Record hashrate for a 5850? (me, showing off)

[teukon]

I always have highest speeds with 300 or 302 MHz ram, but yes the worksize and ram speed are related.  Someone actually made a graph if you search for the original thread that said "Lowering ram speed increases hashing rate" or similar, go all the way to the last post and work backwards to find the graph.

Do you mean this graph?
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4292.msg148234#msg148234

I experience similar changes to my hashing rate as I vary the RAM.  The card type and core clock speeds are also important factors.  For the 1GHz 5850 I found 350-360 MHz to be optimal (worksize 256).

[1713890896]

1713890896

[teukon]

...that your 1000MHz figure is therefore more like 425.6 MH/s

Yea, it was pretty much around that.  I may try some alternate kernels to see if I can't milk a bit more from it but I think it's pretty much topped out.

I think this is looking pretty much maximal but could be wrong.  As you're using Windows perhaps you could try the Catalyst 11.7 preview if you haven't already.

[Tx2000]

Guess it's not maximal  

Tried diapolo's modified kernel as you mentioned and I was able to push it a bit more through phoenix miner


432.5





I may try some other driver versions but seems like this is a good mix so far

[teukon]

Guess it's not maximal  

Tried diapolo's modified kernel as you mentioned and I was able to push it a bit more through phoenix miner

432.5

I may try some other driver versions but seems like this is a good mix so far

Woah! I thought you were already using his latest kernel!  I can't recall whether or not this was SDK 2.1 or SDK 2.4 but I'm guessing the former (I'm fairly sure it would be the faster of the two here).

I guess this would be 428.3 MH/s at 1GHz.  Surely I wouldn't gain 12.8 MH/s just from going from Catalyst 11.6 to Catalyst 11.4.  Do you think that with Catalyst 11.6 you would sink all the way to 415.5 MH/s? surely not.  I guess there's something else going on here allowing you such high hash rates but can't think what it would be.  If you have any ideas as to what I'm missing then the 0.4 BTC I offered is still available.  Hopefully Catalyst 11.7 will perform better than 11.6 and I very much look forward to that.

For now I'll focus on making my cards stable at high clock rates.  At stock volts I seem to be ok at 980 MHz (406.9 MH/s) and 1030 MHz (428.0 MH/s) on my two cards.  Temperature seems to make a big difference so I'm glad I've got good after-market coolers.  I had some fun putting the fans to maximum and opening the door and window to see how far my cards would go.  My good card held it's own for 10 minutes at 1045 MHz (stock voltage).  When I increased it to 1050 MHz it crashed instantly (42*C).  My card is definitely not stable at these higher clock rates.

[Tx2000]

Yea I'm not sure what it is to be honest, some hoodoo magic or something.  Certainly nothing I've done aside from overclock.  It's SDK 2.4; I'll see if I can try SDK 2.1 but I'm weary of the issues of switching SDKs.  I'll keep you updated as I try different things.

[teukon]

Yea I'm not sure what it is to be honest, some hoodoo magic or something.  Certainly nothing I've done aside from overclock.  It's SDK 2.4; I'll see if I can try SDK 2.1 but I'm weary of the issues of switching SDKs.  I'll keep you updated as I try different things.

I wasn't aware that switching SDKs was difficult.  On Linux you are able to install both simultaneously and switching between them can be as easy as changing the destination of a symbolic link.  It's about as difficult as changing a kernel.  I'd quite like to find a way of switching between drivers easily on Linux but at the moment I can't find a way of doing it without a reboot!  If it's difficult/dangerous/unpredictable then don't worry.  I think the improvement will only be 2-3 MH/s or so.

Actually, thinking about the figures, it's quite possible that Catalyst 11.4 works better with SDK 2.4 and Catalyst 11.6 works better with SDK 2.1.  This could explain the 12.8 MH/s difference.  If I'm right about this you may actually lose 3-4 MH/s or so with SDK 2.1.  I might test this later but I'm currently running testing the stability of my cards.

