|
1521
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 29, 2012, 07:56:54 AM
|
Update: I think it got faster. Maybe.
Not for a 7970. :p I don't think 7970s are going to GET faster. Its like, SDK 2.6 screws everybody over, and thats the way it rolls. WHY MUST AMD MAKE ME ANGRY, THEY WONT LIKE ME WHEN IM ANGRY, DIABLOSMASH |
|
|
|
|
1523
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: 3x7970 Mining Results.
|
on: January 28, 2012, 11:44:07 PM
|
with diablo miner im getting 880mh/sec from same cards same speeds
but 388watts at wall I think that's a new record! Oh man. Thats over twice as fast as my 5850 at 960. Read carefully, that's a 5870 *and* a 7970... 880Mh is awful. 7970 is ~550Mh/s stock 5870 is ~380Mh/s stock so that's > 5% slower than what they should be doing... Feh, False advertising. |
|
|
|
|
1526
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 28, 2012, 08:15:18 AM
|
My statement is true for current SDK and driver versions and that's what I meant. Sorry if I was a bit unclear  . The whitelist is "nice to have", but it can be hard to maintain such a thing and keep it up to date ... I saw that "Loveland" for example is missing. That's the GPU part of the AMD C-50 and I'm 99% sure it works with BFI_INT patching. Dia The CPU core half of that Fusion may identify itself as Loveland, but the GPU half, the Radeon 6250, identifies itself as a Wrestler. Edit: I don't see any of the APUs named Loveland either, there is only Desna, Ontario, Zacate, Llano. Trinity, Weatherford, and Richland aren't out yet, and will use Northern Islands-based shaders (77/78/79xx) instead of Evergreen (5xxx). There is also three that were canceled, Krishna, Wichita, and Hondo. Although, it seems I need to add two more names, Palm and Sumo. |
|
|
|
|
1527
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 28, 2012, 08:08:24 AM
|
Diablominer doesn't work here on a freshly installed 7970. I have the newest driver that supports 7970: http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/RC11Driver.aspxI installed the AMD APP SDK that came with that. So the miner starts normally, albeit with some Java error (installed newest Java just in case), then waits for a while, and after that just shows 0 MHash with the card not doing anything. I think my install should be fine, as cgminer "worked", although it gave me like 130MH/s  Pic:  Your command line is screwed up. Although, it shouldn't exception like that either. If you're using -o, you want -o api.bitcoin.cz |
|
|
|
|
1528
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 27, 2012, 07:37:43 PM
|
By the way, AMD makes the use of amd_bitalign() obsolete for rotations, so it's safe to use rotate.
That is not an accurate statement. We have not had to use that since SDK 2.2, this was for 2.1 only. 2.2 or later on any hardware optimizes rotate correctly. And it seems BFI_INT patching is not needed anymore for 7970 cards, did you observe that, too?
Dia
Yes, which is why I added that driver name whitelist. cgminer has also copied that whitelist as well. |
|
|
|
|
1529
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 27, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
|
With -D 1 -v 1 -w 256 -aa I get ~539 MHash/s ... this should be the preferred command line, right? I'm currently testing other kernels for GCN performance  . Dia -D is useless unless you're turning off other cards. -w 256 is default. -v 1 is default -aa does _absolutely nothing_ and I've already renamed it to something else in a local branch. For the first time in history, no arguments are the best. I have no clue how the hell that happened. |
|
|
|
|
1530
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)
|
on: January 27, 2012, 03:51:06 PM
|
BFL, are those 500MHz or 600Mhz chips? Will your software run them as fast as can be safely cooled?
FPGA don't have set clock speeds like GPUs. The bitstream controls the clock speed. The same chip with one bitstream may run at 400 Mhz and loaded with a far more intensive bitstream run at 75 Mhz. So you can't make a FPGA run faster via outside software it would require reprogramming the chip w/ a new bitstream. I don't think there are any FPGA that run at 600 Mhz. More likely they are using a "larger" chip. Spartan 6-150 is used because it takes ~150K LUT to fit a complete unrolled double bitcoin hash logic. Thus 1 hash per clock running at 200 Mhz = 200 MH/s. If there FPGA have enough LUT to fit 2 complete unrolled hashers then the board would do 4 hashes per clock. 800 MH/s = 200 Mhz. I'm not saying you're wrong, but, uh, that sounds very wrong. |
|
|
|
|
1531
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)
|
on: January 27, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
|
Judging by the unmarked heatspreaders, there's no point in removing the heatsinks to find out what chips these are ... there are no markings!
