Bitcoin Forum
September 18, 2019, 12:22:15 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Antminer Z9 mini overclocked  (Read 22842 times)
jhax01
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 03:06:53 AM
 #101

675 here for the last 24hrs.  One straggler is averaging 14.5K but the rest are 15-16K at the pool.  Other than the bullsh*t surprise import tax, I'm satisfied.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Joykiller
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 03:10:02 AM
 #102

675 here for the last 24hrs.  One straggler is averaging 14.5K but the rest are 15-16K at the pool.  Other than the bullsh*t surprise import tax, I'm satisfied.

You notice the chips cant seem to handle as well as the first batch? Like these ones are fairly hot? Mines running 14.9 with 675 and temps are like 72c It's 77f in this room ambient.
jhax01
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 03:18:07 AM
 #103

675 here for the last 24hrs.  One straggler is averaging 14.5K but the rest are 15-16K at the pool.  Other than the bullsh*t surprise import tax, I'm satisfied.

You notice the chips cant seem to handle as well as the first batch? Like these ones are fairly hot? Mines running 14.9 with 675 and temps are like 72c It's 77f in this room ambient.

I have two that are running warm-ish, 65-68 at the moment, but the others are 58-62 in 74F ambient.  I have the fans set at 95% tho, so they are pretty noisy.
Joykiller
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 06:27:15 AM
 #104

Yep about the same here, thankfully summer is ending.
olivergaryccm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 07:40:45 AM
 #105

How did you guys managed to change the clock setting? For the new batch I only see "balanced" in the advanced options. My previous miner from batch one I can simply change to 750Mhz in the drop down. The new batch 2 miner do not have this option. Is it locked at 500Mhz?
grinbuck
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 68
Merit: 18


View Profile WWW
September 01, 2018, 09:12:23 AM
 #106

How did you guys managed to change the clock setting? For the new batch I only see "balanced" in the advanced options. My previous miner from batch one I can simply change to 750Mhz in the drop down. The new batch 2 miner do not have this option. Is it locked at 500Mhz?

This was discussed in this thread before. Check https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4610213.msg45002416#msg45002416

BTC: 37x5L8wq3pRxjDof6g2CnwgSrt34C5cFHy
Sebahl
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 95
Merit: 3


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 10:37:50 AM
 #107

I summarized the steps for overclocked a locked batch 2 Mini:
Use Google Chrome. Log into your Antminer and go to the tab where you would change the frequency (now you only see 'balanced' there). Press F12 which opens the console to see the website code. Press Ctrl+f to search this for ant_freq. You will see that the balanced profile is equal to a clock frequency of 500Mhz. Here you can edit the number (in the code) to whatever you like (675 seems to be a safe bet) and then make sure you select the balanced profile in the antminer gui and click save/apply. You got yourself an overclocked batch 2 Z9 Mini.
mikxxy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 05:55:47 PM
 #108

Folks, it's pretty obvious what goning on with batch 2, namely "container garbage". Some times something goes wrong in the asic manufacturing process, i.e masking problems i.e adhesion,  lithographic mishappenings i.e operating misstakes, etc  the result, wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications, the whole batch is ruined, and is to be discarded (container garbage, some thimes picket up at nigths and used in "cheap apps, toys) BUT in this case BITMAIN descided not to discard them but use the to build "crappy" boards, and systematically place one in each Z9 mini, (i orded 2 of them and each has faulty board!) i would like call this as deviant behaviour unexpected from such a large company! Even if the they sold the device as with 10k specs is not the same product as the 1 batch as there ara unexpected changes i.e Balance and also to come a "turbo upgrade" as noteciced in config file, becuase of the failty batch they had to design a "new concept" compared to the first batch to "compensate". What worries my is that the big Z9 may be build on these chips, and if i'm rigth who nows how these devices will behave on short and long perspective?!?!

I also belive that the mini was to be discontiued inorder to push z9 big, and have cannibalization from running the mini in parallell (as every one would buy 3 minis 3XOV42Ksol/$2550 to achive the same performance but for less money, or 4xOC=64kSol/$3400 plus ability to use more more cupons as well, one for each device), as, the mini suddenly was reinstated, (what every marketing manager would call bad market strategy), underpins my theory that they had to come up with an emergency strategy! Note that their PR department beeing very active on this thread defending the 10k deal!
grinbuck
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 68
Merit: 18


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2018, 12:36:33 AM
 #109

snip ......wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications .... snip

Frankly I think this is a massive overreaction. No chip designed to be run at 10k and running comfortably at 14.5k can be rationally labelled as "not meeting specifications" just because some other chips previously ran at 16.5k.

