927 <-> 22152763 #1885 @ 1411199879
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 51299611 <-> 34588015 #1886 @ 1411199882
09:58:48 | 5385 c/m | 10.87 sh/m | VL: 1885 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 62788246 <-> 58871107 #1887 @ 1411199886
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 58930958 <-> 9415423 #1888 @ 1411199889
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 21044275 <-> 22968471 #1889 @ 1411199892
09:58:58 | 5385 c/m | 10.88 sh/m | VL: 1888 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 20855955 <-> 33852972 #1890 @ 1411199896
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 26750599 <-> 11753826 #1891 @ 1411199900
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 16493138 <-> 12788453 #1892 @ 1411199903
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 57684333 <-> 38928316 #1893 @ 1411199904
09:59:08 | 5385 c/m | 10.89 sh/m | VL: 1892 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 54121897 <-> 5503074 #1894 @ 1411199909
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 16572646 <-> 7851941 #1895 @ 1411199910
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 3538846 <-> 46062687 #1896 @ 1411199911
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 61913640 <-> 37487623 #1897 @ 1411199913
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 34541542 <-> 40372012 #1898 @ 1411199914
09:59:18 | 5386 c/m | 10.91 sh/m | VL: 1897 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 53687777 <-> 44766418 #1899 @ 1411199916
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 45625736 <-> 30403548 #1900 @ 1411199922
09:59:28 | 5385 c/m | 10.91 sh/m | VL: 1899 (99.95%) | RJ: 1 (0.05%) | ST: 0 (0.
00%) | ART: 41.41 ms (38.88/10.77/18.57)
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 16568695 <-> 61010732 #1901 @ 1411199926


Total share value/h (estimated): 1189.6395

i think thats the problem... but so is my HD 7970 much faster

ypool had dropouts so I can post the results later ...

but two batch is faster, one per card..

Quote from: Mario241077 on September 20, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: NaN on September 19, 2014, 11:38:23 PM
@Mario241077: Thanks for sharing your performance numbers. Does the R9 290X crash if you use -g 4 -a 2? -a 0 and -a 1 use more than 1GB RAM per thread and will therefore crash with -g 4. -a 2 and -a 3 use ~900MB RAM per thread. P.S. You may combine the two instances by using -d 0-1 -g 2,4 -a 0,2 so that the 7970 runs with -g 2 -a 0 and the 290x with -g 4 -a 2. You will get separate stats for each card and you can compare the ART value (less is better) to find your optimal config because it has less variance than the cpm value and the share rate.

yes if i use -a 2, on this card is my on this card is my screen

following happens! the memory of my PC loads up, the CPU goes to full load and the screen freezes! After a while I can move the mouse and the batch close.

PS: two separate batchs per card is faster

I'll still post the results

Ok, I only tested my R9 290 without an attached screen.

Quote from: orlander on September 20, 2014, 03:50:36 AM
When I run 1.3 version, I got this error :
[...]
Error during compilation of program for device 'Tahiti':

Frontend phase failed compilation.
Error: Compilation from LLVMIR binary to IL text failed!


Any idea how to fix this?

Your using the wrong binary. Most likely you have an older Catalyst 13.x driver installed. Download the *_Catalyst13 binary for your OS. If your driver is too old the miner will crash (Catalyst 13.12 and 13.11beta should work), but I recommend Catalyst 14.6 or newer because it's faster.

Quote from: NaN on September 19, 2014, 11:38:23 PM
@Mario241077: Thanks for sharing your performance numbers. Does the R9 290X crash if you use -g 4 -a 2? -a 0 and -a 1 use more than 1GB RAM per thread and will therefore crash with -g 4. -a 2 and -a 3 use ~900MB RAM per thread. P.S. You may combine the two instances by using -d 0-1 -g 2,4 -a 0,2 so that the 7970 runs with -g 2 -a 0 and the 290x with -g 4 -a 2. You will get separate stats for each card and you can compare the ART value (less is better) to find your optimal config because it has less variance than the cpm value and the share rate.

yes if i use -a 2, on this card is my on this card is my screen

following happens! the memory of my PC loads up, the CPU goes to full load and the screen freezes! After a while I can move the mouse and the batch close.

PS: two separate batchs per card is faster

I'll still post the results

Quote from: orlander on September 20, 2014, 03:50:36 AM
When I run 1.3 version, I got this error :

GPU-deviceIDs: 0
gpu_threads:   1
algorithm:     0

[MASTER] | Spawning 1 worker threads
[WORKER0] Hello, World!


