Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:32:24 PM *
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 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 896 mh/s firmware release - Butterfly Labs  (Read 17149 times)
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 01:20:39 PM
 #141

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV

Thanks for letting us know.

Is there any point releasing higher speed firmwares ?

What is the theoretical maximum for these chips that can be used if you had subzero cooling for example ?
1480710744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710744
Reply with quote  #2

1480710744
Report to moderator
1480710744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710744
Reply with quote  #2

1480710744
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
pieppiep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
 #142

Probably only BFL knows.
They made the design and compiled it to a bitfile, so they know the timing constraints.
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
May 30, 2012, 01:29:48 PM
 #143

My guess is that there may be a compilation error with some specific files, or that the speed just happens to tickle a bug in the hardware.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 04:13:54 PM
 #144

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV
+1 for that.  It worked on 1/4, though I only ran it for a short while.

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV

Thanks for letting us know.

Is there any point releasing higher speed firmwares ?

What is the theoretical maximum for these chips that can be used if you had subzero cooling for example ?
BFL seemed to indicate that they ran chips up to 1.05 GH/s.
e21
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105


View Profile
May 30, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
 #145

Only have 1 single, but I was able to get the 880 MH/s firmware to run fine at a fairly high ambient temperature (~72-80*F in California), ran the diagnostics for about an hour, got 0 errors or throttles. (I was able to get the 872 MH/s firmware to run fine as well)

Tried the 892 MH/s firmware and I started getting errors but 0 throttles (using EasyMiner diagnostics, cgminer reports 0 HW). I noticed the errors didn't start until the single started to heat up, first 65 or so shares processed returned 0 errors, then when the reported temperature reached it's peak at about 48*C, (0 thottles still) I started getting about 1 error per 5 shares processed.. Seems to me like a component on the board besides the two chips is getting too hot and causing issues maybe? Going to try looking for hot spots with an infrared thermometer and applying stick-on RAM heatinks and see if that helps.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
May 30, 2012, 09:38:02 PM
 #146

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV
+1 for that.  It worked on 1/4, though I only ran it for a short while.

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV

Thanks for letting us know.

Is there any point releasing higher speed firmwares ?

What is the theoretical maximum for these chips that can be used if you had subzero cooling for example ?
BFL seemed to indicate that they ran chips up to 1.05 GH/s.
They ran a simulation that said they could get 1.05 GH/s

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 10:43:00 PM
 #147

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV
+1 for that.  It worked on 1/4, though I only ran it for a short while.

So I have tried the 896 firmware on every single I have upgraded so far and it has only worked on one. 864 seems to be the sweet spot for my singles. YMMV

Thanks for letting us know.

Is there any point releasing higher speed firmwares ?

What is the theoretical maximum for these chips that can be used if you had subzero cooling for example ?
BFL seemed to indicate that they ran chips up to 1.05 GH/s.
They ran a simulation that said they could get 1.05 GH/s
Ahhh, much different from actually running a chip that fast!  Especially given the results of real-world testing of the 896 firmware, I doubt that we'll see anything much faster - 896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.
Inspector 2211
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 10:47:09 PM
 #148

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
 #149

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.

Huh?  It was beyond the limit for 3 of mine already.
Inspector 2211
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 10:58:05 PM
 #150

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.

Huh?  It was beyond the limit for 3 of mine already.

I was just trying to point out that the 896 MH/s are spread out over TWO FPGAs, not just one.
Maybe you meant to say "beyond the limit for most Singles".
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
 #151

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.

Huh?  It was beyond the limit for 3 of mine already.

I was just trying to point out that the 896 MH/s are spread out over TWO FPGAs, not just one.
Maybe you meant to say "beyond the limit for most Singles".
Ahhh, yes indeed.  Beyond the limit for most Singles.
Beaflag VonRathburg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 472



View Profile
May 31, 2012, 03:29:18 AM
 #152

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.

Huh?  It was beyond the limit for 3 of mine already.

I was just trying to point out that the 896 MH/s are spread out over TWO FPGAs, not just one.
Maybe you meant to say "beyond the limit for most Singles".

Is it the limit of the chips, hardware to keep it cool, outside temperature or some combination of the previously mentioned?

Inspector 2211
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
May 31, 2012, 03:40:37 AM
 #153

896 seems to be beyond the limit for most chips already.

TWO chips.
Quite likely, with TWO completely unrolled, pipelined miners on each of them.
Or a "sea of miners" on them, as brilliantly demonstrated by Bitfury on the Spartan6 platform.

Huh?  It was beyond the limit for 3 of mine already.

I was just trying to point out that the 896 MH/s are spread out over TWO FPGAs, not just one.
Maybe you meant to say "beyond the limit for most Singles".

