Have been busy this Morning, in amongst all the BM1385 excitement, and have made some progress on the 2nd S5 with V1.91 Hash Board, no heatsinks.
I disconnected in turn each of the Hash Boards and remade some of the measurements. The first board continued to exhibit the long voltage knee between a large number of hardware errors & no errors that I explained Yesterday.
The second board on it's own behaves very much like the first S5 with the heatsinks, in fact it had very good performance, the best I have seen so far. That said I had suspected that one of the boards in the first unit performed better, the figures reflect the performance of the lower performer, but never checked it out.
So here are some sample measurements from the "good" hash board in the second unit.
MHz V Core V A W GH J/GH
300 0.71 10.6 16.8 178 495 0.360
200 0.63 9.5 10.2 97 330 0.294
175 0.62 9.3 8.8 82 289 0.283
150 0.60 9 7.4 67 248 0.269
125 0.60 9 6.3 57 206 0.275
(Performance at 125MHz is better at lower voltage, but the unit will not reliably start hashing at < 9V)
Remember this is only 1/2 an S5 so Amps, Watts & GH are half previous tables, other figures can be directly compared.
So not quite up to BM1385 performance but at 150MHz & 9 Volts gives 248GH with a
(record breaking) J/GH of 0.269 This was with no HW errors and also remember that the Fan & Controller board current is included even though it is driving a single Hash Board. Power is, as in all the other measurements, calculated from the supply, not at the wall.
So now need to go and understand what is holding back the other Hash Board in the 2nd S5? First examination shows it to be a slightly different board. Both are 1.91 with the 5 Oscillator modules.
The First S5, with heatsinks, both boards are marked V1.91 - GYS0150 - 2015-03-05
The "good board in the second S5 is marked V1.91 - GYS0107 - 2015-03-28
The "less good" board in the second S5 is marked V1.91 - GYS0199 - 22-15
Whether any of the markings are significant I do not know?
I will have to set to and make some measurements, but my gut feel remains that there is a chip which is for some reason under-performing?
Rich