|
omnik
|
 |
August 18, 2014, 10:03:16 AM |
|
omnik, Yes that looks OK.
My only concern is the DiffR number of 37,000+ though for nearly 2 days that may be OK. This could mean your latency to the ghash servers is high as I have come to find out that this number represents the stale shares (at least on ghash), but since ghash only shows the last 24 hrs then you will not be able to compare now.
Otherwise, looks good! What batch was this S3 if you know?
Thank you pekatete. Unfortunately I'm clueless regarding batch as I bought it from third party, and impossible to know from the unit itself. PS. I changed to nl1.ghash.io server, should be much better ping. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever mines the block which ends up containing your transaction will get its fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:17:23 AM |
|
PS. I changed to nl1.ghash.io server, should be much better ping.
Yep, makes sense to connect to a local / nearer server to reduce that latency and get less stales, thus you should get a marginally better return. I am amazed at the solidity of the S3's when overclocked comapred to the S1's. By the way, what power supply are you using and are you using all four connections? |
|
|
|
|
omnik
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:25:46 AM |
|
PS. I changed to nl1.ghash.io server, should be much better ping.
Yep, makes sense to connect to a local / nearer server to reduce that latency and get less stales, thus you should get a marginally better return. I am amazed at the solidity of the S3's when overclocked comapred to the S1's. By the way, what power supply are you using and are you using all four connections? Ping to NL1 server is 35ms, UK1 server I can't even ping  I'm using Cooler Master V850 http://www.coolermaster.com/powersupply/v-series-psu/v850/ with all 4 PCI-E connected. This PSU is possibly overkill so I will probably switch to Super Flower http://www.super-flower.com.tw/products_detail.php?class=2&sn=10&ID=56&lang=en |
|
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 18, 2014, 11:12:14 AM
Last edit: August 18, 2014, 11:35:36 AM by pekatete |
|
Ping to NL1 server is 35ms, UK1 server I can't even ping You will then certainly see a drop in the stales and and an increase in returns! I think both are overkills to a degree. From what I have read, @ 250M overclock, the unit consumes about 402 - 410 WATTS, thus it should be OK to run on a 550 WATT PSU with 80% efficiency. I am running one of my S3's on a second-hand server PSU rated at 550 WATTS that cost GBP 10.00 off fleabay, running off just 2 power connections @ 225M. I had to conjure up the power leads, but that did not cost as much as the PSU, and also had to fire up my solder-gun. I will try out 250M and 256.25M in the next couple of days to check on stability and if it does run OK at the higher overclock speeds, I'll definitely be looking at getting rid of all the other PSU's and reverting to the server PSU's. I need to lower the cost of this "operation" given the fall in BTC, the anticipated difficulty increase, the proliferation of miners and (at least here in the UK) the anticipated increase in power costs this coming September! By the way, the server PSU is the Dell PS-2521-1D EDIT: Actually, @ 410 WATTS, the calculation is 410/0.8 = 512.5 WATTS, so if one can get a PSU rated at such for a better price, then that would be it, but I think I am content thus far with the Dell server PSU which should be rated higher than 80% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cryptillian
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:38:00 PM |
|
hello i own 2 antminer s3 b5's is it recommended to download the latest firmware? i read mixed results but no definite answer. ty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phosphorous
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:46:37 PM |
|
hello i own 2 antminer s3 b5's is it recommended to download the latest firmware? i read mixed results but no definite answer. ty
Does it work and do what you need it to do? Then no. |
|
|
|
|
|
kaltar
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:51:02 PM |
|
hello i own 2 antminer s3 b5's is it recommended to download the latest firmware? i read mixed results but no definite answer. ty
Don't fix it if it ain't broken |
|
|
|
|
|
cryptillian
|
|
August 18, 2014, 10:53:11 PM |
|
yeah it works maybe some more frequencys to choose from since the give mixed results
|
|
|
|
|
axpguy
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
August 19, 2014, 12:17:52 AM |
|
JennaK /JeremyHalifax88 .....next time post with worker name blocked. Just happened to skim through here and saw you didnt and I recognize JeremyHalifax88 handle from posting on RFD!!!!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
gentacomp
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:05:14 AM |
|
Guys, any softmod can undervolt S3 ? Or I just need too lower its freq and power will adjusted ?