Is it the limit of the chips, hardware to keep it cool, outside temperature or some combination of the previously mentioned?

Hard to say, probably a combination of things.
Does anyone have a walk-in freezer where he could test whether freezing temperatures help?

In any case, there is a thermal resistance Tr1 from the die to the heat spreader and a thermal resistance Tr2 from the heat spreader to the heat sink and finally there is a thermal resistance Tr3 from the heat sink to the room air.
Tr1 cannot be modified, but we have already established that Tr2 is not at its optimal level, because the heat sink does not contact the whole heat spreader, only part of it. Also, I suspect that co-planarity of the FPGAs, or rather the lack of it, may contribute to a higher-than-desired Tr2 value.
lomax
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
May 31, 2012, 05:22:35 AM
 #154

Sailing along at 892MH/s here, with no increase in temps.

Waiting for the next firmware BFL, keep pushing the limits I say.
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
May 31, 2012, 09:41:02 AM
 #155

Hard to say, probably a combination of things.
Does anyone have a walk-in freezer where he could test whether freezing temperatures help?
Someone with throttling issues put his BFL in a cooling chamber and ran it at 0°C, and still had throttling issues.

Scared
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
May 31, 2012, 03:34:32 PM
 #156

So I took one of my singles and have it running at 50c. I updated the firmware to 896 and confirmed with Easyminer that it ran without any hardware errors. It ran with an Avg Speed of 897. I then ran it with cgminer for the same amount of time that Easyminer ran and got 876.9. I repeated this three separate times and got the same results. Why am I getting such a significant difference between cgminer and Easyminer? I understand from previous posts that cgminer doesn't report the hardware errors but Easyminer has shown 0 HW errors every time I've run it. 

Any suggestions?

BFL-Engineer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 227



View Profile WWW
May 31, 2012, 03:42:43 PM
 #157

So I took one of my singles and have it running at 50c. I updated the firmware to 896 and confirmed with Easyminer that it ran without any hardware errors. It ran with an Avg Speed of 897. I then ran it with cgminer for the same amount of time that Easyminer ran and got 876.9. I repeated this three separate times and got the same results. Why am I getting such a significant difference between cgminer and Easyminer? I understand from previous posts that cgminer doesn't report the hardware errors but Easyminer has shown 0 HW errors every time I've run it. 

Any suggestions?



The speed reported by Easyminer indicates how fast the unit can process 4Billion range of nonces. The speed
reported by cgminer includes network latency, jobs that have no nonce result, LongPoll cancellation of all jobs
in queue, etc... All of these affect your productivity in terms of MH/s.


Regards,
BF Labs Inc.

BF Labs Inc.  www.butterflylabs.com   -  Bitcoin Mining Hardware
BTC-engineer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 338



View Profile
May 31, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
 #158

Any updates regarding faster firmwares (>896)?
e21
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105


View Profile
May 31, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
 #159

So I took one of my singles and have it running at 50c. I updated the firmware to 896 and confirmed with Easyminer that it ran without any hardware errors. It ran with an Avg Speed of 897. I then ran it with cgminer for the same amount of time that Easyminer ran and got 876.9. I repeated this three separate times and got the same results. Why am I getting such a significant difference between cgminer and Easyminer? I understand from previous posts that cgminer doesn't report the hardware errors but Easyminer has shown 0 HW errors every time I've run it. 

Any suggestions?



The speed reported by Easyminer indicates how fast the unit can process 4Billion range of nonces. The speed
reported by cgminer includes network latency, jobs that have no nonce result, LongPoll cancellation of all jobs
in queue, etc... All of these affect your productivity in terms of MH/s.


Regards,
BF Labs Inc.

Yes, I had my single running the 872 MH/s firmware, which averaged out to about 855 MH/s in cgminer, then I updated to 892 MH/s, which then averaged out to about 876 MHs for me as well. The "U" also increased by about .3, from 10.8 to 11.1
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


View Profile
May 31, 2012, 05:18:46 PM
 #160

A "U" of 11.1 with the 892 FW is low...

This is a 864 FW - running for 3 hours

Code:
BFL 5:  42.8C         | 859.0/852.0Mh/s | A:2202 R:0 HW:0 U: 12.10/m

And this is the lowest U of 3 units at 816 FW (other two are 11.35 and 11.60)

Code:
BFL 1:  44.7C         | 810.0/803.3Mh/s | A:1972 R:0 HW:0 U: 10.73/m

GPG PubKey | THREEMA | OTC | HeatWare | 1JWU42QLGFESoQCC4iPzUDTRiC9nx5bi95
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »  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!