Pages:
Author

Topic: 3x7970 Mining Results. - page 5. (Read 61697 times)

ZPK
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1021
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 501
January 22, 2012, 09:55:04 AM
passive cooling?
No. That's the DCII cooler. It looks a little something like this.
sr. member
Activity: 270
Merit: 250
January 22, 2012, 09:53:21 AM
passive cooling?
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
BitMinter
January 22, 2012, 08:22:11 AM
 Grin holy smokes
hero member
Activity: 642
Merit: 500
January 21, 2012, 02:45:19 PM
You should buy beg borrow or steal a 5970 and do a head to head with the same rig.  100% vs 100% mining flat out under various voltages & core speeds, with MH/s and watts in a pretty spreadsheet.

Mmmmm...spreadsheets.  Grin

You should pay me for lost BTC during the downtime.  Then I'll do it.  Tongue

Mmmmm...chocolate covered spreadsheets.  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 21, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
At least label your wattage numbers so we know if they are total or not Tongue
And if they are not total, write the total watts in there too.
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
January 21, 2012, 01:36:38 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.

Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.

Or they are inferring it from other sources instead of measuring it directly.

Totals watts from wall / total hashes from rig = gold standard.

Sure, but I measured all possible sources now. :p

You should buy beg borrow or steal a 5970 and do a head to head with the same rig.  100% vs 100% mining flat out under various voltages & core speeds, with MH/s and watts in a pretty spreadsheet.

Mmmmm...spreadsheets.  Grin

No, that takes work. /lazy
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 21, 2012, 01:33:39 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.

Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.

Or they are inferring it from other sources instead of measuring it directly.

Totals watts from wall / total hashes from rig = gold standard.

Sure, but I measured all possible sources now. :p

You should buy beg borrow or steal a 5970 and do a head to head with the same rig.  100% vs 100% mining flat out under various voltages & core speeds, with MH/s and watts in a pretty spreadsheet.

Mmmmm...spreadsheets.  Grin
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
January 21, 2012, 01:23:35 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.

Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.

Or they are inferring it from other sources instead of measuring it directly.

Totals watts from wall / total hashes from rig = gold standard.

Sure, but I measured all possible sources now. :p
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 21, 2012, 01:16:40 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.

Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.

Or they are inferring it from other sources instead of measuring it directly.

Totals watts from wall / total hashes from rig = gold standard.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 1724
January 21, 2012, 01:14:10 PM
Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.

Sorry haven't seen that, either you edited the post or I;m just tired (the latter being more probable)
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
January 21, 2012, 01:08:05 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.

Did you even read what I said? It's within 5% of my calculated figures, so it is more than likely more accurate than what I calculated.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 1724
January 21, 2012, 01:06:38 PM

I would not count much on the accuracy of the voltage and current sensors, it would be better to calculate a rig with onbard graphics and then this same rig with a 7970 @ 100% load. That's assuming the CPU had same load in both cases.
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
January 21, 2012, 12:57:59 PM
So, new GPU-Z allows me to calculate the exact power draw of a 7970. It reads the VDDC Current in, which I assume is the power the gpu is drawing from the +12v rail. So if you take the reading of 10.5 Amps and multiply it by 12 volts, you get 126 watts.

This verifies that my original figures are within 5% of the actual.

hero member
Activity: 642
Merit: 500
January 21, 2012, 03:23:22 AM
still not as good as dual 6990

700-850 less Mhash/sec for the same power and the cards don't even exist anymore...   Yes.  Two 6990's are obviously superior.   Roll Eyes
rot
newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
January 21, 2012, 01:44:01 AM
still not as good as dual 6990
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 19, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
Nah, you forget these are the reference cards.  They need to leave headroom for the card makers to put out their factory overclocked and otherwise special edition cards. 

Yup and AMD collects a royalty on those "factory overclocked" models. win-win. Smiley
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
January 19, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
If those numbers are correct, these cards are double in term of efficiency.
Not really, more like ~0% stock and ~ +30% undervolted at stock clock vs. my old 5970 numbers here.
Guess we'll never know why on earth AMD decided to go with 1.175V core at 925 MHz, so far all cards seem perfectly happy at 0.95-1.05V at 925 core for mining and 3D. While at stock V they seem to OC to 1050-1120 MHz... Roll Eyes
Now the big Q: if those aren't cherry-picked chips, what will 7990s be able to reach?

A little bird told me AMD is kicking themselves for clocking them too low.

Nah, you forget these are the reference cards.  They need to leave headroom for the card makers to put out their factory overclocked and otherwise special edition cards. 
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
January 19, 2012, 11:44:53 AM
If those numbers are correct, these cards are double in term of efficiency.
Not really, more like ~0% stock and ~ +30% undervolted at stock clock vs. my old 5970 numbers here.
Guess we'll never know why on earth AMD decided to go with 1.175V core at 925 MHz, so far all cards seem perfectly happy at 0.95-1.05V at 925 core for mining and 3D. While at stock V they seem to OC to 1050-1120 MHz... Roll Eyes
Now the big Q: if those aren't cherry-picked chips, what will 7990s be able to reach?

A little bird told me AMD is kicking themselves for clocking them too low.
newbie
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
January 19, 2012, 11:21:39 AM
As for the memory clock, they're probably dropping it in CGminer or so. Mine is also running at 150MHz, keeps the GPU quite a bit cooler for some reason.
Pages:
Jump to: