Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:18:12 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Got me a Kill-a-watt and some 7970's.....  (Read 4348 times)
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 06:15:27 PM
 #21

I just run the following with my 3x7970 sapphires:

1125/685 , 1.118V

I get 1986 MH/s and it pulls 760W at the plug. System is running for about 3 hours, but it stabilized @760W after
first 15 minutes.

Similar to your 2.62 MH/W
What is your total $/MH (excluding electricity)?  3 sapphires + mobo, etc.

1481347092
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347092

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347092
Reply with quote  #2

1481347092
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 06:31:20 PM
 #22

I just run the following with my 3x7970 sapphires:

1125/685 , 1.118V

I get 1986 MH/s and it pulls 760W at the plug. System is running for about 3 hours, but it stabilized @760W after
first 15 minutes.

Similar to your 2.62 MH/W
What is your total $/MH (excluding electricity)?  3 sapphires + mobo, etc.

Huh? 1 sapphire was $542, GD70 was $160, PSU was $330
It cost me about $2 to mine 1 BTC.  1.4 BTC/day.  It will take forever (if ever) to get my money back (at current BTC rates)
Maybe in 500 days I'll break even.
That's what I was wondering. $2 to mine 1 BTC is at current difficulty with your electricity rates.  I was more curious about the hashes as that is less specific to time and place.

So its (542 * 3 + 160 + 330) / 1986 = 1.065 $/MHs

Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 06:41:22 PM
 #23

So its (542 * 3 + 160 + 330) / 1986 = 1.065 $/MHs

Not really.  Depends on the settings.
With 1180/800, 1.174V the same system generates 2155 MH/s
but it consumes 875W
Well whatever you run the system 24/7 at is what matters.  What do you run it at?

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 07:42:54 PM
 #24

All I am trying to measure is the additional power consumption of the cards.  This is a machine that is always on, and has been always on for the last 3 years.  Thus, the idle power consumption is the baseline, as it would be consuming that regardless.  Determining the incremental energy consumption is all I am concerned about, and now have a good approximation of that number.

Now if I was building a dedicated mining rig from the ground up, of course the over-all system wattage would be the important number.

And this is precisely my point! This makes your numbers meaningful only to you, and meaningless to all of us on the forum (because most people here favor more efficient systems -- and a dedicated 2 x 7970 miner idles at 90W or so). You should have disclosed your unusually high baseline idle load in your first post.
yochdog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
March 28, 2012, 08:20:32 PM
 #25

All I am trying to measure is the additional power consumption of the cards.  This is a machine that is always on, and has been always on for the last 3 years.  Thus, the idle power consumption is the baseline, as it would be consuming that regardless.  Determining the incremental energy consumption is all I am concerned about, and now have a good approximation of that number.

Now if I was building a dedicated mining rig from the ground up, of course the over-all system wattage would be the important number.

And this is precisely my point! This makes your numbers meaningful only to you, and meaningless to all of us on the forum (because most people here favor more efficient systems -- and a dedicated 2 x 7970 miner idles at 90W or so). You should have disclosed your unusually high baseline idle load in your first post.


Meaningless?  Are you serious?  Being able to compare apples to apples the power consumption of an overvlocked/undervolted 7970 to a 5970, ot 5870, or any other number of cards is meaningless?  What about those with existing farm of dedicated miners?  Might they find some meaning in stand-alone efficiency of cards?  Might they find some meaningful cost savings if they can upgrade to more efficieint GPU's?   

Fail on so many levels. 

I am a trusted trader!  Ask Inaba, Luo Demin, Vanderbleek, Sannyasi, Episking, Miner99er, Isepick, Amazingrando, Cablez, ColdHardMetal, Dextryn, MB300sd, Robocoder, gnar1ta$ and many others!
mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 08:35:20 PM
 #26

Let me correct:

  • 3.74 Mh/J is meaningless to us, because it is inflated by your inefficient baseline idle power of 150W (perhaps you have a high-power CPU, or your PSU's efficiency sharply drops at low loads, or you are running a graphics-intensive Windows Aero desktop, etc)
  • 2.62 Mh/J is meaningful.
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 09:09:40 PM
 #27

Let me correct:

  • 3.74 Mh/J is meaningless to us, because it is inflated by your inefficient baseline idle power of 150W (perhaps you have a high-power CPU, multiple hardware components not necessary for mining, or your PSU's efficiency sharply drops at low loads, or you are running a graphics-intensive Windows Aero desktop, etc)
  • 2.62 Mh/J is meaningful.


I disagree for exactly the same reasons.

2.62 Mh/J is meaningless as it's not comparing like-for-like, you're adding in the unknown variable of the system, which will be vastly different (as you noted) system to system.

3.74 Mh/J is meaningful, as other people, who wish to compare their values, can use this number by factoring out their own baseline system power.
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 09:23:25 PM
 #28

Let me correct:

  • 3.74 Mh/J is meaningless to us, because it is inflated by your inefficient baseline idle power of 150W (perhaps you have a high-power CPU, multiple hardware components not necessary for mining, or your PSU's efficiency sharply drops at low loads, or you are running a graphics-intensive Windows Aero desktop, etc)
  • 2.62 Mh/J is meaningful.


I disagree for exactly the same reasons.

2.62 Mh/J is meaningless as it's not comparing like-for-like, you're adding in the unknown variable of the system, which will be vastly different (as you noted) system to system.

3.74 Mh/J is meaningful, as other people, who wish to compare their values, can use this number by factoring out their own baseline system power.

I think both are useful.

One is nice for comparing cards, the other is nice for comparing systems.

I wanted to compare my 1.8GH rig to this 7970 rig, so overall power consumption was what I wanted.

Now if I wanted to look into swapping my 5970s for 7970s, then the per card consumption is more useful.

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile WWW
March 28, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
 #29

I disagree for exactly the same reasons.

2.62 Mh/J is meaningless as it's not comparing like-for-like, you're adding in the unknown variable of the system, which will be vastly different (as you noted) system to system.

3.74 Mh/J is meaningful, as other people, who wish to compare their values, can use this number by factoring out their own baseline system power.

Your argument is invalid because 3.74 Mh/J is also influenced by unknown variables, such as the efficiency of power supplies which varies with load: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624/3

Here is a thought experiment: yochdog's load/idle power draw is 512/154 Watt. He replaces his power supply with one that is just as efficient at high loads, but more efficient at low loads, changing his measuremnts to 512/130 Watt. Suddenly his mining efficiency went down from 1340/(512-154) = 3.74 Mh/J to 1340/(512-130) = 3.51 Mh/J ! Explain to me why using a formula in which efficiency becomes worse when using better hardware components is useful?

Of course, if everybody had clamp meters, the ultimate way to measure the efficiency of a card would be to measure current at the PCIe power connectors and PCIe slot, like I demonstrated a while ago: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=42
yochdog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
March 29, 2012, 12:27:39 AM
 #30

I disagree for exactly the same reasons.

2.62 Mh/J is meaningless as it's not comparing like-for-like, you're adding in the unknown variable of the system, which will be vastly different (as you noted) system to system.

3.74 Mh/J is meaningful, as other people, who wish to compare their values, can use this number by factoring out their own baseline system power.

Your argument is invalid because 3.74 Mh/J is also influenced by unknown variables, such as the efficiency of power supplies which varies with load: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624/3

Here is a thought experiment: yochdog's load/idle power draw is 512/154 Watt. He replaces his power supply with one that is just as efficient at high loads, but more efficient at low loads, changing his measuremnts to 512/130 Watt. Suddenly his mining efficiency went down from 1340/(512-154) = 3.74 Mh/J to 1340/(512-130) = 3.51 Mh/J ! Explain to me why using a formula in which efficiency becomes worse when using better hardware components is useful?

Of course, if everybody had clamp meters, the ultimate way to measure the efficiency of a card would be to measure current at the PCIe power connectors and PCIe slot, like I demonstrated a while ago: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=42

Holy bleeping shit. 

I try to put some useful (evidently not!) information out on the forum, and MRB comes along to piss all over it because anything but his prefered stats are meaningless.

Apologies to the forum.  I wasted everyones time with a useless post. 

From now on I will only post the total power consumption of my systems, and you are all on your own deciphering what is being used where.

GOOD LUCK!! 

I am a trusted trader!  Ask Inaba, Luo Demin, Vanderbleek, Sannyasi, Episking, Miner99er, Isepick, Amazingrando, Cablez, ColdHardMetal, Dextryn, MB300sd, Robocoder, gnar1ta$ and many others!
sveetsnelda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
March 29, 2012, 12:32:59 AM
 #31

I disagree for exactly the same reasons.