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:22:18 AM |
|
Guys, any softmod can undervolt S3 ? Or I just need too lower its freq and power will adjusted ?
Thanks...
If your intention is to draw less power from the wall, then yes, lowering the frequency will result in less power draw from the wall. |
|
|
|
|
gentacomp
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:28:44 AM |
|
Guys, any softmod can undervolt S3 ? Or I just need too lower its freq and power will adjusted ?
Thanks...
If your intention is to draw less power from the wall, then yes, lowering the frequency will result in less power draw from the wall. Thank you Sir... But what I see here : package 'cgminer'
config 'asic-freq' 'default'
#option 'freq_value' '0982' #502Gh/s 402W
#option 'chip_freq' '250'
#option 'timeout' '16'
#option 'freq_value' '1306' #490Gh/s 385W
#option 'chip_freq' '243.75'
#option 'timeout' '16'
#option 'freq_value' '0902' #478Gh/s 367W
#option 'chip_freq' '237.5'
#option 'timeout' '17'
#option 'freq_value' '1206' #465Gh/s 356W
#option 'chip_freq' '231.25'
#option 'timeout' '17'
#option 'freq_value' '0882' #452Gh/s 346W
#option 'chip_freq' '225'
#option 'timeout' '18'
option 'freq_value' '1106' #441Gh/s 340W
option 'chip_freq' '218.75'
option 'timeout' '18'
#option 'freq_value' '0802' #427Gh/s 329W
#option 'chip_freq' '212.5'
#option 'timeout' '19'
#option 'freq_value' '1006' #414Gh/s 319W
#option 'chip_freq' '206.25'
#option 'timeout' '19'
#option 'freq_value' '0782' #402Gh/s 310W
#option 'chip_freq' '200'
#option 'timeout' '20'
#option 'freq_value' '1f07' #396Gh/s 301W
#option 'chip_freq' '196.875'
#option 'timeout' '20'
#option 'freq_value' '0f03' #389Gh/s 296W
#option 'chip_freq' '193.75'
#option 'timeout' '21'
#option 'freq_value' '0d83' #352Gh/s 268W
#option 'chip_freq' '175'
#option 'timeout' '23'
#option 'freq_value' '0b83' #301Gh/s 228W
#option 'chip_freq' '150'
#option 'timeout' '27'
#option 'freq_value' '0983' #251Gh/s 191W
#option 'chip_freq' '125'
#option 'timeout' '32'
#option 'freq_value' '0783' #201Gh/s 154W
#option 'chip_freq' '100'
#option 'timeout' '40'
Even if I undervolt/clock it, how can its not as efficient as S1 ? For comparison : S1 180GH / 400 watt can goes to 140GH / 166 watt. Speed down 28% but power down 140%... Any how advice Sir ? |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:39:04 AM |
|
Even if I undervolt/clock it, how can its not as efficient as S1 ?
For comparison :
S1 180GH / 400 watt can goes to 140GH / 166 watt. Speed down 28% but power down 140%...
Any how advice Sir ?
What are you on about? Check your own post. For an S3 201Gh/s = 154W where as for an S1 140Gh/s = 166W you get MORE speed for less wattage, that is better efficiency in my book! Put another way, for only 154 watts on an S3, you get more hashing speed than you would get from an S1 consuming 400 watts (i.e running at 180Gh/s). That is less than half the power usage for more speed! |
|
|
|
|
gentacomp
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:44:47 AM |
|
Even if I undervolt/clock it, how can its not as efficient as S1 ?
For comparison :
S1 180GH / 400 watt can goes to 140GH / 166 watt. Speed down 28% but power down 140%...
Any how advice Sir ?
What are you on about? Check your own post. For an S3 201Gh/s = 154W where as for an S1 140Gh/s = 166W you get MORE speed for less wattage, that is better efficiency in my book! I dont mean the number Sir but their percentage... I mean S1 can drop its power to ~140% its original BUT only 20% drop its speed. While the S3 drop percentage is the same like the power drop 50% its original and the speed drops 50% too... So if S1 180GH/400W can goes to 140GH/166W then S3 should can drop from 441GH/340W to 350GH/115W... |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 19, 2014, 07:58:24 AM |
|
I dont mean the number Sir but their percentage... I mean S1 can drop its power to ~140% its original BUT only 20% drop its speed. While the S3 drop percentage is the same like the power drop 50% its original and the speed drops 50% too...
