I vote Grandpa Simpson be the new unofficial mascot of GPUMAX  |
|
|
|
|
I want to get paid more for mining because I need a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
|
|
|
|
I want to be paid more per share for my work (I get paid about ~0.00042???.BTC as I cant remember the exact amout as it keeps changing sometimes.If I get paid more than this and it was constant,I'd happily point all my miners to your servce)
Yes I mean that.What I didn't make clear in my last reply to this topic was that, I feel that if GPUMAX opens me up to the wider markets (free markets) that can offer me more or less than what I get,I can then have the freedom to choose what I'm happy to work with as that's how free markets work (As far as I can understand).GPUMAX is a great idea because i'm not limited by my pools PPS rate and that I have access to the free market as well (where they can pay more as well as less) which I feel is important to me. WTF ? Both of your posts made no sense to me and I feel dumber after struggling to read my way through them (especially the second post). What exactly are you trying to say ? I still don't understand.... Free Market ? Paid More ? Happy to work ? point miners ? More as well as Less ? WTF ? |
|
|
|
what is the price? Where are you shipping from?
..ehem.... |
|
|
|
Bear with us, I'll make it right.  Please don't tell me that I wasted perfect sarcasm and you missed it ....lol |
|
|
|
I don't want to be the 'petty' one, but... Are there any plans to go back to the mid-day payment schedule by chance ?....since on-demand withdrawals are still not implemented ? I just find myself in a bit of an odd position, where as I need to pay someone back some owed BTC and would hate to miss that 'due payment' window, as doing so might put a current 'investment' that I have in jeopardy, due to the 'bank' having strict rules about financial problems on the forum |
|
|
|
I'm curious, and if you don't mind trying it... Try upping the mem clock to 450 and see if you gain stability.
I've actually tried everything from 1:1 GPU/MEM and lower.....with no change in stability. It seems that when my pool is running well, the GPUs stay alive and when there are connection issues or work issues and the GPU 'rests' or lowers it's clocks automatically down to it's 2D clocks (150Mhz GPU) THAT is when the problems occur as most times the cards can't recover and re-up their clocks to the 3D settings. The pool has been running rock solid as of late and the latest CGMiner (2.2.7 and newer) addressed this issue to 'keep cards busy' during drops in work, so it seems much better and I only get a sick miner about once every 24-30 hours or so. Much better than once per hour like previously reported. 180Mhz MEM also gives me the best speeds for my 900 Mhz GPU overclock. |
|
|
|
Ok, found the prob. Problem was in activated overdrive by default somehow. Still, its pretty good results with it - max temp 68C with 310 mhashes/s. And I even not yet underclocked mem/undervolted it. Sweet.
What OS, Driver, SDK, Miner.... and clocks ?I can get 310+ MH/s from my Diamond Reference 6870's, but have to run them at 975 Mhs on the GPU clock to accomplish it. ( Win7 x64, CAT 12.1, SDK 2.4, CGMiner 2.3.1, 975 Mhz GPU, 875 Mhs MEM, Stock Voltage) |
|
|
|
Updated. Thanks everyone!
No problem....we do what we can Hopefully my pathetic mix-up of all different cards helped.... 'cause that's what happens when you start expanding too late and all the good cards are sold out all of the time...LOL Also, small CORRECTION on the machine below. I initially reported it as CAT 12.1......when it is in fact CAT 11.12 Sorry for the misreporting. I fixed my multi-card post. Correct values also below: ......................................................... Card Manufacturer: ATI Card Model Number: 5830 Extreme 1GB Card OEM: Sapphire MHash per Second: 320 MH/s Core Clock: 975 Mhz Memory Clock: 180 Mhz Average Operating Temperature: 66C Ambient Temperature: 19C Fan Speed: 45% Host OS: Win7 x64 Driver Version: 11.12 CAT, 2.1 SDK Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7 Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8 Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.163V ......................................................... |
|
|
|
I have 7 gpu's running on the P55 using win7x64, 11.12 driver and 2.5sdk. Best to use 2.4/2.5, SDK 2.6 is for 7 series.
... I think I just got hard.... just a little....LOLWhat board model/manufacturer is this ? I am DESPERATELY searching for something that is 5+ GPU/Windows7 x64 - friendly....... Could you please share your setup for that rig, including the use of any MODs (cable/pin mods etc) required to get the GPUs recognized ? Thanks in advance, bitlane. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps rather than Pools resorting to the outright BANNING of GPUMAX from connecting to them, they (the Pool OPs) might be able to try communicate DIRECTLY with Pirate (rather than bash GPUMAX on the forum) and let him know what kind of speed bursts their pool(s) can handle without bringing it down, so that Pirate can throttle the share delivery to them and keep everyone happy ?