Error during compilation of program for device 'Tahiti':

Frontend phase failed compilation.
Error: Compilation from LLVMIR binary to IL text failed!


Any idea how to fix this?

you must to use -a 2 your algo -a 0

When I run 1.3 version, I got this error :

GPU-deviceIDs: 0
gpu_threads:   1
algorithm:     0

[MASTER] | Spawning 1 worker threads
[WORKER0] Hello, World!


Error during compilation of program for device 'Tahiti':

Frontend phase failed compilation.
Error: Compilation from LLVMIR binary to IL text failed!


Any idea how to fix this?

@Mario241077: Thanks for sharing your performance numbers. Does the R9 290X crash if you use -g 4 -a 2? -a 0 and -a 1 use more than 1GB RAM per thread and will therefore crash with -g 4. -a 2 and -a 3 use ~900MB RAM per thread. P.S. You may combine the two instances by using -d 0-1 -g 2,4 -a 0,2 so that the 7970 runs with -g 2 -a 0 and the 290x with -g 4 -a 2. You will get separate stats for each card and you can compare the ART value (less is better) to find your optimal config because it has less variance than the cpm value and the share rate.

NAN ich weiß du sprichst deutsch, das ist einfacher für mich so schreibe ich deutsch. :)

ich lasse immer zwei batch laufen, einen für jede Karte.

Win7 x64
H7970 3 GB und R 290x 4GB
treiber 14.7

-g 4 stürzt ab bei einer R 290x!!

-g 3 läüft, aber so wie es aussieht ist -g 2 schneller


HD 7970 3GB mit der alten version -t0,0
4350 c/m / 8,564 sh/m / ART 51,2 /
yppool zeigte vorher ca. 500 shares / stunde
nun ca. 522

Ergebnisse -g3
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 2284127 <-> 14963528 #918 @ 1411165047
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 30058830 <-> 5663418 #919 @ 1411165048
00:18:18 | 4716 c/m | 8.894 sh/m | VL: 917 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
00:18:28 | 4716 c/m | 8.879 sh/m | VL: 917 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
00:18:38 | 4716 c/m | 8.865 sh/m | VL: 917 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread2] share found: 51415395 <-> 40500035 #920 @ 1411165076
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 21058343 <-> 43889098 #921 @ 1411165082
[GPU0/Thread2] share found: 11605731 <-> 50505555 #922 @ 1411165083
00:18:48 | 4717 c/m | 8.88 sh/m | VL: 920 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0 (
%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.97/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 17539646 <-> 55611560 #923 @ 1411165089
send ping packet
00:18:58 | 4717 c/m | 8.875 sh/m | VL: 921 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 44354191 <-> 9329666 #924 @ 1411165096
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 58174318 <-> 44015244 #925 @ 1411165097
[GPU0/Thread2] share found: 66223955 <-> 31739290 #926 @ 1411165104
00:19:08 | 4717 c/m | 8.89 sh/m | VL: 924 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0 (
%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 65486473 <-> 2447636 #927 @ 1411165112
00:19:18 | 4718 c/m | 8.885 sh/m | VL: 925 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 42670682 <-> 62509294 #928 @ 1411165117
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 10020834 <-> 10115164 #929 @ 1411165117
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 45642596 <-> 44915055 #930 @ 1411165118
00:19:28 | 4718 c/m | 8.9 sh/m | VL: 928 (99.78%) | RJ: 2 (0.22%) | ST: 0 (0
) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 30110412 <-> 29433354 #931 @ 1411165128
00:19:38 | 4718 c/m | 8.895 sh/m | VL: 929 (99.79%) | RJ: 2 (0.21%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 52093246 <-> 53132696 #932 @ 1411165138
00:19:48 | 4718 c/m | 8.89 sh/m | VL: 930 (99.79%) | RJ: 2 (0.21%) | ST: 0 (
%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread1] share found: 29051204 <-> 55585588 #933 @ 1411165148
00:19:58 | 4718 c/m | 8.886 sh/m | VL: 931 (99.79%) | RJ: 2 (0.21%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
00:20:08 | 4717 c/m | 8.872 sh/m | VL: 931 (99.79%) | RJ: 2 (0.21%) | ST: 0
0%) | ART: 47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)
[GPU0/Thread0] share found: 17490448 <-> 11509503 #934 @ 1411165167
[GPU00:20:180 | /Thread0] share found: 16630813 <-> 55488641 #935 @ 14111651
4718 c/m | 8.877 sh/m | VL: 932 (99.79%) | RJ: 2 (0.21%) | ST: 0 (0.00%) | A
47.03 ms (44.74/24.98/21.41)