2.62 Mh/J is meaningless as it's not comparing like-for-like, you're adding in the unknown variable of the system, which will be vastly different (as you noted) system to system.

3.74 Mh/J is meaningful, as other people, who wish to compare their values, can use this number by factoring out their own baseline system power.


+1.  People are going to have completely different motherboards, CPUs, hard drives (if any), power supplies, RAM, cooling, etc etc etc.  The most useful data is the power draw of the cards themselves.

14u2rp4AqFtN5jkwK944nn741FnfF714m7
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


View Profile
March 29, 2012, 02:25:10 PM
 #32

We just need to get linux to allow downclocking memory beyond 150 Mhz  Angry

My 4x7970 rigs run about 1060 W (1040 is more correct with 2 Delta screamer fans not running).

2.5 Gh/s @ 1040 = So So...

Cards are running at 1050/900 and 625 Mh/s each...

GPG PubKey | THREEMA | OTC | HeatWare | 1JWU42QLGFESoQCC4iPzUDTRiC9nx5bi95
mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2012, 06:26:26 PM
 #33

Here is a fictitious system in idle/load conditions demonstrating my point that cards can draw more than what the kill-a-watt difference shows:

Idle: 130W at the wall, power supply outputs 95W (73% efficient) = 15W to the video card + 80W to the rest of the system
Load: 200W at the wall, power supply outputs 176W (88% efficient) = 96W to the video card + 80W to the rest of the system

yochdog would conclude from the kill-a-watt readings that the card under load is drawing at most an extra 70W (200-130), but in fact, it is drawing an extra 81W (96-15). This is why subtracting the idle from the load wattage at the wall is not as accurate as you all seem to think.

At the very least, if a kill-a-watt is all you have, I suggest you:
- publish your power supply specs to look up the energy efficiency curve at different loads
- measure "idle" condition with the card physically removed from the system
waterboyserver
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile
March 29, 2012, 07:07:56 PM
 #34

My first 7970 came with a number of issues while booting. I had it RMA'd, the new card that just arrived reaches 750 MH/s (1225MHz core, 1375 ram, 1.07 V, 168A) with sensor readings (HWiNFO64) indicate I am pulling 193 watts (Core + RAM).  My first card would already be over 220 watts at these settings, seems either software improved or hardware improved, I used the same drivers from the end of Feb, so probably hardware changed?

How accurate are the GPU/CPU sensor readings by GPU-Z or HWiNFO64?  Would using a multimeter carefully to measure PCIE and all other power connectors on system be more accurate than onboard sensors or KILL A WATT?
chiropteran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2012, 07:15:14 PM
 #35

Here is a fictitious system in idle/load conditions demonstrating my point that cards can draw more than what the kill-a-watt difference shows:

Idle: 130W at the wall, power supply outputs 95W (73% efficient) = 15W to the video card + 80W to the rest of the system
Load: 200W at the wall, power supply outputs 176W (88% efficient) = 96W to the video card + 80W to the rest of the system

yochdog would conclude from the kill-a-watt readings that the card under load is drawing at most an extra 70W (200-130), but in fact, it is drawing an extra 81W (96-15). This is why subtracting the idle from the load wattage at the wall is not as accurate as you all seem to think.

At the very least, if a kill-a-watt is all you have, I suggest you:
- publish your power supply specs to look up the energy efficiency curve at different loads
- measure "idle" condition with the card physically removed from the system

While I get your desire to have 100% accurate info, I don't fully agree that it is more useful.

1- virtually everyone is going to be running mining rigs on computer power supplies, which are never 100% efficient

2- knowing the actual real world power usage from the wall is very useful for calculating cost of mining, while knowing the exact power usage from the power supply is an interesting mental exercise it doesn't actually benefit anyone who is merely trying to do a cost/benefits analysis.

3- most miners use 80+ certified power supplies, if not 80+ silver or greater spec.  The difference between actual power usage and exact power usage is going to be less than you indicate.  For example, 80+ silver gets between 85% and 88% efficiency guaranteed, a 3% difference even on a 1000W scale is only 30W and not really a huge inaccuracy.