[spudhed]

I win.
http://i52.tinypic.com/1z522ag.jpg

how did you get that techpowerup gputool to display the data from your card, when i run it im told my clocks are at 14mhz and no temp info, want to get the vrm temps up, i grow concerned at my 1.243v overclock, it seems stable enough but id rather be sure

[spudhed]

another question for the clockers out there, im using trixx and it maxes out at 1000mhz, the app doesnt seem let me go any higher. however at my reccomendation a friend bought the same 5850 cards as i have, at first he too could only clock to 1000mhz but then it suddenly allowed him to go higher (currently 1032)  does anyone know how i can make trixx take more mhz for me too, he tells me he didnt do anything at all to make it happen and i need it, i know itll give me more and i cant let him beat me, i just cant!

EDIT

for some reason a restart brought mine into working too, if i push it further it will go all the way to 1050mhz (428MH/s) but not stable enough and i fear for the vrm temps as the monitors ive found dont seem to work. i think modding some cooling for the vrms is the answer if i want more out of it so thats this weekends task, but as always it has to be applied fast as i hate downtime, currently running 1015mhz getting 415MH/s

[gellimac]

new record?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Wuked]

I cant get over 1000mhz one 1 5850 , but I've got 3 of them at 915hmhz...

I can't change the voltage of any of them

[spudhed]

you know what, i hate you but i shall persevere, once i cool those vrms ill be pushing more

[nebiki]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

[teukon]

new record?

Unfortunately not but that is a damn good hash rate but then 1055 MHz is a very high clock.  I feel that it should be possible to get more MH/s at that clock rate but is your card stable at that rate?  How long did you run the miner for?

I decided to overvolt my good 5850 from stock (1.0875V) to 1.25V and see what it could do.  It managed to hold 1110 MHz under load for 3 hours (finally dying when I got adventurous and tried to start mining on my other card) and managed 461.1 MH/s with very few stales.  I posted about this here.  You can get a screenshot here and I have pictures of my rig here.  Admittedly, I have the advantages of Linux without any GUI, very good aftermarket coolers, and lowish ambient temperatures where I am (peaking at 21*C in the middle of the day).

I was proud to have beaten the highest claimed 5870 record but it wasn't long until scifimike12 took his water cooled 5870s to an astonishing 501 MH/s (which ran for an hour before he turned it down).

Needless to say, I do not run at 461.1 MH/s all the time.  I'm not very concerned about the voltage or heat and I'm not convinced it's not profitable but there was simply far to much noise.  428 MH/s at stock volts and 50% fans is ok for now and I'm going to undervolt my cards and turn down the fans once my power meter finally arrives.

[teukon]

I cant get over 1000mhz one 1 5850 , but I've got 3 of them at 915hmhz...

I can't change the voltage of any of them

Without changing the voltage it's hard to get a 5850 to 1GHz.  The most important factors seem to be system stability (don't drive a GUI and mine with the same card) and low temperature (certainly less than 60*C).

Just incase your inability to increase the voltage on your cards is a software issue, I'm able to change the voltage by using Catalyst 11.6 and AMDOverdriveCtrl (editing the .odrv profile for higher voltage, a GUI slider may not go beyond 1.0875V).  This is on Linux but I can't imagine it's harder on Windows.  No BIOS flashing or Trixx should be required.  Older versions of Catalyst will suffice if you only want to decrease your voltage.  I cannot make my voltage increase beyond 1.3V with this method.

[gellimac]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

are you sure increase for 0.2V give 50% more power consumption?

new record?

Unfortunately not but that is a damn good hash rate but then 1055 MHz is a very high clock.  I feel that it should be possible to get more MH/s at that clock rate but is your card stable at that rate?  How long did you run the miner for?

I decided to overvolt my good 5850 from stock (1.0875V) to 1.25V and see what it could do.  It managed to hold 1110 MHz under load for 3 hours (finally dying when I got adventurous and tried to start mining on my other card) and managed 461.1 MH/s with very few stales.  I posted about this here.  You can get a screenshot here and I have pictures of my rig here.  Admittedly, I have the advantages of Linux without any GUI, very good aftermarket coolers, and lowish ambient temperatures where I am (peaking at 21*C in the middle of the day).

I was proud to have beaten the highest claimed 5870 record but it wasn't long until scifimike12 took his water cooled 5870s to an astonishing 501 MH/s (which ran for an hour before he turned it down).

