3x7970 Mining Results. - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

Quote from: ?? on ??

I've had my Sapphire-brand 7970 for a few days now, mining away with diablominer. I seem to have come pretty close to what others are seeing - 630MH/s at 1075/685, 1.125V, 76c at 48% fan - but not all the way:

- I can't downclock my memory below 685, the lower limit in Afterburner (the only software that seems to work consistently, trixx won't let me underclock mem or undervolt). I have tried the "set lowest, restart" trick multiple times with no luck. How are others doing 160 memclock? My card is running bios 113-C3860100-X00, is this the same as everyone else?

- I am monitoring voltages in Afterburner, as neither GPU-Z or GPU Caps Viewer seem to display the correct voltage. Afterburner seems to be displaying a "true" Vcore value, I see it drooping under load and bouncing back to near my setpoint at idle (1.125V set in Afterburner leads to a stable 1.041V under load, 1.115V at idle). I have tried to set my voltage so that the at-load voltage is roughly what other people have been reporting here. When are you guys reporting voltages, which value are you using? I tried running at 925 core, 0.95V like some others have reported here - voltage droops to 0.892v and a TDR follows easily.

Any advice?

I think so far everyone has been using true Vcore under load as AB beta10 displays, so set target 50-70mV higher.

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

Quote from: plastic.elastic on January 19, 2012, 02:05:04 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?

sveetsnelda

hero member

Activity: 642

Merit: 500

Quote from: plastic.elastic on January 19, 2012, 02:05:04 AM

If those numbers are correct, these cards are double in term of efficiency.

Not quite, but they're certainly up there.

sveetsnelda

hero member

Activity: 642

Merit: 500

I haven't tried to underclock any of my 6970's, so I am unsure. Before I sold my XFX reference boards, I was getting 1580Mhash @ 683W with a slight overclock and a decent voltage decrease (900/340Mhz at 1.050V). This was not on the same power supply as my 7970 tests (this PSU was slighly less efficient, but not much). The rest of the components were the same though.

My non-reference 6970s (MSI Lightning) are using 25 watts more per card -- even at the same voltage.

plastic.elastic

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: yochdog on January 19, 2012, 12:59:05 AM

Quote from: sveetsnelda on January 14, 2012, 05:30:08 PM

Here are some results so far on a dedicated miner:

ASRock 870 Extreme 3 R2.0
Athlon II X3 455
Two cores disabled
CPU voltage dropped by 0.1V
1 stick of DDR3 1066
Seasonic X-1250 PSU (80 Plus Gold)
Windows 7 64 bit
60GB Vertex 2 SSD

All of my dedicated miners are usually using a headless Ubuntu install on a flash drive, but since there probably aren't any programs for Linux that will allow me to change the clocks/voltage on these cards yet (besides what's allowed in aticonfig), I'm using Windows to test this.

2202 Mhash/sec @ 583 watts -- 3.77Mhash/watt (962 mV, 975Mhz/160Mhz)
2106 Mhash/sec @ 553 watts -- 3.80Mhash/watt (949 mV, 925Mhz/160Mhz)
2134 Mhash/sec @ 528 watts -- 4.04Mhash/watt (931 mV, 925Mhz/160Mhz) (one of my cards will not stay stable at this voltage though. The other 3 are solid.)
2060 Mhash/sec @ 498 watts -- 4.13Mhash/watt (918 mV, 900Mhz/160Mhz) (all cards stable)

If you still think these cards aren't efficient, you're drunk. If they were still using VLIW, they'd be insane at hashing. All GPUs show 99 percent utilization. If small improvements can be made to the miner kernels, efficiency will be further improved.

I've got a small external fan blowing on the rig (as with all of my mining rigs). The temps on these cards while mining at 2060 Mhash/sec are 63/64/65/61C. The fan speeds on auto are adjusting to 30/30/30/27% respectively.

All wattages were read with a Kill-a-watt (which makes the measurements on the AC side, of course).

Any idea how this compares on a mh/watt basis with 6970's? I am in the process of replacing a lot of 6970's, and would love to get an idea of how much more efficient these are.

If those numbers are correct, these cards are double in term of efficiency.

yochdog

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sveetsnelda on January 14, 2012, 05:30:08 PM

Here are some results so far on a dedicated miner:

ASRock 870 Extreme 3 R2.0
Athlon II X3 455
Two cores disabled
CPU voltage dropped by 0.1V
1 stick of DDR3 1066
Seasonic X-1250 PSU (80 Plus Gold)
Windows 7 64 bit
60GB Vertex 2 SSD

All of my dedicated miners are usually using a headless Ubuntu install on a flash drive, but since there probably aren't any programs for Linux that will allow me to change the clocks/voltage on these cards yet (besides what's allowed in aticonfig), I'm using Windows to test this.

2202 Mhash/sec @ 583 watts -- 3.77Mhash/watt (962 mV, 975Mhz/160Mhz)
2106 Mhash/sec @ 553 watts -- 3.80Mhash/watt (949 mV, 925Mhz/160Mhz)
2134 Mhash/sec @ 528 watts -- 4.04Mhash/watt (931 mV, 925Mhz/160Mhz) (one of my cards will not stay stable at this voltage though. The other 3 are solid.)
2060 Mhash/sec @ 498 watts -- 4.13Mhash/watt (918 mV, 900Mhz/160Mhz) (all cards stable)

If you still think these cards aren't efficient, you're drunk. If they were still using VLIW, they'd be insane at hashing. All GPUs show 99 percent utilization. If small improvements can be made to the miner kernels, efficiency will be further improved.