BTC: 37x5L8wq3pRxjDof6g2CnwgSrt34C5cFHy
steemboatwilly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 12:54:03 AM
 #110

To unlock back the way we are complaining about not having, go to the Bitmain website and get the firmware. It should have a 500 at the end of it. Back your old one up and flash the new one. Problem solved.
mikxxy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 04:04:53 AM
 #111

snip ......wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications .... snip

Frankly I think this is a massive overreaction. No chip designed to be run at 10k and running comfortably at 14.5k can be rationally labelled as "not meeting specifications" just because some other chips previously ran at 16.5k.

snip ......wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications .... snip

Frankly I think this is a massive overreaction. No chip designed to be run at 10k and running comfortably at 14.5k can be rationally labelled as "not meeting specifications" just because some other chips previously ran at 16.5k.

You dont seem to know alot about ASIC production, things can wrong and then you have to discard the whole batch. We can all agree that the problem sits in ONE board. The Chips on them are not capable to run on higher freqvency. You DONT change the specs. in different batches, becuase 99% of the cost is in the making specs and production setup. The so called non-recurring engineering process, the production of singel chips does not cost many pennies each, 1-5%. So who belives that they redesigned some chips to lower OC posibility and put in ONE board, and who thinks there migth be faulty chips caused by production errors and instead of discard them, they made boards of them wich was systematically put in each devive? The answer is obvious isnt it? or lets have have vote? Note the PR-guys are working hard here to find the rigth arguments to save the brand!!
mikxxy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 04:31:13 AM
 #112

snip ......wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications .... snip

Frankly I think this is a massive overreaction. No chip designed to be run at 10k and running comfortably at 14.5k can be rationally labelled as "not meeting specifications" just because some other chips previously ran at 16.5k.

snip ......wafers, cut dyes do not meet specfications .... snip

Frankly I think this is a massive overreaction. No chip designed to be run at 10k and running comfortably at 14.5k can be rationally labelled as "not meeting specifications" just because some other chips previously ran at 16.5k.

You dont seem to know alot about ASIC production, things can wrong and then you have to discard the whole batch. We can all agree that the problem sits in ONE board. The Chips on them are not capable to run on higher freqvency. You DONT change the specs. in different batches, becuase 99% of the cost is in the making specs and production setup. The so called non-recurring engineering process, the production of singel chips does not cost many pennies each, 1-5%. So who belives that they redesigned some chips to lower OC posibility and put in ONE board, and who thinks there migth be faulty chips caused by production errors and instead of discard them, they made boards of them wich was systematically put in each devive? The answer is obvious isnt it? or lets have have vote? Note the PR-guys are working hard here to find the rigth arguments to save the brand!!

But actually the above said is irrelevant becuase the delivered devices meets whats promised, 10k/sol. The OC expectations is something else. So in this perspective there is nothing wrong with the chips or the device it self. BUT the "irrelevant" expectations was any way a product of the company.
TGJ
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 118
Merit: 3


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 04:46:04 AM
 #113

I don’t think it’s limited to one board. I’ve had hardware failures on two out of the three boards on my machines.
grinbuck
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 68
Merit: 18


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2018, 05:15:23 AM
 #114

You dont seem to know alot about ASIC production, things .......

Yeah. I don't know a lot about ASIC production. I'm just quite happy with the second batch performance. Hope I'm happy about the profitability long enough to break even though!

BTC: 37x5L8wq3pRxjDof6g2CnwgSrt34C5cFHy
MrTBlock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 07:16:33 AM
 #115

My first bath all pull 750 Frequency with 16 to 17k Sols. Temp can be in high 50s with full fan or mid 60s on auto fan.

Second batch came with the balanced firmware where you cant adjust. I experimented with changing it manually and found anything over 700 a board would cut out. So im running second bath at 700 all stable and running at 15.5Sols and low 60s temp on auto fan.

Overall i would say they react to heat and fan speed exactly the same as the first batch. But second batch issnt as forgiving above 700 frequency.