R290x mit der alten version hatte ich
5589 c/m 11,05 sh/m Art 2.521
yppool zeigte vorher ca. 600 shares / stunde
nun ca. 678 / stunde

ergebnisse mit -g 3

[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 47350342 <-> 54716961 #1357 @ 1411165870
00:31:56 | 5867 c/m | 11.68 sh/m | VL: 1353 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.06/22.44/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 37633997 <-> 38772229 #1358 @ 1411165879
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 33079132 <-> 39052190 #1359 @ 1411165881
00:32:06 | 5867 c/m | 11.68 sh/m | VL: 1355 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.44/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 38296340 <-> 39783599 #1360 @ 1411165883
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 54342157 <-> 58019450 #1361 @ 1411165892
00:32:16 | 5867 c/m | 11.68 sh/m | VL: 1357 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.44/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 16180389 <-> 50648994 #1362 @ 1411165894
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 53514827 <-> 12537258 #1363 @ 1411165895
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 25912719 <-> 18342235 #1364 @ 1411165897
00:32:26 | 5867 c/m | 11.69 sh/m | VL: 1360 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
00:32:36 | 5868 c/m | 11.67 sh/m | VL: 1360 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
00:32:46 | 5867 c/m | 11.66 sh/m | VL: 1360 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
[MASTER] @ 00:32:53 | work received | sharetarget 0x0080000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 48461203 <-> 60229453 #1365 @ 1411165930
00:32:56 | 5867 c/m | 11.65 sh/m | VL: 1361 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 43918689 <-> 5168596 #1366 @ 1411165934
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 21464259 <-> 62929611 #1367 @ 1411165935
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 51255971 <-> 63707757 #1368 @ 1411165938
00:33:06 | 5867 c/m | 11.66 sh/m | VL: 1364 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
00:33:16[GPU | 1/Thread2] share found: 51385740 <-> 44688375 #1369 @ 1411165957
5867 c/m | 11.65 sh/m | VL: 1364 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.07%) | ART:
37.88 ms (63.07/22.45/21.15)
00:33:26 | 5866 c/m | 11.63 sh/m | VL: 1365 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.87 ms (63.07/22.44/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 35875722 <-> 46427441 #1370 @ 1411165965
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 36958298 <-> 44126773 #1371 @ 1411165967
00:33:36 | 5866 c/m | 11.64 sh/m | VL: 1367 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.44/21.15)
[GPU00:1/Thread33:1] share found: 53276509 <-> 64746840 #137246 @ 1411165977
| 5[GPU866 c/m | 111/Thread.63 sh/m | VL: 1367 (299.71%) | RJ: 3 (] share found
: 0.22902699%) | ST: 1 ( <-> 0.07%) | ART: 6693561037.88 ms ( #63.07/1373 @ 1411
165982
22.44/21.15)
[GPU00:33:561 | /Thread5867 c/m | 011] share found: .63 sh/m | VL: 1369 (5382453
399.71%) | RJ: 3 ( <-> 0.22%) | ST: 1 (7807353 #0.07%) | ART: 137437.88 ms ( @ 6
3.07/141116598922.44/
21.15)
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 63027313 <-> 45957041 #1375 @ 1411165991
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 40007249 <-> 60386592 #1376 @ 1411165996
[GPU1/Thread0] share found: 45936684 <-> 34645361 #1377 @ 1411165998
[GPU1/Thread1] share found: 64138626 <-> 8913741 #1378 @ 1411165999
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 26832486 <-> 24601351 #1379 @ 1411166002
00:34:06 | 5867 c/m | 11.65 sh/m | VL: 1375 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.
07%) | ART: 37.88 ms (63.07/22.44/21.15)
[GPU1/Thread2] share found: 11313394 <-> 45412018 #1380 @ 1411166005
00:34:16 | 5867 c/m | 11.65 sh/m | VL: 1376 (99.71%) | RJ: 3 (0.22%) | ST: 1 (0.

nun teste ich -g 2

Quote from: NaN on September 15, 2014, 04:03:12 PM

Quote from: Vizierx on September 15, 2014, 03:30:56 PM
could you check a readme file file on -g parameter, clearly said i check the readme and don`t understand how to run(( i will use old one what have -t parameter
also it will be good to have an example.but in all archives.
also i would like to know what is current speed on amd 290? - my shows 4300

Performance numbers without details on OS, Catalyst version and configuration are pretty useless, but 4300 cpm is slow if the newest drivers are used and if the GPU does not run into thermal throttling. The Linux and Windows drivers have totally different characteristics.

