|
What's preventing you from paying back now, and how do you intend to get 11BTC in a week?
|
|
|
|
|
Does that include all the state taxes & fees?
|
|
|
|
Those quotes don't contradict anything. The first blog says power supplies can have an efficiency of up to 90%. It doesn't mean AT 90% load. The second article had a correction from their obviously wrong data http://www.silentpcreview.com/article263-page5.htmlIn the correction the peak efficiency is @ 150W (50% load) for 84.8% efficiency. While the curves do vary and 80-Plus Gold PSU tend to have flatter curves the peak efficiency is in the 50%-60% range. If you had a PSU which was 90% efficient at 1000W you would sell it as a 1200W (or maybe 1350W) PSU. So PSU are never efficient at max load. Check the PSUs they checked in the first blog -- specifically the 480W Antec PSU, where peak efficiency is between 390W & 515W. |
|
|
|
|
This was bothering me, so I asked an IT director. He replied that many lower-end consumer-grade PSUs (even if they're marketed to "enthusiasts") have an efficiency curve and peak out at about half their rated output. There are two PSUs which frequently have a linear increasing curve - those being server-grade PSUs and PSUs designed in partnership with a mass producer for producers of PCs with a small form-factor. PSUs rated 80+ are also more likely to have the linear increasing efficiency due to how stringent the requirements are for higher loads. Marketers generally don't give specifics on their efficiency curve (or lack thereof), and just because a PSU is labeled "Active PFC" doesn't mean it will operate under the preferable efficiency curve -- it could just be the higher-end PSUs are under-rated. Just as with cars and batteries, every PSU is different and will have its own efficiency curve.
|
|
|
|
I'd be interested in one or two if cheap, for novelty initially. Your opportunity to hook.  |
|
|
|
|
If it comes back up, I would also like to see tobacco pipes carried. Mine's inadequate.
|
|
|
|
Can I donate you a non-broken keyboard? Reading l33t speak, intentional or not, is just too painful.
enigma
If you'd like. Alternately, I could stop being lazy and thoughtless - just start using a fancier clipboard app [I think I actually made a specific keyboard layout for this problem years ago if I can find it...], saving us all trouble, and encouraging me not to open my mouth to ramble on about stuff I don't know about. |
|
|
|
|
When d0 we replace the f0rum with 0ne big sh0vel d0g .gif, anyway?
|
|
|
|
You want to keep the PSU running at about 50-60% load. 5830s pull about 150w from a piece. You're cutting it close =/
Err -- why's that? Fr0m what I've read, they typically reach peak efficiency ar0und ninety percent l0ad and are 0ften able t0 reliably 0utput 10-20% 0ver what they're rated. I'm running three rigs with dual 0C'd 5850s 0n 450W PSUs. Have been since May, 2011 with0ut a hitch. Might want to re-read. http://www.corsair.com/media//tx850w_efficiency.jpgAt least in 0ne case, that seems t0 be c0ntradicted here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/05/when-hardware-is-free-power-is-expensive.html -- it's aks0 c0ntradicted here: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article263-page4.htmlI'm n0t sure which c0mp0nent ch0ices are causing the efficiency curve t0 shift, but even am0ng Active PFC PSUs, each unit has its 0wn curve. I c0uld be misreading 0r missing s0mething big. I d0n't mean t0 c0me 0ff as a c0ntradict0ry assh0le -- just curi0us. |
|
|
|
You want to keep the PSU running at about 50-60% load. 5830s pull about 150w from a piece. You're cutting it close =/
Err -- why's that? Fr0m what I've read, they typically reach peak efficiency ar0und ninety percent l0ad and are 0ften able t0 reliably 0utput 10-20% 0ver what they're rated. I'm running three rigs with dual 0C'd 5850s 0n 450W PSUs. Have been since May, 2011 with0ut a hitch. |
|
|
|
Gonna go out on a limb here, and guess his o key is gone...lol, hence, the 0
0101100101100101011000010110100000101110001000000100100100100000011101000110100 0001100000111010101100111011010000010000001001001001000000110110101100001011001 0001100101001000000110100101110100001000000111000001110010011001010111010001110 1000111100100100000011000110110110001100101011000010111001000100000011010010110 11100010000001110100011010000110010100100000001100000101000000101110 Anyh00, I still plan 0n getting the results p0sted in a few days, in n0n-1337-5P34K. Pretty curi0us t0 see h0w it turns 0ut given I've read many c0nflicting rep0rts. |
|
|
|
Actually, it's UNDERVOLTING that some experienced miners are recommending.
It's not pure hash rate what counts (unless someone else is paying for your power) but the ratio of your hash rate to power consumption.
Lowered voltage might mean that you'll have to pull the clocks back as well but the power consumption will fall significantly faster than hash rate.
I don't mind the 0s a bit. I fixed them with greasemonkey :>
I'll check underv0lting, t00. I meant t0 menti0n it. |
|
|
|
|
Please excuse me if this has been discussed bef0re [and please excuse my 0's]. I did search and w0uld appreciate a link t0 appr0priate thread if it exists.
I'd appreciate if s0me0ne had #s sh0wing whether 0r n0t 0verv0lting is pr0fitable - ign0ring the extra wear 0n the card & p0tential pr0blems due t0 excess heat.
Ideally, if s0me0ne had p0wer draw & hash rate @ st0ck speeds, pwr draw & hash rate @ max stable cl0ck speed [w/0 0verv0lt], and pwr draw & hash rate @ max stable cl0ck speed and max stable 0perating v0ltage - that'd be great. As well, if s0me0ne has pwr draw & hash rate @ vari0us undercl0cks, that'd be all the m0re dandy.
If this data d0esn't exist, I'll d0 the testing myself in a few days when I'm back with my rigs [and fully-functi0nal keyb0ard!].
|
|
|
|
another thought is - that plastic goes brittle if exposed to UV (sunlight, hydroponic rig, etc) or other BPA leeching substances like harsh chems (bleach etc) only thing I can think of. The cord appears to be in fairly standard household conditions. I'd assume it's been in direct sunlight for a long time. |
|
|
|
Also, Kluge: Is your "O" key broken?
Yes. - And "l" [in clipb0ard], # after 8. Keyb0ard 0n this lapt0p is glued shut f0r s0me reas0n, t00. |
|
|
|
|
I have a sneaking suspici0n many 0f y0u in the US giving sub $.1/kWh prices are giving the price-t0-c0mpare number, which is generally r0ughly half the rate y0u actually pay if y0u take t0tal price divided by kWh. Price-t0-c0mpare is m0re-0r-less what y0u'd pay with0ut an asinine g0vernment "helping" by f0rcing utilities t0 fund silly pr0grams, meet arbitrary regulati0ns, and pay g0v't fees.
fwiw, where I temp0rarily am in s0uthern MI, my actual kWH price c0mes t0 $.118/kWh
|
|
|
|
|
D0 y0u have any reputati0n anywhere? Pay stubs? Anything? If y0u have n0 rep, I'd want t0 at least be able t0 c0ntact y0ur empl0yer.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I'm just an ignorant "rich" Westerner but isn't this a trivial amount to resort to loans from strangers on an internet forum?
I'm just curious what possible need is being fulfilled by $2 loan? If you are that strapped for cash how do you travel to work, buy lunch, or pay for the electricity to run the computer you're posting from?
My problem is that requests for such small loans seem to have high scam potential to me.
If someone's so strapped for cash they take time to make 30+ posts on a forum to scam someone out $2, they probably deserve the money out of charity. I'd imagine the lendee is just a few BTC short of what they need for a transaction they wanted done immediately and couldn't wait for a transfer from their bank/CC/whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
