Fury X mining performance

[fenomenhaa]

@sp

TDP isn't power consumption.İt's Thermal Design Power,"It is maximum amount of heat generated by the CPU,GPU" And u know better then us,you are coder, power consumption depends on kernel efficeincy too(,so we caannot tkae TDP base of real Power consumption.) miners like us  just focused to power consumption from wall ))).I think fury X have less power consumpiton then dual 970's (i bios edited all of my 970's with %40 Tdp more .It fluctates 150-190W per card with o/c,avarege 180W+) I knew this diagram of maxwells's M8 )

[lawrencelyl]

TDP is usually accurate for reference design card in terms of power consumption.  For example a reference design GTX970 will consume around 145W under full load while GTX980 will consume around 165W.
However, if the card is not based on reference design, then usually the manufacturer will increase the TDP to hit higher clock speed to squeeze out more performance.

[MaxDZ8]

The main problem is hashing rarely causes cards to go full load. I'm pretty sure groestl at 30.6MHs on 980Ti isn't full load nor qubit at 17.4.

[sp_]

The main problem is hashing rarely causes cards to go full load. I'm pretty sure groestl at 30.6MHs on 980Ti isn't full load nor qubit at 17.4.

The numbers seems too low, but these are reference cards.

My gigabyte 970 oc is doing 16.2 MHASH in the quark algo on the factory clock. Faster than the 980 reference in the cryptomining blog.
my zotac 980 oc card is doing 18 MHASH++

[lawrencelyl]

The main problem is hashing rarely causes cards to go full load. I'm pretty sure groestl at 30.6MHs on 980Ti isn't full load nor qubit at 17.4.

Running quark algo pushed my gtx980 over 100% load.  However, x11 algo seems to be slightly less than that.

[MaxDZ8]

The main problem is hashing rarely causes cards to go full load. I'm pretty sure groestl at 30.6MHs on 980Ti isn't full load nor qubit at 17.4.

Running quark algo pushed my gtx980 over 100% load.  However, x11 algo seems to be slightly less than that.

Nice to know, I believe we should ask ourself questions at this point as that's impossible.
You probably don't know, officially my house heater has 109% efficiency.

[lawrencelyl]

The main problem is hashing rarely causes cards to go full load. I'm pretty sure groestl at 30.6MHs on 980Ti isn't full load nor qubit at 17.4.

Running quark algo pushed my gtx980 over 100% load.  However, x11 algo seems to be slightly less than that.

Nice to know, I believe we should ask ourself questions at this point as that's impossible.
You probably don't know, officially my house heater has 109% efficiency.

Well, at least from the power consumption perspective it's hitting full load.  My card registered 200W when running quark algo.  From benchmark (of the same card) that I have read on other site, full load for my card is around 200W.  So, I think it is pretty close - minus the VRAM loading perhaps.

[Eliovp]

Ok, i finally did some power usage tests.

All these tests are with 3x R9 XFX Fury X, Intel I5, 16GB Corsair Vengeance, 2 x Corsair AX 860i

Test number 1:
This is an X11 test, all 3 cards doing 11.5 Mhz @ around 35 degrees.
Complete rig is pulling just over 680 Watt & 3.1 amps
Picture
http://s10.postimg.org/rjex7v0mh/IMG_7064.png


Test number 2:
Quark @ 23 Mhz per card @ around 38 Degrees.
Rig is pulling 776 Watt & 3.5 amps
Picture
http://s8.postimg.org/ingyj319h/IMG_7065.png


Test number 3:
Siacoin @ 1.9 Ghz per card @ around 40 Degrees.
Rig is pulling around 1006 Watt & 4.6 amps.
Picture
http://s13.postimg.org/uzpna2a5z/IMG_7066.png


Knowing all of this i can only conclude that there is much to do for X11 & Quark. I have a feeling X11 will definitely be able to go over 20Mhz and Quark should be able to go over 30Mhz with ease.
Also it is clear and allready known that they love power, as do almost all of the AMD cards.

in Case number 1, the complete rig is pulling almost 700 Watt, take 100 watt out (Processor, mobo and such) and a single card is @ around 200Watt, not bad though for doing 11+Mhz.