So if S1 180GH/400W can goes to 140GH/166W then S3 should can drop from 441GH/340W to 350GH/115W...
I am sure you are barking up the wrong tree here. Firstly, the chips in the machines are different and while the improvement over the old chips was to deliver more hashing speed for less energy, I suppose something has to give in terms of power consumption at lower speeds. The efficiencies in comparing the two chips should be focused on the overall power consumption for hashing speed. If they'd designed the new chip to primarily consume less power when hashing at lower speeds, then it would probably have meant that it would consume (exponentially) more power when hashing at higher speeds than it does in its current state! Something has to give. What you cannot question however, is the efficiency of the S3 over the S1, call it something else if you insist. |
|
|
|
|
gentacomp
|
|
August 19, 2014, 08:07:38 AM |
|
I dont mean the number Sir but their percentage... I mean S1 can drop its power to ~140% its original BUT only 20% drop its speed. While the S3 drop percentage is the same like the power drop 50% its original and the speed drops 50% too...
So if S1 180GH/400W can goes to 140GH/166W then S3 should can drop from 441GH/340W to 350GH/115W...
I am sure you are barking up the wrong tree here. Firstly, the chips in the machines are different and while the improvement over the old chips was to deliver more hashing speed for less energy, I suppose something has to give in terms of power consumption at lower speeds. The efficiencies in comparing the two chips should be focused on the overall power consumption for hashing speed. If they'd designed the new chip to primarily consume less power when hashing at lower speeds, then it would probably have meant that it would consume (exponentially) more power when hashing at higher speeds than it does in its current state! Something has to give. What you cannot question however, is the efficiency of the S3 over the S1, call it something else if you insist. Well since the chips name not different I thought it would has similar architecture and how its works. Then again if I downclock/volt S3 has same efficiency, then the only way is go up as high as I can. Anyone tried 600GH+ ? Since Im still 40C right now so its 10C spare before burn  |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 19, 2014, 08:20:24 AM |
|
Well since the chips name not different I thought it would has similar architecture and how its works. Then again if I downclock/volt S3 has same efficiency, then the only way is go up as high as I can. Anyone tried 600GH+ ? Since Im still 40C right now so its 10C spare before burn The chip names (numbers) are different and so is their manufacturing process. If you look at the S1, it has 32 chips on each blade (64 chips in total) that deliver a stock speed of 180 Gh/s, whereas the S3 has 16 chips per blade (32 in total) delivering a stock 441 Gh/s. the only similarity is that they are made by the same company. I am sure if you ventilate the latter batches' S3's properly (as in either cutting the blue wires or replacing the stock fans with un regulated 150+ CFM's), and power it up with a decent PSU, you can easily surpass 600 Gh/s without much ceremony. Another cooling method would be dismounting the blades from their stock vulcan-grip layout, and installing fans blowing on both heatsinks; this coupled with at least a 750 watt PSU (and of-course the correct frequency settings) can get you well into the 650 Gh/s, again, without much ceremony. PS. untested and do at your own risk! |
|
|
|
|
Junkbarman
|
|
August 19, 2014, 09:09:34 AM |
|
Well since the chips name not different I thought it would has similar architecture and how its works. Then again if I downclock/volt S3 has same efficiency, then the only way is go up as high as I can. Anyone tried 600GH+ ? Since Im still 40C right now so its 10C spare before burn The chip names (numbers) are different and so is their manufacturing process. If you look at the S1, it has 32 chips on each blade (64 chips in total) that deliver a stock speed of 180 Gh/s, whereas the S3 has 16 chips per blade (32 in total) delivering a stock 441 Gh/s. the only similarity is that they are made by the same company. I am sure if you ventilate the latter batches' S3's properly (as in either cutting the blue wires or replacing the stock fans with un regulated 150+ CFM's), and power it up with a decent PSU, you can easily surpass 600 Gh/s without much ceremony. Another cooling method would be dismounting the blades from their stock vulcan-grip layout, and installing fans blowing on both heatsinks; this coupled with at least a 750 watt PSU (and of-course the correct frequency settings) can get you well into the 650 Gh/s, again, without much ceremony. PS. untested and do at your own risk! Wait, you guys aren't doing this already? |
|
|
|
|
|