As Pirate has said numerous times, the goal of GPUMAX is NOT to hurt Bitcoin, but to provide a service for interested users.
...just my 2 bitcents.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the largest number of cards that I ran at once on it was 3 5870s. I would test it with more cards, but I already sold the CPU from it, so I can't test it  The waterblock would be almost impossible to sell by itself, so I was hoping to sell both together for around 52 BTC shipped. Does the waterblock fit any other P6T's ? or just the WS ? |
|
|
|
Well.. it's exactly the same kernel as 2.2.7 so it MUST be the same performance Anything else is just reporting hashrate differences. Thanks for testing. I've upgrade the package to a 2.3.1-2 package, doing the same change to ALL the kernels in case someone else is affected. Enjoy. It's in fact back to normal (well, 2.2.7 speeds anyway) now that it's been hashing for a few minutes and levelled off. As a side note, out of pure desperation, I tried the Diablo kernel when testing 2.3.1 original and it was very close in speeds/performance to the 2.2.7 packaged phatk (with my 6950's, CAT 12.1, SDK 2.4......it wouldn't start though with 5830's, CAT 11.8, SDK 2.1)....lol thanks again, bitlane |
|
|
|
Redownload the cgminer-2.3.1-1 version please.
HUGE WIN !5830, SDK 2.1, CAT 12.1...... only 5 MH/s slower per card than 2.2.7 (was 10+ MH/s slower using 2.3.0 & 2.3.1) 6950, SDK 2.4, CAT 12.1...... only 10 MH/s slower per card than 2.2.7 (was 70 MH/s slower using 2.3.0 & 2.3.1) This is a huge help, thanks |
|
|
|
C:\MINER>cgminer -n
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] CL Platform 0 vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] CL Platform 0 name: ATI Stream
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] CL Platform 0 version: OpenCL 1.0 ATI-Stream-v2.1 (145)
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] Platform 0 devices: 5
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] GPU 0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] GPU 1 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] GPU 2 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] GPU 3 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] GPU 4 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-23 22:56:58] 5 GPU devices max detected
Win7 x64 Driver = 12.1 Cat, 2.1 SDK 5x HD5830 Cards I start CGMiner with a BAT file and only add CLOCK, NETWORK and INTENSITY ( 8 ) settings. Everything else is default (no kernel specified, work size etc....nothing). ................................................ 2.2.7 generates bin = phatk120213Cypress bitalignv2w128long4.BIN 2.3.1 generates bin = phatk120223Cypressv2w128l4.BIN ................................................ Using 2.3.1, Performance has been negatively affected compared to 2.2.7 (the same can be seen using 2.3.0-1). The most dramatic performance hit can be seen with my 6950's, by 70+MH/s per card loss of performance, same as was with 2.3.0-1 earlier. Does the omission of 'bitalign' in the BIN file name have something to do with this ? bitlane. |
|
|
|
|
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 5770
Card OEM: ATI Reference
MHash per Second: 226 MH/s
Core Clock: 965 Mhz
Memory Clock: 180 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 67C
Ambient Temperature: 19C
Fan Speed: 45%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 12.1 CAT, 2.1 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.125V
.........................................................
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 5830 Extreme 1GB
Card OEM: Sapphire
MHash per Second: 320 MH/s
Core Clock: 975 Mhz
Memory Clock: 180 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 66C
Ambient Temperature: 19C
Fan Speed: 45%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 11.12 CAT, 2.1 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.163V
.........................................................
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 5850
Card OEM: ATI Reference
MHash per Second: 385 MH/s
Core Clock: 920 Mhz
Memory Clock: 180 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 67C
Ambient Temperature: 19C
Fan Speed: 50%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 12.1 CAT, 2.1 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: Asus 5870 Reference BIOS, OC @ 5870 Stock Voltage, 1.163V
.........................................................
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 6870
Card OEM: ATI Reference
MHash per Second: 311 MH/s
Core Clock: 975 Mhz
Memory Clock: 875 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 67C
Ambient Temperature: 21C
Fan Speed: 45%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 12.1 CAT, 2.4 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.175V
.........................................................
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 6950 (1GB, ZNFC v.A3)
Card OEM: XFX
MHash per Second: 372 MH/s
Core Clock: 900 Mhz
Memory Clock: 775 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 67C
Ambient Temperature: 19C
Fan Speed: 70%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 12.1 CAT, 2.4 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.10V. Locked Shaders.
