bensam123 (OP)
|
|
July 14, 2014, 04:55:43 PM |
|
So I'm a miner and hopped on the nist5 bandwagon. I'm not sure who came up with the power numbers, but they appear to be wrong. Using a kill-a-watt meter my power usage has increased. One of my systems I have the meter hooked up to has 5x r9-280s. x11 - ~910w, x13 - ~910w, x15 - ~905w, nist5 - ~980w. I'm using the same clocks and power settings across all of those.
I'm currently using the sgminer build from the icebergcoin thread and getting around 12mhs per card on nist5. Is this what other people are getting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
July 14, 2014, 05:08:02 PM |
|
So I'm a miner and hopped on the nist5 bandwagon. I'm not sure who came up with the power numbers, but they appear to be wrong. Using a kill-a-watt meter my power usage has increased. One of my systems I have the meter hooked up to has 5x r9-280s. x11 - ~910w, x13 - ~910w, x15 - ~905w, nist5 - ~980w. I'm using the same clocks and power settings across all of those.
I'm currently using the sgminer build from the icebergcoin thread and getting around 12mhs per card on nist5. Is this what other people are getting?
the low power efficiency was a "feature" of the old amd drivers where the hashrate on groestl was pretty bad. If you were trying to put an iceberg near a gpu farm running nist5, he would melt very fast
|
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
captainbluff
|
|
July 14, 2014, 11:51:04 PM |
|
So I'm a miner and hopped on the nist5 bandwagon. I'm not sure who came up with the power numbers, but they appear to be wrong. Using a kill-a-watt meter my power usage has increased. One of my systems I have the meter hooked up to has 5x r9-280s. x11 - ~910w, x13 - ~910w, x15 - ~905w, nist5 - ~980w. I'm using the same clocks and power settings across all of those.
I'm currently using the sgminer build from the icebergcoin thread and getting around 12mhs per card on nist5. Is this what other people are getting?
Yes I finally got my lazy ass to test out the power consumption and I can confirm on my end that Nist5 use more power than x11 and x15. I think I'm going to stop mining nist15 now. 4 x 280x on x11/x13 - roughly between 610 - 640 watts ( using pcCoolers's mod version ) 4 x 280x on nist5 - roughly between 720 - 735 watts ( using talkcoin-miner from iceberg thread )
|
|
|
|
SpeedDemon13
|
|
July 15, 2014, 12:34:46 AM |
|
Only thing I see that is power efficient is the ratio of hashrate per watt, but otherwise it runs hotter/higher wattage than X11,X13,X15, Hefty-1 and other algos.
|
CRYPTSY exchange: https://www.cryptsy.com/users/register?refid=9017 BURST= BURST-TE3W-CFGH-7343-6VM6R BTC=1CNsqGUR9YJNrhydQZnUPbaDv6h4uaYCHv ETH=0x144bc9fe471d3c71d8e09d58060d78661b1d4f32 SHF=0x13a0a2cb0d55eca975cf2d97015f7d580ce52d85 EXP=0xd71921dca837e415a58ca0d6dd2223cc84e0ea2f SC=6bdf9d12a983fed6723abad91a39be4f95d227f9bdb0490de3b8e5d45357f63d564638b1bd71 CLAMS=xGVTdM9EJpNBCYAjHFVxuZGcqvoL22nP6f SOIL=0x8b5c989bc931c0769a50ecaf9ffe490c67cb5911
|
|
|
SavageWS6
Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 10
|
|
July 15, 2014, 01:09:17 AM Last edit: July 15, 2014, 01:32:53 AM by SavageWS6 |
|
My post from other threads 6 Days straight so far, no issues here. X11mod 280x > 270 > 270 > 270 Sapphire 280X w/ Stilt BIOS Dual-X Windows 8.1 x64, 14.6 Drivers @ 1150 mV using TRIXX. My card is stubborn so that's why it's only hashing at that rate. And yes I think I'm using sgminer version from the first post, I don't remember First values are the 280x "intensity" : "18,17,17,17", "thread-concurrency" : "8192,6401,6401,6401", "lookup-gap" : "2", "gpu-threads" : "2", "worksize" : "256,128,128,128", "expiry" : "1", "queue" : "1", "gpu-engine" : "1120,1120,1120,1110", "gpu-memclock" : "1500,1500,1500,1500", Here is NIST5 I'm pulling 585 Watts, reading via my Kill-A-Watt. I'm pulling less power on NIST5 than X11, and my configs are the same. My Kill-A-Watt doesn't lie
|
BTC: 1NLNtXmdLVhS25xMk2neh2viHPDHEfdrGZ MYR: MQvEmxAhAhdN5rfmJsChJ3mN8CUEs9iCn6
|
|
|
CounterStrike
|
|
July 15, 2014, 01:20:47 AM |
|
So I'm a miner and hopped on the nist5 bandwagon. I'm not sure who came up with the power numbers, but they appear to be wrong. Using a kill-a-watt meter my power usage has increased. One of my systems I have the meter hooked up to has 5x r9-280s. x11 - ~910w, x13 - ~910w, x15 - ~905w, nist5 - ~980w. I'm using the same clocks and power settings across all of those.
I'm currently using the sgminer build from the icebergcoin thread and getting around 12mhs per card on nist5. Is this what other people are getting?
I always though nist5 have lower energy usage then the rest. Did you increase the clock or something?
|
|
|
|
Fioravante
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
|
|
July 16, 2014, 04:05:28 PM |
|
What voltage you got on the core? That may be the reason.
|
|
|
|
VegasMiner
Member
Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2014, 09:16:03 AM |
|
I also can confirm NIST5 uses both more wattage and more amperage in my readings. My temperatures were also slightly higher. I would see a gain of 60-85 watt per 4 card rig. All of my rigs are undervolted through BIOS mod so that shouldn't have been a factor in my readings. I may get 150 Mh/s total with NIST5 but I don't think many of the coins are worth it quite yet to switch algorithms.
|
|
|
|
Eastwind
|
|
July 18, 2014, 12:46:35 PM |
|
I also can confirm NIST5 uses both more wattage and more amperage in my readings. My temperatures were also slightly higher. I would see a gain of 60-85 watt per 4 card rig. All of my rigs are undervolted through BIOS mod so that shouldn't have been a factor in my readings. I may get 150 Mh/s total with NIST5 but I don't think many of the coins are worth it quite yet to switch algorithms.
Same here. About 5-8% more.
|
|
|
|
Bombadil
|
|
July 18, 2014, 11:50:25 PM Last edit: July 19, 2014, 02:31:15 PM by Bombadil |
|
My nvidia rig: 1x gtx760 & 2x gtx750ti, factory-default OC. (Also fileserver, general usage, dev pc, ...) | Total hashrate (MH/s) | Total wattage (kill-o-watt) | GTX760 MSI Gaming Temp | GTX750TI Gigabyte Temp | GTX750TI EVGA SC Temp | CryptoNight | 630 h/s | 285 | 59 | 51 | 45 | HVC | 35 | 323 | 62 | 55 | 50 | Fresh | 9.5 | 345 | 64 | 54 | 49 | Qubit | 12 | 350 | 65 | 55 | 50 | Keccak | 416 | 362 | 67 | 58 | 53 | X11 | 7.3 | 365 | 66 | 57 | 53 | X13 | 5.8 | 365 | 66 | 57 | 52 | X15 | 4.5 | 365 | 65 | 56 | 51 | JPC | 15 | 380 | 67 | 58 | 52 | Quark | 12.4 | 383 | 66 | 58 | 53 | NIST5 | 22.7 | 385 | 68 | 59 | 53 | Groestl | 21.5 | 385 | 67 | 59 | 54 | Scrypt | 0.9 | 450 | 73 | 58 | 53 |
EDIT: I accidentally just found this too: http://cryptomining-blog.com/3036-power-usage-of-geforce-gtx-750-ti-with-various-crypto-algorithms/
|
|
|
|
|