Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[DobZombie]

I'm only getting 93-99GH/s on my Mercury

Tried 0.98
tried 0.96
tried enablecores.bin on both
tried different pools

*sighs*

[vesperwillow]

For those noticing that some of their units need to be warmer for better rates, I have no doubt about that. I have the same issue with my GPU farm of MSI TF 7950's. Some of the cards don't like being cold at all. The cooler they get, the higher the error rate and the lower the hash. The warmer, the inverse occurs.

For these cards, the sweet spot seems to be 75-82. Error rate is less than a percent, hash rate is easily 690+. Below 75 they slow down and error rate doubles or even triples.

It's the 28nm architecture.

[FiatKiller]

For those noticing that some of their units need to be warmer for better rates, I have no doubt about that. I have the same issue with my GPU farm of MSI TF 7950's. Some of the cards don't like being cold at all. The cooler they get, the higher the error rate and the lower the hash. The warmer, the inverse occurs.

For these cards, the sweet spot seems to be 75-82. Error rate is less than a percent, hash rate is easily 690+. Below 75 they slow down and error rate doubles or even triples.

It's the 28nm architecture.

Interesting, a chart on this page shows that 28 nm comparator sensitivity(perhaps to EMF?) drops and levels-off
at the temps we've noticed working well:

http://www.design-reuse.com/articles/28591/mixed-signal-ip-design-challenges-in-28-nm-and-beyond.html

[vesperwillow]

For those noticing that some of their units need to be warmer for better rates, I have no doubt about that. I have the same issue with my GPU farm of MSI TF 7950's. Some of the cards don't like being cold at all. The cooler they get, the higher the error rate and the lower the hash. The warmer, the inverse occurs.

For these cards, the sweet spot seems to be 75-82. Error rate is less than a percent, hash rate is easily 690+. Below 75 they slow down and error rate doubles or even triples.

It's the 28nm architecture.

Interesting, a chart on this page shows that 28 nm comparator sensitivity(perhaps to EMF?) drops and levels-off
at the temps we've noticed working well:

http://www.design-reuse.com/articles/28591/mixed-signal-ip-design-challenges-in-28-nm-and-beyond.html

Neat link.

And though way earlier in this thread I was dogged for not being an electrical component design engineer while making some comments on design, assembly and deployment.. every now and then, it's as if I know what I'm talking about. lol

I predicted the 28nm would have issues if too cold. Looks like I'm partially right. One thing is for sure, they designed the cooling setup to work in hot datacenters, so it's no wonder some of these units aren't able to warm-up when used in houses.

[DPoS]

hot datacenters

 

I guess the crappy ones that couldn't stay cool have a new selling point...

[vesperwillow]

hot datacenters

 

I guess the crappy ones that couldn't stay cool have a new selling point...

Not all of them have the same average temperature, and the overengineering on KNC's part allows for a greater fluctuation without impacting the hash potential. Plus, some folks have lots of computing power but not adequate cooling.. so it works well.

Either way.. totally called it

[demonmaestro]

Mine has been steady just hashing away.

[DigginDeep]

So mine has been running at least 36 hours and been very steady at this speed.
https://i.imgur.com/uUuVDf3.png
https://i.imgur.com/WQVce3D.png
https://i.imgur.com/EBHqbtF.png

[Phoenix1969]

I think, November miner deliveries has already been shipped and they reach customers today.

Customers can start hashing from tomorrow, 00:00. 

ack hope this is not true and they don't ship till nov 15th as they said..if not what are we looking at every 10 days a 50% difficulty increase? hard to ROI back that way!

They told me they planned to have
A month in between shipping, and I believe they will hold up to that, other wise they would piss off allot of customers, and anyone smart that paid with a credit card could get a refund if they wanted, and would lose allot of customers if they plan on having a gen 2, though a gen 2 would only be worth while if they got much better watt  / gig performance

I have heard from a forum member that his $5000 "November" order shipped on 30/10

No way

[ASIC-K]

So mine has been running at least 36 hours and been very steady at this speed.

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

[CYPER]

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

Me too  

[augustocroppo]

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

 

Nope.

The pool "solved" the block, not him.

What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block.

He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case.

[ASIC-K]

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

 

Nope.

The pool "solved" the block, not him.

What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block.

He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case.

yes, doofus. i know that, thats what i mean you fucktard. why are you still on this forum?

[xyzzy099]

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

 

Nope.

The pool "solved" the block, not him.

What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block.

He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case.

I don't get the distinction you are making here.  It looks to me like he solved a block for the pool in exactly the same way he might have solved a block for himself if he had been solo mining.

[ASIC-K]

whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool

 

Nope.

The pool "solved" the block, not him.

What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block.

He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case.

I don't get the distinction you are making here.  It looks to me like he solved a block for the pool in exactly the same way he might have solved a block for himself if he had been solo mining.

Augusto just being his crabby, permanent on-his-period self as usual.

[arlekyn13]

My Jupiter that I finally received today stopped working. I upgraded it to 0.98 and was getting just 414Gh/s so i decided to try several "older" FW's. At some point, after reboot, it stopped hashing. It shows 0Gh/s and the red led is on (instead of the green one). Any suggestions?
Also getting only 211Gh/s on both my Saturns on 0.98 FW.

[AFox]

0.98 isn't working out for me.
Back to 0.97.

All the firmware's were run at least 24 hours without any reboot.
For that reason firmware 0.90 to 0.93 aren't listed.

--------------------	0.94	0.95	0.96	0.97	0.98
Average CGminer	270Gh/s	274Gh/s	280Gh/s	284Gh/s	278Gh/s
Average Pool	275Gh/s	263Gh/s	278Gh/s	283Gh/s	269Gh/s
Consumption	485 Watts	305 Watts	313 Watts	313 Watts	348 Watts
Temputure	54 & 62°C	42 & 47°C	42 & 47°C	40 & 44°C	44 & 50°C
Rejected	1.5%	0.22%	0.38%	0.48%	0.61%
HW	2.81%	0.79%	1.08%	1.47%	3.31%
WU	3975/m	3717/m	3933/m	4021/m	3825/m

0.94	0.95	0.96	0.97	0.98

[FiatKiller]

Fox, did you try enablecores on top of FM 9.8?

[naRky]

.98 after ~28hours

nice! any special treatments? extra fans etc?

nope, just opened window in the room, case on.

ASIC slot #1   55.0 ℃
ASIC slot #2   58.0 ℃
ASIC slot #3   61.5 ℃
ASIC slot #4   56.0 ℃

..from now, I'm scared to change anything.)

Same here

cgminer version 3.6.6 - Started: [2013-10-29 15:57:04]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):611.7G (avg):564.0Gh/s | A:24198400  R:224256  HW:606832  WU:7886.4/m
 ST: 2  SS: 0  NB: 427  LW: 25833217  GF: 0  RF: 0
 Connected to mint.bitminter.com diff 512 with stratum as user xxxxxx
 Block: 0005308f7206b594...  Diff:391M  Started: [19:24:06]  Best share: 48.1M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 KnC 0:                | 611.8G/564.0Gh/s | A:24198912 R:224000 HW:606842 WU: 7886.5/m

[DigginDeep]

But what I also don't think people realize it's that if your using pre 98 you hash rate it's not accurate, as of pre 98 hardware errors were counted towards your hash rate, and since 98 upgraded cgminer the hash rates are now correct from my understanding.