.........................................................
Card Manufacturer: ATI
Card Model Number: 6950 (DCUII 1GB)
Card OEM: Asus
MHash per Second: 372 MH/s
Core Clock: 900 Mhz
Memory Clock: 775 Mhz
Average Operating Temperature: 67C
Ambient Temperature: 19C
Fan Speed: 45%
Host OS: Win7 x64
Driver Version: 12.1 CAT, 2.4 SDK
Mining Program: CGMiner 2.2.7
Command Line Flags/GUIminer Settings: default, I-8
Other Information: OC @ Stock Voltage, 1.10V. Locked Shaders.
|
|
|
|
cgminer 2.3.0 supports icarus/
That is a huge bonus. Good to see. Unfortunately I don't see either of those 2 products/projects as a very attractive solution as they really don't stand out in any way, but rather they are simply too average (or not extreme enough in a specific area....like, no focus)....? The BitForce Single and the Icarus both do SOMETHING extremely well, on opposite sides of the 'spectrum' and are great competitors both on paper and in use. 1 being extremely power-usage-friendly for the performance achieved (the Icarus) and the other being extremely powerful for the money (Butterfly Labs). Neither the Ztex nor X6500 units are real stand-outs unfortunately and unless something drastic were to happen ( as in major price cuts, major performance increases or something rediculous such as single-digit max (W) power-draw for existing performance figures) with either project/product, I really couldn't see too many people ordering them over the other 2 above.....it simply wouldn't make sense. You should also consider availability. Icarus is available right now (I think ?) and BFL's delivery date is kind of uncertain. Shipping costs are also important for people who live outside the US/China.
The BFL units have clearly began shipping, as there are a couple users on this forum who are currently running their pre-order units. Availability is the one thing that could really KILL the BFL product, because they clearly have the 'bang-for-buck' covered....now they just need to come up with quantity and immediate availability. Regardless of the BFL's raw power, I still am interested in the Icarus due to it's low power consumption and think that along with slight performance increases, the Icarus project should really focus on overall power draw, because I don't think they will be capable of competing with Butterfly Labs for outright horsepower on a single unit-vs-unit basis..... My 2 bitcents... bitlane. |
|
|
|
Hmm. Well, I still have my ASUS P6T7 WS available, not sure how much you were planning on spending. It is 1366 socket with 7 x16 slots.
Those are awesome... Have either of you guys more than 5 physical GPUs IN WINDOWS on either of the boards linked to or shown ?I am praying that I can find someone with 100% first-hand experience, so that I don't end up with another board that although may have more than 5 PCIe slots, will not support more than 5 physical cards such as my Gigabyte X58A-UD3R that I currently have..... As I said in the OP, I would really like to run 6x 5830's in a single board/system using Windows 7 x64.Those choices, even though priced a bit higher than expected, are still attractive to me due to my end goal of consolidation. rjk - what are you asking for your P6T7 WS ? I would really only want the OEM heatsink setup if possible, as I have no water cooling gear.... Thanks for the replies. If anyone else has any suggestions, I am all ears (or, EYES as it were in this situation....LOL). bitlane. |
|
|
|
WOW....I mean, W T F ?I just upgraded 5 rigs from 2.2.7 to 2.3.0 and lost speed across the board. Not that I don't want to read 216 pages to find my answer, but I have NEVER had this problem and upgrade to the latest version every time it's uploaded (Win 7 x64). All my 5xxx cards are running Cat12.1/2.1 SDK, my 6xxx cards are running Cat12.1/2.4 SDK (CONFIRMED). All cards run (and always have run) static I=8. What just happened ? ie. None of my cards will maintain 99% load, all 80%-ish....WTF ?....All 5830's = 10+ MH/s slower, U=less also. Overall speed/U = much slower/less, 6xxx series cards are jumping around (LOAD) and are running like ass. **6950's (12.1/2.4 SDK) lost 80 MH/s each .......5830's (12.1/2.1 SDK) lost 15 MH/s each .......6870's (12.1/2.4 SDK) lost 40+ MH/s each.... Compared to SAME EVERYTHING using 2.2.7 package and FRESH/NEW BINS..... Can anyone elaborate ? I deleted EVERYTHING, created ALL NEW BINS. All I saved were my BAT files, that I was FORCED TO ADD IP Range to for my monitoring/control app  Drivers/SDKs were reinstalled last week when I decided to optimize everything and go to get rid of my CPU bug(s) by using 12.1 CAT. The above results were with cgminer- 2.3.0-1-win32.zip. I am going back to 2.2.7 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
