ANTMINER S5: 1155GH(+OverClock Potential), In Stock $0.319/GH & 0.51W/GH

[toptek]

For USA customers ,  ITOP Shop  will Ship locally from NY , thanks.

Will that price include shipping?

If Bitmain is selling direct for $2750, I'd rather go there, ship direct and take my chances with customs.  Your price is too high to yet add shipping on top, if their price does end up as stated.

heck he is in New York I could drive from New Jersey. Cut the shipping out.

i could drive to NY it's  maybe a 3 hour drive for me . but i really don't want one even if i could afford it i wouldn't . I was hoping for something  more like the S5 to  use less power and offer more hash . like maybe 700 watts at 2 th.I

Most likely I will order one of these and 1 s-5 from bitmaintech.  this is not exactly what I want to do and right now we are trending up hard in diff so I am not sure waht I am doing.

nm

[toptek]

For USA customers ,  ITOP Shop  will Ship locally from NY , thanks.

Will that price include shipping?

If Bitmain is selling direct for $2750, I'd rather go there, ship direct and take my chances with customs.  Your price is too high to yet add shipping on top, if their price does end up as stated.

heck he is in New York I could drive from New Jersey. Cut the shipping out.

i could drive to NY it's  maybe a 3 hour drive for me . but i really don't want one even if i could afford it i wouldn't . I was hoping for something  more like the S5 to  use less power and offer more hash . like maybe 700 watts at 2 th.I

Most likely I will order one of these and 1 s-5 from bitmaintech.  this is not exactly what I want to do and right now we are trending up hard in diff so I am not sure waht I am doing.

NO place to put a S5 + one set back for me and price, over time i can get one Sfards and one more S5 . I'm not counting on anything cheap and good for home users any more from bitmain.  

which had to happen sooner or later . I hope im wrong but more then likely I'm not .


Cya  . other things to take care in real life lmao . bb L

[QuintLeo]

The difference between 50% load and 100% load in terms of 80+ testing is 3-4% loss in efficiency.

 Varies some, I've seen a few high-end Gold units lose closer to 2% between those points.

 PSU's unlike miners are ASSETS and not LIABILITIES

 Miners are not liabilities as long as they can mine at a profit. I'd class them as short-term high depreciation assets, vs, power supplies where a good power supply can be a very long-term asset.

 Given that I anticipate the "in process of showing up" generation of miners to have a high probability of being viable for 4+ years, I doubt that power supplies will outlast 3 generations of miner past the "current showing up" generation on a high-probability bases. Miners are catching up to "state of the art" in the current generation, after a few years of each ASIC generation being well behind the current state of the art for semiconductor manufacture.

 50% to 80% load on MOST gold power supplies is usually less than a 1% drop in efficiency. Seems like the optimal point from a ALL costs basis is around 70-80% ballpark - which is also a good point to be at from a LONG TERM reliability basis.

I'm really not sure about downclocking and power usage

 In my S5 testing, the efficiency was pretty close to flat vs. clock rate from 300 Mhz to 380ish. The varience seemed to be mostly "measurement tolerance" and a very small contribution from the small efficiency difference in the power supply with varying load level.
 I don't see dropping to 275 being a significant efficiency change.

 POWER usage on the other hand did change with the clock changes, downclocking WOULD drop the total power used appx. in proportion to the clock rate change.

 2TH at 700 watts wouldn't be practical out of an S5 form factor unit, you'd need more chips than you could fit on 3 boards. 1TH at around 350 though I could see happening if Bitmain wanted to do it, 2 strings of 20 chips per board with 3 boards - I'd have to go look up one of my posts in the Gekko BM1384 thread to find the figures I worked out.

[VirosaGITS]

The difference between 50% load and 100% load in terms of 80+ testing is 3-4% loss in efficiency.

Varies some, I've seen a few high-end Gold units lose closer to 2% between those points.

Or even better on superior units! My EVGA has 2% loss in efficiency at 108% load versus optimal load. At typical load its pretty much under 1%.

Miners are not liabilities as long as they can mine at a profit.

Indeed. My S1s are still not liabilities or a loss, so at which point it could be considered some sort of liability really depend on your running cost.

And down clocking on some unit, such as the S1, can drop J/GH from 2.0 to 1.1-0.9J/GH. So some older units can be even less of a liability if efficiency is improvable.

[QuintLeo]

But unless you're on free electric, or something totally insane like 1-2 cents/KWH, .9GH/watt is losing money making those S1s a liability. Well, no longer an asset anyway.


 (edit) looks like a dropped a decimal point, that would actually be profitable up to 8-9 cents/KWH at current bitcoin diff and price. Which is still pretty low cost electric though, most of the USA pays at least 10 cents/KWH and I think the average is pushing 13 as of last year.


 I'd hate to try to ROI if the unit wasn't already mostly paid off though. 8-O

[pekatete]

But unless you're on free electric, or something totally insane like 1-2 cents/KWH, .9GH/watt is losing money making those S1s a liability. Well, no longer an asset anyway.

