Topic: 5970 mining thread - page 4. (Read 25623 times)

Anything over 11.12 with BSOD with more then 4 GPU's on windows.

Two of them are in the same rig with two 5870s running at 950/300/1.05V for ~437MH each  - total with a 1250W PS pull 1KW +/- 10W.  The whole rig crunches ~2367MH/s which makes for nice round math @ 2.36MH/W

wonder whats you MHash/W with that amount of voltage

3x5970

all configured the same, MH/s is +/- 2% between all three

bamt 0.5
cgminer 2.3.1f
clocks/mem 835/300
vddc 1.050 (not 1.163 as I previously mistakenly posted)
temps: 68-72C
MH/s 758

2 x 5970s + 3 x 5850s
Motherboard MSI 790FX-GD70
CPU PHenomII x4 965 (i know, it was a combo deal)
BAMT 0.5
cgminer 2.3.1-2
#01
core: 750MHz
mem: 250MHz
Vddc: 1.0 Volts
Temps: 66ºC
hashrate: 690MH/s

#02
core: 725MHz
mem: 250MHz
Vddc: 1.0 Volts
Temps: 66ºC
hashrate: 666MH/s

They were working on windows until i installed the third 5850, then the whole rig kept BSODing so i installed BAMT instead

Fan bearings will wear out sooner or later. I strongly suspect the relationship with fan speed is at least linear, possibly super linear as vibration is likely a very important factor (avoid speeds which produce more mechanical noise, humming etc).

Of course you can get lucky. Or maybe that poster has some advantages most other miners do not, like a dust free environment or he lubricates them regularly. Either way there is little doubt in my mind a fan at 100% wont last as long as one on 50% and its not like fan failure is a rare thing. Its equally true low temps will help the card live longer, but it all depends how high your temps are. I get <60C with fans at 50% (non ref cards), its pointless to increase fan speed in those circumstances.

Forking thread from Mining Support to here...


100%?  Comments?  (Replacement fans are US$ 15 each on eBay.)

Whatever, a GPU pushed too hard will produce errors, not rejects.

Surely you mean the number next to HW is hardware error, and the number next to R is rejects, right?

Just to be clear to others, the ugly number next to R is Hardware Errors. That's the only time overclocking too much or unlocking broken shaders and what not will actually decrease your effective useful hashrate even though apparently stable; when your cards starts making shit up.

this is also not too scientific..  but some of the rigs I would just keep restarting, keep the clocks at whatever they were.  and eventually the rig would just kept running. still dont know why.

But...

(Emphasis added for both quotes)

I was having cgminer report GPUs "SICK" -- thread idle for more than 60 sec., but immediately "cured" by killing/restarting the (two) GPU threads.  So I increased memclock from 150 to 300 and reduced engine clock from 800 to 725 (stock speed).  I was hopeful, but after about 10 hours one (of six) was just reported "SICK"...  This one is reporting about 68C.

Maybe I should just accept a certain rate of SICKness?  At 800/150 I was getting about seven such cases a day.

I appreciate the response Jimm and no I didn't burn them in intially, maybe that screwed me.

I'm just getting frustrated here as I have put in about 20 hours on these rigs the last 4-5 days and it's pissing me off that I can't even get 800 clock speeds after replacing all the TIM and pads, etc.

I know I did a good job with the TIM and pads because the GPU cores went down at least 5c on every card. If you guys could see how bad the stock pads and TIM was on these cards you'd know what I did should have helped A LOT.

I'm just thinking all the down time and restarts are costing me way more than if I just water cooled every damn card and called it a day.

It looks like it would cost me about $1000 per rig for three cards to water cool them.

I have 12 5970's and 8 5870's right now. The 5870's are at 900 with stock cooling and have run fine for 4 days.

Considering I could probably get the 5970's to 850 or 860, that's 125 mhz per core over stock for a total of 1500 mhz extra. Three cards at stock is getting me about about 2 GH/s at 850 I think I could get closer to 2.4 at least.

So that would be an extra 1.6 GH/s which gets about $200 per month at current prices. Now if you count shutdowns and the loss of revenue associated with all that, looks like about a 12 month return.

It has been my experience that the 5970's run more stable with a little higher memory.  I used to run them at 420, i have since brought it down to 300.

I know I am not answering the water cooling question.  I would raise the mem back up a bit if it was me.  Also, did you burn them in at a lower clock before going above or at 800?  I did for all 21 of my 5970's.

I ran them at stock clock for a few hours, then at 750 for a while, then at 775 for a day.  after that I would run them at 800/300 for a stability check. (days).  after that maybe crank them up to 820 if the temps are OK.

just my 2 bitcents.

Speaking of clocks and hash rates, I vastly over stated what I thought I could get earlier in this thread. Right now my cards won't go longer than 2-3 days at 800/300 or 800/160 and this is in a cold basement. One machine has a box fan blowing on it directly.

It has to be the ram, because my core temps don't go above 60c and most are in the low 50's. I'm starting to think these diamond brand 5970's from newegg just suck.

I just cranked them down to 725/160 since I won't be able to mess with my rigs for a while. I'm thinking I might have to go water cooling since I can probably get 900 or so.

DeathandTaxes, what hash rate do you get on your water cooled cards. I'd like to do some calculations on the difference to see if a water cooling investment is worth it.

Exactly.  IF rejected shares are the same then hashrate and share rate should correlate.  There is short term variance but over say 24 hours you shouldn't see a lower hashrate and higher share rate.

Now IF you have rejects not related to pool latency then your cards are trying to tell you something.  It is possible to drive the card to the point of failure such that despite the higher hashrate you have some many rejects that shares/min is lower.  Of course this should be immediately obvious with the giant ugly number next to R.

U (is in shares/ minute) = (hashrate * 60) / (2^32)

If you reject rate is >0% then it will affect U but the amount should be small because w/ modern miners there is no reason for a reject rate higher than 0.1%.

So for example 400 MH/s =  (400 * 1000^2 * 60) / (2^32) = 5.58 shares per min

Yes, people have tried to insist all sorts of things to me 

Someone was talking about how they were getting higher hash rates when they changed one of their options (I think vectors) but were getting lower shares.  I thought they had done it over a long period of time, but it might have been them talking out their ass. They said something about the card having way more rejected shares than expected. When they changed their setting for vectors to something lower, their MH/s dropped a small amount but their submitted shares went up.  This would have been back in June, so I'm not sure what to even search.

They correlate, but proportional to luck. So if you're "tuning' based on the value returned for shares/minute, then you're changing settings based on the luck of your most recent mining session, and nothing to do with hash performance...

Is there a theory about the relation between hash rate and shares/minute?  Overall they must correlate, but I've observed that the correlation is not perfect.