- General
-
Questions
0
VTC GPU Utilization
I am attempting to troubleshoot/optimize my setup. I am running 5 - gtx 1070s and when mining monero for instance on another pool, the GPU Utilization shown in task manager was 99-100% all the time. While mining VTC, utilization is very low (18-19%/card). Is this normal?
The cards are running at power -15, core clock +135, mem clock +530 and ccminer 2.0 shows around 31-32 MH/s. It was slightly higher with 100% power, but much more heat and energy consumption.
Input is appreciated!
Customer support service by UserEcho
I suppose I jumped the gun asking my question. When I was viewing the task manager, I was looking at total card utilization, not the "Compute_0" as mentioned by stevoli on reddit. Compute_0 is around 80%, which is apparently typical?
ccminer2.0 is showing my me at consistently ~140MH/s, while "my stats" is consistently 90-100 MH/s.
Is this normal?
Again, input is appreciated!
same here, my stats on my miner are 52mh/s but on here around 25mh/s atm. the shares u get may be differnt so it can be lower and higher than the average the miner displays. on average u should be getting what u miner mines for u its the 140mh/s. what i have read so far xD the shares are the work u have done and the accepted shares will calculate every 10 mins so it should even it self out for u at 140mh/s. but currently i have monitored myself some pools and mining but im always getting lower i dont know why. only the lyra2rev2 algo's havent tried any other coin than MONA or VTC :P
I would say reverse the Memory OC and give some of the extra to the core, as Lyra2rev2 likes using the core more than the memory. My 1080 runs at about 42MH/s for
Power -15
Core +200
Mem -486 (note - not +).
The hashrate difference is the first item in the FAQ: https://poolmining.org/faq Basically it's based on an average of the reported shares over the past 10 minutes, so sometimes can show higher or lower.
ccminer freaks out when at +200 CPU. Running 185 for the time being. Thanks for the advice! Memory OC effectively made no difference in has rate.