Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 06:22:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Hacking The KNC Firmware: Overclocking  (Read 143276 times)
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 11:27:00 PM
 #761

Got my second October 4VRM Jupiter in and on first bootup worked fine for a few hours.  I updated to 1.0 to test and I noticed when I turned off SPI Auto.

I've tried the hit it with SPI 3.3 and max voltage.  Let it run a few hours like that.  I have had them drop when OC to high but this I can't seem to rescue.

There is it at max voltage on that one.  I've swapped back to .99.1 , .99.2 and 1.0 and can't seem to get it to jump back up.

I've tried running 231 and 221 but sadly nothing helped kick that one up even.  Sad

Any other suggestions so I can put this Jupiter to a happy # Wink

Take a screen shot of all your current die settings and save to paint, you may need to zoom out on browser to do this. Then hit reset to default. This may work, then just set everything back.

The other way would be to create more heat. Remove heatsink fan or my preferred method is to place a large durable zip lock bag over the heatsink and fan.
1513578127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513578127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513578127
Reply with quote  #2

1513578127
Report to moderator
1513578127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513578127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513578127
Reply with quote  #2

1513578127
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513578127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513578127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513578127
Reply with quote  #2

1513578127
Report to moderator
1513578127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513578127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513578127
Reply with quote  #2

1513578127
Report to moderator
1513578127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513578127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513578127
Reply with quote  #2

1513578127
Report to moderator
crashoveride54902
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


Dream become broken often


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 11:54:12 PM
 #762

A warning:

For you brave souls that have enabled all 8 VRMS (early Octobers) I saw today that the 1.0.0 firmware does not apply the voltage adjustment to all 8 VRMs. It only applies it to the 4 that are officially enabled. The old FW applied this adjustment to all VRMs.

The VRMs work in pairs and if the voltage adjustment (VOUT_TRIM register) of the 2 VRMs in a pair is different things will go bad.

If you still want to use all 8 VRMs I suggest you read and understand the datasheet of the VRM.
The VRMs are very resilient to abuse, but they have limits.


Other than that FW 1.0.0 works very good. HW errors have dropped a lot for me. Good chips are close to 0% errors (2% before), bad chips still close to 2%.

THanks to his help via IRC I was able to update fw and still use my 2 8vrm boards...and my hw error droped down to .11% from .25% yay hopefully it stays that low as i just restarted...Thxs bondus

do you care to share bondus help?

i would post his script if he gave me permission too...he's not on IRC so i can't ask him Sad sorry

Dreams of cyprto solving everything is slowly slipping away...Replaced by scams/hacks Sad
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 11:58:06 PM
 #763



I have inspected what the November firmware has actually changed.

What I can see it has changed a value in one of the registers in the VRMs. It has set the "ON" bit in the OPERATIONS register,changing what conditions are needed to turn the VRMs on.
This change will be permanent even if rebooted or power-cycled. It can be changed using i2c commands:


Turn all VRMs on:

#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0

for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
        for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
                i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x80 >/dev/null 2>&1
        done
done


Restore to factory settings:

#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0

for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
        for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
                i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x0 >/dev/null 2>&1
        done
done


I suggest stopping cgminer before doing this to limit the power when the operation is done.

Reading the datasheet for the VRMs I can see that when using them in pairs (as we do when all are turned on) there are some requirements on how they should be turned on. This method does not do that!

I have heard that hizzing sound as well. Some boards do that. They did that on 0.90 firmware too. No idea why.

I do not know if this is safe or not, it might be unsafe and burn your boards.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 22, 2014, 12:17:42 AM
 #764

A warning:

For you brave souls that have enabled all 8 VRMS (early Octobers) I saw today that the 1.0.0 firmware does not apply the voltage adjustment to all 8 VRMs. It only applies it to the 4 that are officially enabled. The old FW applied this adjustment to all VRMs.

The VRMs work in pairs and if the voltage adjustment (VOUT_TRIM register) of the 2 VRMs in a pair is different things will go bad.

If you still want to use all 8 VRMs I suggest you read and understand the datasheet of the VRM.
The VRMs are very resilient to abuse, but they have limits.


Other than that FW 1.0.0 works very good. HW errors have dropped a lot for me. Good chips are close to 0% errors (2% before), bad chips still close to 2%.

THanks to his help via IRC I was able to update fw and still use my 2 8vrm boards...and my hw error droped down to .11% from .25% yay hopefully it stays that low as i just restarted...Thxs bondus

do you care to share bondus help?

i would post his script if he gave me permission too...he's not on IRC so i can't ask him Sad sorry

don't worry. I appriciated your attitude, and obviously it would be amazing if bondus grant you the permission to share such a script Tongue

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 22, 2014, 12:21:49 AM
 #765



I have inspected what the November firmware has actually changed.