I've got a small external fan blowing on the rig (as with all of my mining rigs). The temps on these cards while mining at 2060 Mhash/sec are 63/64/65/61C. The fan speeds on auto are adjusting to 30/30/30/27% respectively.

All wattages were read with a Kill-a-watt (which makes the measurements on the AC side, of course).

Any idea how this compares on a mh/watt basis with 6970's? I am in the process of replacing a lot of 6970's, and would love to get an idea of how much more efficient these are.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: jjiimm_64 on January 18, 2012, 12:53:44 PM

per Month ฿61.12 $415.59

5 month payoff. ......maybe.

Plus, great resale value, makes it a pretty good deal.

jjiimm_64

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

Quote from: deepceleron on January 18, 2012, 12:43:27 PM

Quote from: jjiimm_64 on January 18, 2012, 11:47:55 AM

well, we will see, I just bot 4 cards yesterday

I would have purchased them manually.... Tongue

$2000 of the most expensive mining cards at a high difficulty = a loooong position.

aggreed.

Difficulty Factor   1250757.73927
Hash Rate (mega-hashes / second)     2500
Exchange Rate ($/฿)   6.8

   Coins   Dollars
per Day   ฿2.01   $13.67
per Week   ฿14.07   $95.70
per Month   ฿61.12   $415.59

5 month payoff. ......maybe.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: jjiimm_64 on January 18, 2012, 11:47:55 AM

well, we will see, I just bot 4 cards yesterday

I would have purchased them manually.... Tongue

$2000 of the most expensive mining cards at a high difficulty = a loooong position.

jjiimm_64

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

well, we will see, I just bot 4 cards yesterday

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: sveetsnelda on January 14, 2012, 05:38:26 PM

And for those of you with cheap electricity:

2486 Mhash/sec @ 793 watts -- 3.13Mhash/watt (1056mV, 1075Mhz/200Mhz). Stable.

That's with 4 cards, so 621 MH/s per card.

jjiimm_64

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

so what was the top hash on this card, regardless of efficiency? if power is not problem?

someone needs to add to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: ArtForz on January 17, 2012, 08:17:15 AM

Well, at least on 7970 it seems not horribly memory limited.
925 to 1125 = +21.6% core gives +17.1% performance (= 80% effective)
even at 1125 core 1375 to 1575 memclock =+14.5% only gets ~ +2.5% performance (= ~18% effective)
That looks a lot more core than memory limited to me.
So if it's *supposed* to be mem limited... that kernel still has lots of room for improvements on 79xx.

Well 79xx series uses 384 bit memory bus so clock for clock it has 50% more memory throughput than the 6970. Nothing like a brute force 50% boost to solve a bottleneck.

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

Well, at least on 7970 it seems not horribly memory limited.
925 to 1125 = +21.6% core gives +17.1% performance (= 80% effective)
even at 1125 core 1375 to 1575 memclock =+14.5% only gets ~ +2.5% performance (= ~18% effective)
That looks a lot more core than memory limited to me.
So if it's *supposed* to be mem limited... that kernel still has lots of room for improvements on 79xx.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 16, 2012, 08:45:02 AM

oclvanitygen -d 0 1Bitcoinz (0 = device # and the string is the address searching for 1Bitcoinz is impossibly long which prevent the generator from getting lucky too soon)

<--- not impossibly long...

Another thing if you are running oclvanitygen, it will benefit from memory as overclocked as you can go.

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

Doubt it, basically all I did was disable the ati-specific tweaks, replaced the BFI_INT parts with bitselect() and set fixed work group sizes (16x16 for first and 3rd kernel, 64 for 2nd)

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: ArtForz on January 16, 2012, 01:07:21 PM

1170/1600 49.1Mk/s

Almost 50MK/s from a single GPU. I got so say I am impressed. The memory throughput on 7970 really shines.

BTW: Those tweaks and adjustments are they possible on 5000 series cards or was it some 7970 model specific optimizations?

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

linux, cat 11.12, sdk2.6, vanitygen git, disabled BFI_INT to get correct results
925/1375 28.1Mk/s
1125/1375 32.4Mk/s
1125/1575 33.2Mk/s
1170/1600 34.1Mk/s

some more testing, disabled EXPENSIVE_BRANCHES and DEEP_VLIW, -g 2048x2048 -b 256
925/1375 37.1Mk/s
1125/1375 43.0Mk/s
1125/1575 43.7Mk/s
1170/1600 45.0Mk/s

more tweaking...
925/1375 39.8Mk/s
1125/1375 46.6Mk/s
1170/1600 49.1Mk/s

edit: 50.1Mk/s at 1200/1600

celcoid

member

Activity: 280

Merit: 10

Quote from: DiabloD3 on January 16, 2012, 11:55:17 AM

Someone with a 7970, please measure the exact length of the card. My Gigabyte Super-5850 is on a 5870 carrier and just BARELY fits, it rubs against the ass end of the harddrives. I wanna make sure a 7970 will actually fit.

11.2in

sveetsnelda

hero member

Activity: 642

Merit: 500

Quote from: DiabloD3 on January 16, 2012, 11:55:17 AM

Someone with a 7970, please measure the exact length of the card. My Gigabyte Super-5850 is on a 5870 carrier and just BARELY fits, it rubs against the ass end of the harddrives. I wanna make sure a 7970 will actually fit.

I'll gladly measure mine when I get back from work, but they all seem to slightly vary by brand/model (even though they are reference designs). Anandtech has a good chart though:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5319/amd-radeon-hd-7970-launch-recap

Topic: 3x7970 Mining Results. - page 6. (Read 61673 times)