13

I have an AMD R9 390 graphics card. What is the expected hash rate difference between:

  1. Wolf's open source GPU miner https://github.com/wolf9466/wolf-xmr-miner/releases
  2. Claymore's closed source miner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0

If I decide not to pay the 2.5% Claymore fee, how is the performance comparison changed?

bigreddmachine
  • 3,737
  • 1
  • 10
  • 30
Imagin Ation
  • 448
  • 5
  • 11

3 Answers3

11

I have MSI R9 290X and on stock settings it gives 775H/s with Wolf's miner vs 790H/s with Claymore's miner with fee turned on. With -nofee 1 flag Claymore's miner shows 760H/s. Of course these numbers slightly vary.

Valeriy Maksymiv
  • 164
  • 1
  • 7
4

I have an XFX R9 390 and Claymore gets me 775 h/s. Minus dev shares, that's 755 h/s. Wolf's gets 760 h/s, which is actually higher than Claymore. That said, I found the "workunit" "thread" "Rawintensity" etc settings of Wolf's miner difficult to understand, so Claymore's is much easier all around to install and use.

3

For the RX 470 (specifically the Gigabyte G1 4GB version), I have found that both miners give very similar performance (~542 H/s for Claymore, ~535 H/s Wolf) on Windows 7 SP1.

On Linux, Claymore does not distribute a binary compatible with these cards, while Wolf's again gives ~535 H/s.

Given that Claymore's miner takes a 2.5% cut, it nets you 542 * 97.5% = ~528.5 H/s, or slightly lower than Wolf.

All these numbers are with stock settings. Claymore's is easier to use (IMO), but currently limited to Windows, while Wolf's is open source, available on Linux (and I suppose OS X if you can figure out how to compile it), and potentially a little more lucrative.

I have not compared power draw between the two miners.

bigreddmachine
  • 3,737
  • 1
  • 10
  • 30