What I can see it has changed a value in one of the registers in the VRMs. It has set the "ON" bit in the OPERATIONS register,changing what conditions are needed to turn the VRMs on.
This change will be permanent even if rebooted or power-cycled. It can be changed using i2c commands:


Turn all VRMs on:

#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0

for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
        for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
                i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x80 >/dev/null 2>&1
        done
done


Restore to factory settings:

#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0

for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
        for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
                i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x0 >/dev/null 2>&1
        done
done


I suggest stopping cgminer before doing this to limit the power when the operation is done.

Reading the datasheet for the VRMs I can see that when using them in pairs (as we do when all are turned on) there are some requirements on how they should be turned on. This method does not do that!

I have heard that hizzing sound as well. Some boards do that. They did that on 0.90 firmware too. No idea why.

I do not know if this is safe or not, it might be unsafe and burn your boards.

I was not referring to this particular script/functionality, i.e. enabling all VRMs.

Bondus said that 1.00 do not apply voltage settings to all the VRMs even if they are all enabled, this is bad because the VRMs are supposed to work in couple by desing. Having different voltage settings on coupled VRMs could demage the HW.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
crashoveride54902
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


Dream become broken often


View Profile
February 22, 2014, 06:25:25 AM
 #766



I have inspected what the November firmware has actually changed.

What I can see it has changed a value in one of the registers in the VRMs. It has set the "ON" bit in the OPERATIONS register,changing what conditions are needed to turn the VRMs on.
This change will be permanent even if rebooted or power-cycled. It can be changed using i2c commands:


I suggest stopping cgminer before doing this to limit the power when the operation is done.

Reading the datasheet for the VRMs I can see that when using them in pairs (as we do when all are turned on) there are some requirements on how they should be turned on. This method does not do that!

I have heard that hizzing sound as well. Some boards do that. They did that on 0.90 firmware too. No idea why.

I do not know if this is safe or not, it might be unsafe and burn your boards.

I was not referring to this particular script/functionality, i.e. enabling all VRMs.

Bondus said that 1.00 do not apply voltage settings to all the VRMs even if they are all enabled, this is bad because the VRMs are supposed to work in couple by desing. Having different voltage settings on coupled VRMs could demage the HW.

ya he changed something to that script to make it work with 1.0 Smiley but i wonder why he didn't post it here yet?

Dreams of cyprto solving everything is slowly slipping away...Replaced by scams/hacks Sad
padrino
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


https://www.bitworks.io


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2014, 06:41:53 PM
 #767

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

1CPi7VRihoF396gyYYcs2AdTEF8KQG2BCR
https://www.bitworks.io
j03
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62



View Profile WWW
February 22, 2014, 07:15:57 PM
 #768

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

This may answer your question:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313978.msg5108870#msg5108870

1MYwxy8TniWL37y3ueG2cN6i5eQ49Fr19Q
padrino
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


https://www.bitworks.io


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2014, 09:03:06 PM
 #769

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

This may answer your question:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313978.msg5108870#msg5108870

Thanks for pointing it out, I had looked at that before posting, I wish it did but following the logic in that post I can see how he is stepping up but not how one converts between frequencies and the hex setting.

1CPi7VRihoF396gyYYcs2AdTEF8KQG2BCR
https://www.bitworks.io
tolip_wen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 12:48:32 AM
 #770

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

*approximate equation

take the first 2 digits the '21'
convert hex to decimal to get 33
multiply 33 x 25MHz and ya get 825MHZ
(add 25MHz to your answer)
The last digit is the divisor, it's 1 so we are done.

YMMV
Smiley

'twisted research and opinion' donations happily accepted @
13362fxFAdrhagmCvSmFy4WoHrNRPG2V57
My sub 1337 vanity address Wink
tolip_wen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 01:35:59 AM
 #771

TRAGEDY!

I cooked a blue PCI extender.
One corner of the white connector on the end of the blue extender is now black and crunchy.

(puts on hater hat)
This is typically caused by a poor crimp or stretched out female socket on the crimped part.
(along with too small a wire gauge used, no 'margin on margin' on that part!)
Why such a shitty part on an expensive product?
(removes hat)

EDIT: in typical hater fashion I spake before I had all the data.
Post mortem indicates damage at both ends of the PSU cable and one end of the blue extension.
Determining the initial point of failure is unlikely and to point only to the KnCMiner extension is unfair.
To make that statement while overclocking is evidence of operator error.


Yes, I know better. (learning thru pain is what I do best!)
This box (a Saturn) was not too radical, it's still air cooled.
(about 180 WATT at the wall for this module)

Time to install second 6 pin PCIe power connector on each PCB.
Thx KnC for the option! Smiley

Ya get what ya play for!

All HW other than the extender cable survives

If you are reading this and still using the blue extenders you have an option!
Learn from others mistakes, or not!


YMMV
Smiley

'twisted research and opinion' donations happily accepted @
13362fxFAdrhagmCvSmFy4WoHrNRPG2V57
My sub 1337 vanity address Wink
padrino
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


https://www.bitworks.io


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2014, 01:50:54 AM
 #772

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

*approximate equation

take the first 2 digits the '21'
convert hex to decimal to get 33
multiply 33 x 25MHz and ya get 825MHZ
(add 25MHz to your answer)
The last digit is the divisor, it's 1 so we are done.