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2012, 09:17:28 PM
 #36

You forget that the 80 Plus standard does not guarantee efficiency below 20% load. Which is why I criticize idle measurements at the wall so much as they are likely to be below 20% load.
ragingazn628
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


Coin Generator


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2012, 12:24:33 AM
 #37

currently running 4x 7970s @ 925 / 150 @ 1.00v

850W at the wall. This system has the Big Bang Marshall and i7 2600k and 1300w CM Hybrid

I will OC them to 1125 and will let you guys know the power Cheesy
ragingazn628
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


Coin Generator


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2012, 02:13:08 AM
 #38

currently running 4x 7970s @ 925 / 150 @ 1.00v

850W at the wall. This system has the Big Bang Marshall and i7 2600k and 1300w CM Hybrid

I will OC them to 1125 and will let you guys know the power Cheesy

Let me guess, it will be 950W.

close.

1125 / 150 @ 1.05V

1050W with 2600k @ 5.0Ghz

2700mh/sec

9.6 Amps

Not bad! I can have 2 of these rigs running in my dorm room without tripping the wire!
jjiimm_64
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 03:14:40 AM
 #39

currently running 4x 7970s @ 925 / 150 @ 1.00v

850W at the wall. This system has the Big Bang Marshall and i7 2600k and 1300w CM Hybrid

I will OC them to 1125 and will let you guys know the power Cheesy

Let me guess, it will be 950W.

close.

1125 / 150 @ 1.05V

1050W with 2600k @ 5.0Ghz

2700mh/sec

9.6 Amps

Not bad! I can have 2 of these rigs running in my dorm room without tripping the wire!

4 7970's at 1125 should be getting over 3300Mh

Code:
cgminer version 2.2.6 - Started: [March 28, 2012, 10:08 pm]    Rig:miner17
(5s):3325.37  (avg): 3261.12 Mh/s  |    H: 112.6  Q:70001   A:67549   R:439   HW:0   E:?%   U:44.94/m
TQ:?   ST:9   SS:?   DW:394   NB:150   LW:0   GF:41   RF:3
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 72.0C 2692RPM 44% 116 | 665.2/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13729 R:90 HW:0 U:9.13/m I: 9
GPU 1: 74.0C 2281RPM 39% 113 | 665.3/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13334 R:92 HW:0 U:8.87/m I: 9
GPU 2: 73.0C 2064RPM 36% 109 | 665.4/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13391 R:84 HW:0 U:8.91/m I: 9
GPU 3: 73.0C 2156RPM 36% 109 | 664.3/651.4Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13583 R:98 HW:0 U:9.04/m I: 9
GPU 4: 74.0C 2353RPM 42% 116 | 665.2/652.3Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13512 R:75 HW:0 U:8.99/m I: 9

1jimbitm6hAKTjKX4qurCNQubbnk2YsFw
Roadhog2k5
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 131



View Profile
March 30, 2012, 03:30:35 AM
 #40

currently running 4x 7970s @ 925 / 150 @ 1.00v

850W at the wall. This system has the Big Bang Marshall and i7 2600k and 1300w CM Hybrid

I will OC them to 1125 and will let you guys know the power Cheesy

Let me guess, it will be 950W.

close.

1125 / 150 @ 1.05V

1050W with 2600k @ 5.0Ghz

2700mh/sec

9.6 Amps

Not bad! I can have 2 of these rigs running in my dorm room without tripping the wire!

4 7970's at 1125 should be getting over 3300Mh

Code:
cgminer version 2.2.6 - Started: [March 28, 2012, 10:08 pm]    Rig:miner17
(5s):3325.37  (avg): 3261.12 Mh/s  |    H: 112.6  Q:70001   A:67549   R:439   HW:0   E:?%   U:44.94/m
TQ:?   ST:9   SS:?   DW:394   NB:150   LW:0   GF:41   RF:3
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 72.0C 2692RPM 44% 116 | 665.2/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13729 R:90 HW:0 U:9.13/m I: 9
GPU 1: 74.0C 2281RPM 39% 113 | 665.3/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13334 R:92 HW:0 U:8.87/m I: 9
GPU 2: 73.0C 2064RPM 36% 109 | 665.4/652.5Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13391 R:84 HW:0 U:8.91/m I: 9
GPU 3: 73.0C 2156RPM 36% 109 | 664.3/651.4Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13583 R:98 HW:0 U:9.04/m I: 9
GPU 4: 74.0C 2353RPM 42% 116 | 665.2/652.3Mh/s | 99% | 1120Mhz 1000Mhz 1.17V A:13512 R:75 HW:0 U:8.99/m I: 9

What... That would mean each 7970 would be getting 825mh... I think you meant 5...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!