Unless of-course you are solo-mining .... (and hit a block). And again, S1's can be undervolted to more "asset-able" levels too.

[suchmoon]

But unless you're on free electric, or something totally insane like 1-2 cents/KWH, .9GH/watt is losing money making those S1s a liability. Well, no longer an asset anyway.

It's not "GH/watt" (not sure what that unit would measure), it's 0.9-1.1 J/GH or 0.9-1.1 W/GH/s.

0.9-1.1 J/GH is profitable (barely) up to ~0.10 USD per kWh or so.

[VirosaGITS]

But unless you're on free electric, or something totally insane like 1-2 cents/KWH, .9GH/watt is losing money making those S1s a liability. Well, no longer an asset anyway.

Unless of-course you are solo-mining .... (and hit a block). And again, S1's can be undervolted to more "asset-able" levels too.

Hmm 0.04$*0.15kwh*24hours = 0.144$ per day i believe?
And 140GH gives 0.001358BTC per day or 0.36$ per day.
Either i fucked up my math horribly or i'm still a-ok with cost being at 40% of revenue.

So with pekatete's mentioned re-asset-abled S1, this is about what 1 of them generate for me.

Mines run at 1W/GH~. Maybe more if ran at 130gh though.

[scryptr]

NICEHASH ANTMINER S5 BIOS--

NiceHash has posted an Antminer S5 BIOS in the proper format for flashing from the Antminer web interface. Here is the link:

"https://www.nicehash.com/download/AntMiner-S5-SD-firmware_cgminer_4.9.0_nicehash_and_performance_graph.tar.gz"

It has CGminer version 4.9, and this CGminer version is patched for "extranonce subscribe".  This is a useful patch for mining on NiceHash, but I haven't tried it.  I don't know which Antminer firmware version is in this particular BIOS image.

Has anyone tried this BIOS image?         --scryptr

[alh]

For sounds I put two of these on top of my S5s so they hang over the fans (push-pull) and they cut down on the sound quite a bit.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008Y387B4/ref=rr_xsim_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1439388990&sr=0

I was able to reduce s-5 sound from 75db to 51 db and still over clock to 1300gh.

I used multiple fans in a push pull method.

This new s-5+/s-6 already has multiple fans in push pull.

I would have really like to use just the center piece  at my friends office.

I wonder if I order a s-5 and an s-5+ on friday from bitmaintech this friday.

If I could pull the left right off the  s-5+ and use the s-5 controller to run them.

Then take the s-5 blades and use them on the s-5+


This would give me a 2550+1150     and a 2550+2550   vs  a 7700 and a 1150

I could manage this better

One cautionary note: I'd swear that Bitmain has disabled support for more than two blades on the more recent S5 firmware. You'll also need to work out the issues associated with the fact that there are THREE hashing boards within each "s5 like" section of the S5+ miner. I have no idea what the S5+ firmware will do if it doesn't come up with all 9 hashing blades, or if some of them are S5 and not S5+ blades. Things could get ugly right quick since the number of chips per hashing board, and string topology is different between the S5 and S5+. While it would be nice to intermix stuff, it might well not be possible at this time (or ever).

[toptek]

The difference between 50% load and 100% load in terms of 80+ testing is 3-4% loss in efficiency.

 Varies some, I've seen a few high-end Gold units lose closer to 2% between those points.

 PSU's unlike miners are ASSETS and not LIABILITIES

 Miners are not liabilities as long as they can mine at a profit. I'd class them as short-term high depreciation assets, vs, power supplies where a good power supply can be a very long-term asset.

 Given that I anticipate the "in process of showing up" generation of miners to have a high probability of being viable for 4+ years, I doubt that power supplies will outlast 3 generations of miner past the "current showing up" generation on a high-probability bases. Miners are catching up to "state of the art" in the current generation, after a few years of each ASIC generation being well behind the current state of the art for semiconductor manufacture.

 50% to 80% load on MOST gold power supplies is usually less than a 1% drop in efficiency. Seems like the optimal point from a ALL costs basis is around 70-80% ballpark - which is also a good point to be at from a LONG TERM reliability basis.

I'm really not sure about downclocking and power usage

 In my S5 testing, the efficiency was pretty close to flat vs. clock rate from 300 Mhz to 380ish. The varience seemed to be mostly "measurement tolerance" and a very small contribution from the small efficiency difference in the power supply with varying load level.
 I don't see dropping to 275 being a significant efficiency change.

 POWER usage on the other hand did change with the clock changes, downclocking WOULD drop the total power used appx. in proportion to the clock rate change.