YMMV
Smiley

Thanks for the details, that helps some but the use of a 5 on the end confuses it some.. I'm wrapping up a custom firmware that opens the frequency settings however I need to set the registers manually as KNC is disallowing it in their binary tool. I have it all working just trying to get a stragithforward, yet reliable equation to flip the MHz to the proper hex but it's not looking good yet.

1CPi7VRihoF396gyYYcs2AdTEF8KQG2BCR
https://www.bitworks.io
tolip_wen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 02:47:42 AM
 #773

I might have overlooked something obvious but can someone tell me the math behind the HEX to MHz conversion, for example what is the equation that gets 211 equal to 850Mhz?

*approximate equation

take the first 2 digits the '21'
convert hex to decimal to get 33
multiply 33 x 25MHz and ya get 825MHZ
(add 25MHz to your answer)
The last digit is the divisor, it's 1 so we are done.

YMMV
Smiley

Thanks for the details, that helps some but the use of a 5 on the end confuses it some.. I'm wrapping up a custom firmware that opens the frequency settings however I need to set the registers manually as KNC is disallowing it in their binary tool. I have it all working just trying to get a stragithforward, yet reliable equation to flip the MHz to the proper hex but it's not looking good yet.

EDIT What I originally posted below is/was an inprogress draft, forkin kbd went south

Just guessing...
5 does not compute, or does it?
What I had assumed was the ASIC only cares about the last 2 bits.

Code:
Hexadecimal     Binary
0               0000
1               0001
2               0010
3               0011
4               0100
5               0101
6               0110
7               0111
8               1000
9               1001
A               1010
B               1011
C               1100
D               1101
E               1110
F               1111

If this is a correct guess 1,5,9,D all have the same last 2 bits.

I did briefly hunt for a third bit functionality but did not persue it due to knowing there is a limit on the clock that is divided.
Divide by 1 has the most potential at the top end.
Divide by 2 if you think you can get 12.5MHz more out of it.

A 3rd bit might equate to another divide by 2.

850MHz would be 874 if the last bit can be zero
or maybe
850MHz would be 875 if the last bit needs to be set

It seems in practice the clock potential far exceeds the power/thermal potential so nobody has reported a clock failure as the limiting factor.

Standard parachute rigger 'Line of Sight Guarantee' applies!
No idea what the ASIC thinks just documented reverse engineering and pattern matching.

EDIT #2
One thing to keep in mind.
Not sure how it applies to 28nm but, the clock itself uses power and slower is often more efficient.
A div by one may leave more for the hash cores to consume from the budget.

YMMV
Smiley

'twisted research and opinion' donations happily accepted @
13362fxFAdrhagmCvSmFy4WoHrNRPG2V57
My sub 1337 vanity address Wink
captain-v
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 04:16:43 AM
 #774

Got my second October 4VRM Jupiter in and on first bootup worked fine for a few hours.  I updated to 1.0 to test and I noticed when I turned off SPI Auto this:

http://i.imgur.com/YskroHj.jpg

I've tried the hit it with SPI 3.3 and max voltage.  Let it run a few hours like that.  I have had them drop when OC to high but this I can't seem to rescue.

http://i.imgur.com/Fcg0xqb.jpg

There is it at max voltage on that one.  I've swapped back to .99.1 , .99.2 and 1.0 and can't seem to get it to jump back up.

I've tried running 231 and 221 but sadly nothing helped kick that one up even.  Sad

Any other suggestions so I can put this Jupiter to a happy # Wink

I've been having the same problem until today on my O S+1. Now SPI @3.3V and die1 with -0.0806V and 675MHz made it work. I was getting higher rates with 231 around 450GH/s. Now with all other dies @775MHz total close to 425GH/s with less errors.... Also with all other dies at -0.1465V,  power dropped from 560W (w/ Stock values) to 460W at the wall.

Is there a way to 231 the other ASICs and leave this slepy die1 on ASIC alone @675MHz? Smiley
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 08:28:03 AM
 #775

about 4 days later i am still running 291/810w/790GH/1.5%HW

edit: i would say i would try going higher, but the 200w per board does worry me, but seems okay so far.
jelin1984
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 23, 2014, 01:24:46 PM
 #776

is ok 54a per vrm or is it
too high?HuhHuhHuh??
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 01:27:23 PM
 #777

is ok 54a per vrm or is it
too high?HuhHuhHuh??

yes. stop it running.
jelin1984
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 23, 2014, 02:14:00 PM
 #778

Which is the safe amper for running?


Is better to lower 725 MHz each vrm?
From default 775mhz?
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
February 23, 2014, 02:27:42 PM
 #779

Which is the safe amper for running?


Is better to lower 725 MHz each vrm?
From default 775mhz?

yes, no or maybe.....
jelin1984
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 23, 2014, 02:34:18 PM
 #780

Hahah

Not all the vrm at 54 only one or two at 54 amper

The other is at 43-48 amp
Is ok or too high

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!