Weirdly they wire brushed the markings off but left JTAG access to the chips. Boundary scan and ISE software will allow you to identify the chip. Granted it takes a little more work than visually reading the markings but still is rather trivial. There are only so many companies which make FPGAs. They could use different JTAG pinouts though, and the reason to leave them would be to do in-house stuff like programming before shipping or upgrades/repairs etc. I am not saying that this is what they will do/have done. Or maybe the sand off the chips just now for the first shipment or so and for the pictures to delay competition a bit. Think about it, it may actually be a few months till somebody identifies the units used (if it still takes them weeks to ship), but then it still takes a few months to develop a similar architecture, and after 6 months it's all old news anyway. It'll take artforz like 5 minutes to identify it. He already owns like one of every FPGA ever. |
|
|
|
|
1533
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: My initial Radeon HD 7970 mining benchmarks
|
on: January 27, 2012, 04:20:26 AM
|
Around 675, iirc their peak efficiency is above 90%. So ~610 watt at the meter is what I'd consider safe.
D3, I think you might have your numbers backwards. Yes, but what comes out of the wall is what is being used total. So. Something. Did I mention I hate math? |
|
|
|
|
1534
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: My initial Radeon HD 7970 mining benchmarks
|
on: January 26, 2012, 06:52:42 AM
|
2 x Sapphire Radeon 7970
Corsair 750W PSU
I'm guessing that a slightly higher rated power supply with better efficiency might be called for on this one.
No shit. Corsairs are rated at continuous wattage, and 7970s use 250w each at stock, and you shouldn't exceed 90% of that 750, and you're doing 750-790 at the wall? Holy crap dude. Go buy one of these: http://ur1.ca/7sqrzKeep in mind that the draw from the wall will be about 20% or more greater than the DC load on the PSU. That 750W number is what it is capable of delivering in DC. At 750W at the wall, the PSU may only be delivering around 600W to the hardware (more if the efficiency is better). Around 675, iirc their peak efficiency is above 90%. So ~610 watt at the meter is what I'd consider safe. |
|
|
|
|
1535
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: My initial Radeon HD 7970 mining benchmarks
|
on: January 26, 2012, 06:25:51 AM
|
Weird short-URL. Redirects to: http://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-2150801-104408
97?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FPro
duct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16817116013%26nm_mc%3DAFC-C
8Junction%26cm_mmc%3DAFC-C8Junction-_-Power%2BSupp
lies-_-NZXT-_-17116013&cjsku=N82E16817116013 Yes, I used a tinyurl because the newegg url is so long. |
|
|
|
|
1536
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: My initial Radeon HD 7970 mining benchmarks
|
on: January 26, 2012, 06:13:27 AM
|
2 x Sapphire Radeon 7970
Corsair 750W PSU
I'm guessing that a slightly higher rated power supply with better efficiency might be called for on this one.
No shit. Corsairs are rated at continuous wattage, and 7970s use 250w each at stock, and you shouldn't exceed 90% of that 750, and you're doing 750-790 at the wall? Holy crap dude. Go buy one of these: http://ur1.ca/7sqrz |
|
|
|
|
1537
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM
|
That is awesome, I'm glad I switched. I couldn't get more than 380 with guiminer, even at 950 core.
Could you share your setup, please? I'm unable to reproduce this miracle of yours Only getting around 380 with Diablominer. try with no flags.... I have a couple of 6970's and will be trying this pronto!! Yeah, see, thats where I'm questioning this. I mean, -v 2? sure, -v 2 is fucking magic. -v 1? hell no, even 2.6's screwed up existence, where it sits at the back of my fridge begging for me to kill it, cannot do that. CATS, DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER! OH THE HUGE MANATEE! |
|
|
|
|
1538
|
Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN)
|
on: January 24, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
|
Note that it's not stock, I have the GPU clocked to 950 through CCC, but looking at the hwardware comparison page it looks like it should be around 430 mhash tops, so I don't think that fully explains it unless the hardware comparison page is just out of date.
:-) Sorry, I'm blind. Yeah, we've been having a kernel arms war lately. What you're getting sounds in the right ballpark. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