Needless to say, I do not run at 461.1 MH/s all the time.  I'm not very concerned about the voltage or heat and I'm not convinced it's not profitable but there was simply far to much noise.  428 MH/s at stock volts and 50% fans is ok for now and I'm going to undervolt my cards and turn down the fans once my power meter finally arrives.

are you talking about a 5870?
I am on a 5850. I run it for 10min it was limit stable I touch the mouse => BSOD. But now I mine at 426MH/s with a 1040MHz clock stable.

[nebiki]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

are you sure increase for 0.2V give 50% more power consumption?

well, around that, yes. maybe 30%.

[Jack of Diamonds]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

are you sure increase for 0.2V give 50% more power consumption

The more you add the quicker it adds up (exponentially)

So yes, at the levels shown in this thread, 0.2V increments will result in 20-30% bigger power draws

At 1.3V or above you are already crossing a negative threshold
(you will be paying more for electricity than you will earn from the extra few dozen mhash/s

But as long as people just want to see a 'big number' without caring how much electricity is required to produce it, go ahead..
Or the fact the VRM will die in a month.

[teukon]

are you talking about a 5870?
I am on a 5850. I run it for 10min it was limit stable I touch the mouse => BSOD. But now I mine at 426MH/s with a 1040MHz clock stable.

No, I'm talking about a 5850, in particular a Sapphire HD5850 Xtreme.  This particular card is built with the 40nm process and looks like a 6950 but has the essential structure of a standard 5850.  It will go to 1030 MHz on stock voltage provided I keep it cool enough and will run happily at that speed for days at a time without freezing.  To get more than 1030 MHz I had to increase the voltage and the increase from stock (1.0875V) to 1.25V was sufficient to make 1110 semi-stable (it only lasted 3 hours).  Indeed, the card went to 1130 MHz but was not stable (lasted only 90 seconds).

I'm sure the low temperature (about 55*C) and lack of a GUI made a difference to my maximum stable overclock.  In particular, I can't tell you whether or not mouse movement would have crashed the card because there was no mouse to move.  I'm sure if I was mining in a GUI environment I'd have to drop 50 MHz off of my clock to get stability, and another 40 MHz if the GPU was over 70*C.

I posted on the 5870 thread rather than here because they were interested in maximum speed whereas here we were more interested at maximum speed at 1GHz core.

[teukon]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

are you sure increase for 0.2V give 50% more power consumption

The more you add the quicker it adds up (exponentially)

So yes, at the levels shown in this thread, 0.2V increments will result in 20-30% bigger power draws

At 1.3V or above you are already crossing a negative threshold
(you will be paying more for electricity than you will earn from the extra few dozen mhash/s

But as long as people just want to see a 'big number' without caring how much electricity is required to produce it, go ahead..
Or the fact the VRM will die in a month.

I do not deny the diminishing returns of increasing voltage but I don't understand why increasing voltage will increase power consumption exponentially and perhaps you can explain why?

If you increase the voltage (assuming no change in electrical resistance of the cards circuitry) then the current will increase in proportion (Voltage = Current * Resistance) and therefore the power consumption will increase quadratically (Power = Voltage * Current), not exponentially!  In real life the increased current will increases the temperature of the circuitry and therefore the electrical resistance so the growth of power with respect to voltage will actually be a little slower than quadratic.  Increasing clock rate will increase power consumption approximately linearly as far as I understand so if you increase both voltage and clock rate by 10% you might draw around 23% more power.

I simply cannot see how voltage and power can have an exponential relationship.

[teukon]

you guys don't actually get it. why would you want to invest like 50% more power consumption for a mere 30 mhash/s? is this a benchmark? try benchmarking actual mining efficiency.

Alright, I'll say this one more time.

Running your cards at high voltages or temperatures for extended periods will likely cause the cards to die prematurely.  These records should be taken as a measure of potential and can be useful for comparison but for most circumstances will not be profitable for long periods (considering power costs, card depriciation, or both).

If you are concerned only with maximum profit then this thread is not for you (unless you have no power or hardware costs and limited time) but you might hope to reap the benefits of the work done here in the long run.

When my power meter finally arrives I'll be undervolting my cards and looking for high MH/J scores then.  I'll make a thread for this when I'm ready and perhaps you'll find it more useful but, just as here, it will be for research and NOT recommended for maximum profit.