 2TH at 700 watts wouldn't be practical out of an S5 form factor unit, you'd need more chips than you could fit on 3 boards. 1TH at around 350 though I could see happening if Bitmain wanted to do it, 2 strings of 20 chips per board with 3 boards - I'd have to go look up one of my posts in the Gekko BM1384 thread to find the figures I worked out.

my point was i did not expect this this way i did say a while back we might get a S5 + some place but i did not expect it this way . by me saying 700 watts Power use age @2 th, i meant not so much with this chip maybe in a S7 etc in the same style as a s1 s3 s5 if they want to they can do it would take them time but it is poss and remember nothing is impossible.

they dropped a biggie on everyone , not many saw this coming, a few did but not many .

last thought I'l let this go

How much more can they push this die size before going to lets say 22 or even 16 it is very impressive they took it this far .

 I'll bet not much more and why we got the S5 + this way to help found the next push.  which imo is a smart move.

[Tupsu]

One cautionary note: I'd swear that Bitmain has disabled support for more than two blades on the more recent S5 firmware. You'll also need to work out the issues associated with the fact that there are THREE hashing boards within each "s5 like" section of the S5+ miner. I have no idea what the S5+ firmware will do if it doesn't come up with all 9 hashing blades, or if some of them are S5 and not S5+ blades. Things could get ugly right quick since the number of chips per hashing board, and string topology is different between the S5 and S5+. While it would be nice to intermix stuff, it might well not be possible at this time (or ever).

Works for me with latest S5 firmware.

S5.5




Click on the image to view enlarge picture

[toptek]

One cautionary note: I'd swear that Bitmain has disabled support for more than two blades on the more recent S5 firmware. You'll also need to work out the issues associated with the fact that there are THREE hashing boards within each "s5 like" section of the S5+ miner. I have no idea what the S5+ firmware will do if it doesn't come up with all 9 hashing blades, or if some of them are S5 and not S5+ blades. Things could get ugly right quick since the number of chips per hashing board, and string topology is different between the S5 and S5+. While it would be nice to intermix stuff, it might well not be possible at this time (or ever).

Works for me with latest S5 firmware.

S5.5




Click on the image to view enlarge picture

That's easy make it , two firmware and update it so other wise good point it might become a nitemare firm ware wise because of the big diff .

[philipma1957]

may all be a moot point don't know what will be asking price and shipping price of the big one.

[alh]

may all be a moot point don't know what will be asking price and shipping price of the big one.

Yeah, it could become a rather pricey experiment to conduct (big $$$$).

[Tupsu]

may all be a moot point don't know what will be asking price and shipping price of the big one.

You can now calculate.  Shipping weight 13 kg.

12,6 kg is  164.66 USD to estonia. (DHL)

[notlist3d]

may all be a moot point don't know what will be asking price and shipping price of the big one.

Yeah, it could become a rather pricey experiment to conduct (big $$$$).

Yep it is a pricey experiment.  Although I did risk more one my first dragon.  

I would love to have a S5+ running on my 240 line.   It just is hard to predict when next gen effects it.  If I order one and next gen comes out in a month or two I will feel like an idiot most likely.     But if they put off next gen till a certain point yes it's worth it.

So much unknown it's really speculating.

[scryptr]

may all be a moot point don't know what will be asking price and shipping price of the big one.

Yeah, it could become a rather pricey experiment to conduct (big $$$$).

From what I read, ~$3300 each, and they require more power than most houshold rooms (USA) can safely relay.  A garage or shop with a 220V circuit may be able to do the job.       --scryptr

[MarkAz]

Works for me with latest S5 firmware.

S5.5

Hey Tupsu, any particular reason you did the 4 blade setup?  I have the water cooling kit, but haven't installed it yet, and was wondering whether I would do that or not, wasn't sure if it was worth the hassle on the connectors.

Also, your HW error rate looks really high relative to what I see on my S5's, is this a byproduct of the quad blade  - perhaps the extended cable lengths?  I2C/SPI can be pretty sensitive to cable length...

[QuintLeo]

How much more can they push this die size before going to lets say 22 or even 16 it is very impressive they took it this far .

 I'll bet not much more and why we got the S5 + this way to help found the next push.  which imo is a smart move.

 They can put up to 20 BM1384 on one string per the chip specs - which works out to a lot better efficiency, abet quite a bit lower hashrate. IIRC I posted a calculation in another thread where a 20-string was somewhere in the .30-.35 watt/GH (or J/GH, a Joule (sp) is 1 watt/sec so it should be J/GHs).



 I don't think ANYONE was expecting this particular unit or form factor. I still think it should have been called "S6" not "S5+" since it is not even CLOSE to the S5 form factor but is semi-close to a rack-mount form factor. Or perhaps "S5Trio+" might have been even better yet.


 At the current Yuan price on the Bitmain chinese website, the $ price will probably be around $2750 + shipping at ballpark $100-$150 when they make it available on their main website, unless Bitcoin makes another significant jump/drop before Friday.




 3337 HW errors in 8 hours? Something wrong with at least one of those blades - the 67C on the one blade don't look real good either.
 Nice to see this CAN be done though in case of a controller failure at some point. Just use some cable ties to hang one unit upside down from the next shelf up (with the bottom closed up with cardboard or something for cooling) above the other to keep the cable length short.