L
Power supply is 1 APW3++ two every two z9 minis. Ambient temperature in the data centre is around 68 deg right now.
Strovu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 11:31:09 AM
 #116

Mine was working fine at 662 for 36 hours, then one of the board went to zero... I have to lower to 650. So maybe then run fine only at 500M finally...

I also strongly disagree with such marketing practices. They made sure the first batch would be perfect so all the reviewers would make free publicity for them about a 750M stable Z9mini then the orders should have flow in from people expecting the Z9 mini to all be like the ones they saw in the reviews. Also the first batch came in with new promises of transparency from Bitmain with the published log of each unit shipping but for batch 2 it'S radio silence again.
mikxxy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 01:56:27 PM
 #117

 Now there are specs. on Z9 big, as was not shown earlier.

Before power consumption was stated as 1250watt,now 970-1162watt. for big and 300watt for mini, now 247-266watt, so my conclusion that is another chip they using, probably changed the spec. and made a batch rerun, the instability in OC mode ithink is a secundary outcome, the primary goal was to lower energy consumption? or cheaper chip? Any way the first one is more stable and could probably run higher than 750 is changed manualy.
We can also see that there is 3 boards, total 48 chips (vs. mini's 12) so its a "full version", it also says it runs 42ksol/s normal and 44kSol/s in the supposed "Turbo mode"

I think it would be appropiate for the company to release an explantion to clear all the speculations that florish and demonize their company and damaging the Brand. That would be in their best intrest!


 

htautosjay
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 02:00:18 PM
 #118


 Now there are specs. on Z9 big, as was not shown earlier.

Before power consumption was stated as 1250watt,now 970-1162watt. for big and 300watt for mini, now 247-266watt, so my conclusion that is another chip they using, probably changed the spec. and made a batch rerun, the instability in OC mode ithink is a secundary outcome, the primary goal was to lower energy consumption? or cheaper chip? Any way the first one is more stable and could probably run higher than 750 is changed manualy.
We can also see that there is 3 boards, total 48 chips (vs. mini's 12) so its a "full version", it also says it runs 42ksol/s normal and 44kSol/s in the supposed "Turbo mode"


 


Has anyone taken delivery of a Z9 Big yet ?... Can you post what and if it will OC Please when you get it? 
Thanks
efudd
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 49


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 02:04:43 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1)
 #119

my 12 batch 1s can all run at 750Mhz and in my setup range from a stable 63C to 74C across them; a lot of variance.
2 of mine run fastest at 725Mhz.

All of them run "best" at 700Mhz or less -- best is a combination of heat vs. hashrate.

At max (750), mine do a stable 192kSol/sec with variance up to ~195.

At 700Mhz, mine do a stable 186kSol/sec with temps in a managable 72C or less.

My setup: https://imgur.com/a/6SBUt2S

(copying my setup as is would be a bad idea for reasons I don't have time to get into at the moment, but you cannot egress 1000cfm out of your house without other problems...).

The most ideal configuration is for 650Mhz across all of mine -- they are stable and cool with minimal (relative) airflow across them (and thus minimal impact to the house environment).

My point here is... even though I can make the batch1s not crash at 750Mhz, that isn't their ideal point. Any unit alone, I can get to 725/750, but when  I combine them all together and their heat impacts each other, 650-700 is ideal with minimal 'loss' in hashrate.
... Which puts them in line with the ~681mhz folk are seeing now.

Once my Z9s come in, I'll see how those chips work in comparison....

-j

efudd
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 49


View Profile
September 02, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
 #120


 Now there are specs. on Z9 big, as was not shown earlier.

Before power consumption was stated as 1250watt,now 970-1162watt. for big and 300watt for mini, now 247-266watt, so my conclusion that is another chip they using, probably changed the spec. and made a batch rerun, the instability in OC mode ithink is a secundary outcome, the primary goal was to lower energy consumption? or cheaper chip? Any way the first one is more stable and could probably run higher than 750 is changed manualy.
We can also see that there is 3 boards, total 48 chips (vs. mini's 12) so its a "full version", it also says it runs 42ksol/s normal and 44kSol/s in the supposed "Turbo mode"


 


Has anyone taken delivery of a Z9 Big yet ?... Can you post what and if it will OC Please when you get it? 
Thanks

I'm not sure that they have shipped yet -- but should "soon" per their support. As of yesterday there was not a certificate of conformity posted -- they might actually need that in order to ship through US customs, .. not sure.

-j

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 »  All
  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!