sadpandatech
|
|
November 07, 2011, 02:07:34 PM |
|
Thank you so much again for the quick response. Yea, minimal cost for sure. Do you know what the CFM, voltage and amperage are for those fans?
6.97 CFM 7 to 13.2V 0.06A @ 12V Ahh, very friendly numbers. Thanks again. =)
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 07, 2011, 02:52:42 PM |
|
I got a question about that. Does GPL protect your IP from a "covert distro". Meaning someone take your code, tweaks it to get 3% more performance and then sells FGPA already loaded with it. They still have to release the source code of their improvements right?
Bitstream cannot be stored permanently in the FPGA, i.e. Bitstream is uploaded by the software during the start-up. But besides of that, source code has also be released if firmware or bitstream is 'hidden in hardware'. Good to know. Would hate to see a competitor gain (beyond what GPL allows) from your awesome code. Hopefully someone does improve upon that in the future but any improvements should be shared w/ all FPGA capable hardware.
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 08, 2011, 09:30:23 PM |
|
Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week. I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results: At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V. On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary. IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 08, 2011, 09:38:15 PM |
|
Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week. I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results: At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V. On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary. IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it. Nice to know. You didn't by any chance get power draw (amps) did you?
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 08, 2011, 10:10:38 PM |
|
Would like to know the amp draw as well. If it is the same it would be 8.78 watts at 200MHz
Pls remove my private data. Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192)
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 08, 2011, 10:13:39 PM |
|
Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192) Solid. Still above 20MH/W. Sure beats the ~2.5MH/W I get with GPUs now.
|
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
|
November 08, 2011, 10:13:42 PM |
|
Pls remove my private data.
Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192)
fixed but its stuck in your quote for now... Thanks for the numbers.
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
|
November 10, 2011, 02:59:56 PM |
|
Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week. I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results: At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V. On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary. IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it. I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage. Can you verify the voltages for given resistor combo in R12 and R13? I.e., am I reading correctly that; R12 @1.3kOhms, R13 @2.4kOhms = 1.23v? R12 @1.3kOhms, R13 @2.2kOhms = 1.27v or 1.30v? R12 @1.2kOhms, R13 @2.4kOhms = 1.27v? R12 @1.2kOhms, R13 @2.2kOhms = 1.30v or 1.32v? Thanks in advance for your patience in answering such simple questions! I have not read resistor color bars or done Ohms resistance calculations for going on 15 years now. ;p I.e, TC boards at last hi-tech jobs were 90% throw away and only about 10% actual 're-design/verification' of circuits. sad sad, I know, but its cheaper to outsource that engineering these days for most 'non-custom design' companies. =) Cheers
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 11, 2011, 02:12:39 PM |
|
I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage.
1.23V is still save. The core voltage is calculated by VCCINT = (R12/R13+1)*0.8V
|
|
|
|
btc_artist
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 102
Bitcoin!
|
|
November 11, 2011, 03:32:59 PM |
|
This looks quite interesting (watching topic)
|
BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
|
November 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM Last edit: November 11, 2011, 11:02:07 PM by sadpandatech |
|
I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage.
1.23V is still save. The core voltage is calculated by VCCINT = (R12/R13+1)*0.8V Thanks for the formula, that clears up everything. *slaps head* I was bass ackwards and was thinking, for whatever dumb reason that lowering R12 resistance would raise the out voltage. doh. ;p I got it now. Thank you again!! Any plan to test R13 with a 2k Ohm? Maybe just a 2k1 to be safer first. Push it until it POPs, m8. ;p Cheers, Derek
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 11, 2011, 09:31:59 PM |
|
Any plan to test R13 with a 2k Ohm? Maybe just a 2k1 to be safer first. Pust it until it POPs, m8. ;p
I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 14, 2011, 02:20:18 PM |
|
Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?
A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity.
|
|
|
|
trilby
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
|
November 14, 2011, 05:37:26 PM |
|
Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?
A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity. I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 14, 2011, 05:41:14 PM |
|
Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?
A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity. I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page Fixed. Try it again.
|
|
|
|
trilby
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
|
November 14, 2011, 05:46:32 PM Last edit: November 14, 2011, 06:35:06 PM by trilby |
|
Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?
A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity. I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page Fixed. Try it again. Just out of curiosity what is the command structure for using backup pools, Is it like this -host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -host pool2 -u user2 -p pass2 How is the backup pool system working is it priority based e.g if pool 1 is down, does it switch to pool 2 untill pool 1 is active and switch back to it. edit: Just read the -help file and seen the structure
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 14, 2011, 06:52:57 PM |
|
Just out of curiosity what is the command structure for using backup pools, Is it like this -host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -host host2 -u user2 -p pass2 How is the backup pool system working is it priority based e.g if pool 1 is down, does it switch to pool 2 untill pool 1 is active and switch back to it. See the section "General usage". Backup pools are specified by -b. Due to backward The syntax is a little bit strange: -host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -b host2 user2 pass2 -b host3 user3 pass3 ...
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 25, 2011, 02:28:33 PM |
|
I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.
Here are the results of the 1.3V test: With the current BTCMiner version the test board achieved 208 MHz at an error rate of about 2%. Due to the absolute maximum voltage of 1.32V and due to the voltage overshoots caused by the inductor at load removal I do not recommend more than 1.27V. I will switch the production from 1.23V to 1.25V.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 25, 2011, 02:39:32 PM |
|
I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.
Here are the results of the 1.3V test: With the current BTCMiner version the test board achieved 208 MHz at an error rate of about 2%. Due to the absolute maximum voltage of 1.32V and due to the voltage overshoots caused by the inductor at load removal I do not recommend more than 1.27V. I will switch the production from 1.23V to 1.25V. How much does the bump from 1.23V to 1.25V raise effective hashing rate. So it is: 1.23V 192 MH/s w/ 0% error rate = 192 MH/s effective (old production) 1.25V ?? (new production) 1.27V 200 MH/s w/ 0% error rate = 200MH/s effective (overvolting) 1.30V 208 MH/s w 2% error rate = 204MH/s effective (not recommended)
|
|
|
|
ztex (OP)
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
ZTEX FPGA Boards
|
|
November 25, 2011, 07:28:23 PM |
|
How much does the bump from 1.23V to 1.25V raise effective hashing rate.
Typical hash hate will be 194 MH/s. Some FPGA boards will achieve 200 MH/s at a small error rate and some Boards will achieve 192 MH/s at (almost) no errors.
|
|
|
|
|