I hope that I can explain the use of the -g parameter with some examples. It controls the number of threads which are run on each GPU. Let's assume that you used -t 0,0 previously. That means that you run 2 threads on the device with ID 0. Therefore the new syntax would be -d 0 -g 2. -t 0,0,1,1,2,2,3,3 is equivalent to -d 0-3 -g 2 and -t 0,0,0,1,2,3,3 would become -d 0-3 -g 3,1,1,2. Using the newest Catalyst version on Windows, I have observed that spawning 4 threads per R9 290 and -a 2 gives a significant performance boost (-g 4 -a 2). Please note that the -d parameter is optional. If it is not specified than all AMD GPUs are used by clpts. You can still use the -t parameter but people with many GPUs per rig reported problems and something like -t 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1 instead of -d 0,1 -g 4 is not convenient.

Ok so if i have 3 gpu in the rig my option will be so
-d 0-3 -a 2 -g 4,4,4

i have win 7 64 catalist 14.6 8 gb ram
with new parameters i write upper i have 5000 cpm om card(stock 947/1250 elpida)
and what cpm did you get?

Quote from: Vizierx on September 15, 2014, 03:30:56 PM
could you check a readme file file on -g parameter, clearly said i check the readme and don`t understand how to run(( i will use old one what have -t parameter
also it will be good to have an example.but in all archives.
also i would like to know what is current speed on amd 290? - my shows 4300

Performance numbers without details on OS, Catalyst version and configuration are pretty useless, but 4300 cpm is slow if the newest drivers are used and if the GPU does not run into thermal throttling. The Linux and Windows drivers have totally different characteristics.

I hope that I can explain the use of the -g parameter with some examples. It controls the number of threads which are run on each GPU. Let's assume that you used -t 0,0 previously. That means that you run 2 threads on the device with ID 0. Therefore the new syntax would be -d 0 -g 2. -t 0,0,1,1,2,2,3,3 is equivalent to -d 0-3 -g 2 and -t 0,0,0,1,2,3,3 would become -d 0-3 -g 3,1,1,2. Using the newest Catalyst version on Windows, I have observed that spawning 4 threads per R9 290 and -a 2 gives a significant performance boost (-g 4 -a 2). Please note that the -d parameter is optional. If it is not specified than all AMD GPUs are used by clpts. You can still use the -t parameter but people with many GPUs per rig reported problems and something like -t 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1 instead of -d 0,1 -g 4 is not convenient.

Quote from: NaN on September 14, 2014, 08:45:17 PM
I released clpts-v1.3. It resolves some issues and supports GPUs with 1GB RAM (see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.0 and read the README  ;D)

Good work man!

could you check a readme file file on -g parameter, clearly said i check the readme and don`t understand how to run(( i will use old one what have -t parameter
also it will be good to have an example.but in all archives.
also i would like to know what is current speed on amd 290? - my shows 4300

I released clpts-v1.3. It resolves some issues and supports GPUs with 1GB RAM (see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.0 and read the README  ;D)

Quote from: NaN on September 08, 2014, 12:42:56 PM

Quote from: kakalot on September 06, 2014, 03:19:02 AM

Quote from: ATOM on August 19, 2014, 12:50:00 PM
one of my rids only four 280X ,and it can run with  the command like this

clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0

but when i change it to this

clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,1,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0  or
clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,0,1,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0

the program will crash and quit .

why ?

me too. Pls advise.

I'm working on clpts-1.3, which should fix this issue. But as workaround one could use two instances of clpts, i.e. the first instance running on GPU 0 and 1, and the second on GPU 2 and 3.

good news and Thank a lot....
please fix the speed reduce and can not return its right hash after re-connecting pool. Because sometime my rigs lose connection to pool, and only get 1/2 speed after getting network again. I have to re-start your miner manually.

Quote from: kakalot on September 06, 2014, 03:19:02 AM

Quote from: ATOM on August 19, 2014, 12:50:00 PM
one of my rids only four 280X ,and it can run with  the command like this

clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0

but when i change it to this

clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,1,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0  or
clpts_x86-64 -o 6 -u xxx.xxx:xxx -t 0,0,1,1,2,2,3,3 -a 0

the program will crash and quit .

why ?

me too. Pls advise.

I'm working on clpts-1.3, which should fix this issue. But as workaround one could use two instances of clpts, i.e. the first instance running on GPU 0 and 1, and the second on GPU 2 and 3.