However as you can see in case number 3, the complete rig is pulling over 1000 Watt with only 3 cards. So they're easily pulling 300Watt per card. And i'm sure i haven't hit the top speed on Siacoin.


If there's anyone who wants to see a test on another algo. Just ask. No problem!


Greetings!

[pallas]

Siacoin hashrate is impressive! Are you using the public miner?
I'm interested in knowing hashrate and power usage for the groestlcoin/diamond algo.
Please use both the opensource v1 kernel and the experimental v2 binary in my thread.

Many thanks!

[Eliovp]

Siacoin hashrate is impressive! Are you using the public miner?
I'm interested in knowing hashrate and power usage for the groestlcoin/diamond algo.
Please use both the opensource v1 kernel and the experimental v2 binary in my thread.

Many thanks!

Hey Pallas.

no i'm not using the public miner, hashrate on the public miner is just above 1Ghz

As for your Groestl/diamond interest.

I installed this version of sgminer
https://github.com/prettyhatemachine/sph-sgminer

when running Groestl/diamond on stock settings "1050 engine" i hit around @ 778 Watt

Watt
http://postimg.org/image/v14qbrulp/


When i use your Hawaii binary, rename it, run it, i run around 40Mhz+ but with HW errors

Hashrate was still rising and this is with stock clocks. So with 1100 (which those cards can easily handle it should go to 50Mhz)



Oh and a screenshot of Siacoin speed



Greetings

[pallas]

thanks for the tests.
in the end the performance is 0-20% higher than a 290x depending on the algo:

sia - about the same
groestl - about 10% more
x11 and quark - about 20% more

let's hope they make a better opencl compiler to unleash its full power!
finally a curiosity: did you get valid blocks with that ultra fast sia miner?

[Eliovp]

thanks for the tests.
in the end the performance is 0-20% higher than a 290x depending on the algo:

sia - about the same
groestl - about 10% more
x11 and quark - about 20% more

let's hope they make a better opencl compiler to unleash its full power!
finally a curiosity: did you get valid blocks with that ultra fast sia miner?

No problem


Mm, Sia about the same? on my 290x i hit around 1.25 Ghz (oc'ed), on my Fury's i hit 1.9 Ghz (stock clocks)
That's a difference of 40%, non open source though..

As you said, a better opencl compiler and optimized kernels would be seriously interesting. Very curious what they are capable of.

Yes i have found plenty of blocks with that miner


Greets

[Eliovp]

Ok, got some new X13 results!

Also own Mod

9.7Mhz per card @ 1050 Engine clock pulling 756Watt with 3 cards.



Watt

http://s29.postimg.org/ksobyeh93/IMG_7069.png


Greetings!

[grouper fish]

anyone tried to mine XMR with the Fury X?

[fenomenhaa]

@Eliovp Thanks for your detailed power consumption and hashrate charts.Fury X really interesisting card, pls keep updating informations,Still can't deceide to buy 970 or fury X ))

[Eliovp]

anyone tried to mine XMR with the Fury X?

Ok here are some details.

Around 1300 h/s per card

screenshot
http://s24.postimg.org/fve5l9zhx/Schermafbeelding_2015_07_24_om_21_34_24.png

Power usage at that time



Greetings

[djm34]

would be nice if the images was a tad smaller

[Eliovp]

would be nice if the images was a tad smaller

Would be even nicer if your resolution was a tad bigger :-)

I'll remove the image tags, specially for you :-)

[grouper fish]

anyone tried to mine XMR with the Fury X?

Ok here are some details.

Around 1300 h/s per card


Greetings

Thank you for testing. 

Is the 490w for all 3 cards combined?

[Eliovp]

Ok i have some new tests regarding Cryptonote.

As seen in the screenshot. 1 Fury at stock settings runs @ around 850+h/s

Cards were almost at idle temperatures. So in other words, they were hardly doing their best

Screenshot of hash rate


As i said before, with those low temps, i know this also could go a lot faster. Energy usage confirmed that.
Not even 500 Watt with 3 Cards.

Screenshot



I have only one algo that drives my fury's over 40 degrees. And that is Siacoin. This is because i'm pretty sure that they're almost working at full power on that algo. Also the power usage when running sia is more then double than what it was pulling on Cryptonote. Not only Cryptonote but also X11, Quark etc..


Again, if someone wants to test something, Just ask


Greetings!