3436w is way to much for home mining. But 7th is awesome! 
Topic: ANTMINER S5: 1155GH(+OverClock Potential), In Stock $0.319/GH & 0.51W/GH - page 45. (Read 451266 times)
August 07, 2015, 10:49:33 AM
3436w is way to much for home mining. But 7th is awesome! 
August 07, 2015, 10:22:06 AM
If you have other S5's connected and running without issue then you are right to suggest an internet issue can not cause your S5's to become unresponsive, however, having run a few S5's in my time, I know an internet outage CAN cause all sorts of issues with S5's, including (but by no means limited to) becoming un-responsive.
It's down to you whether you explore that or not, but the dual incidence of your S5's failure to connect @6AM on consecutive days is too much of a coincidence to rule out internet failure (maybe running your node
You asked the question, and you got a legitimate answer.
Sorry if I appeared snappy, I am open to discussion.
In actual fact, I wasn't running any nodes last night. I had stopped the one I had been running to rsync the blockchain to another device.
If the S5 genuinely can go down if connection to the internet is lost, I can accept that (though it would be annoying), just looking to get it down to something solid.
August 07, 2015, 10:14:07 AM
I wanna buy one . the setup need a pro guy or it's easy ?
I want to subtract it of three parts, and put to work with S5 controllers each part separately.
it is possible to also add water cooling. Winter is not far away.
How long do i need to return total investment ?
August 07, 2015, 10:08:52 AM
I've had a bit of an issue the last couple of days and I'm hoping to nip it in the bud...
By process of simple elimination, I'd say the issue is with your internet connection.
It may be that it is reset at 6am every morning (of late) for some reason, and could that also explain the issues you had with your local P2Pool node?
The only issue with the p2pool really was that it caused high pings for an online game. I don't see how an internet issue would cause the miner to become unresponsive on the local network either.
If you have other S5's connected and running without issue then you are right to suggest an internet issue can not cause your S5's to become unresponsive, however, having run a few S5's in my time, I know an internet outage CAN cause all sorts of issues with S5's, including (but by no means limited to) becoming un-responsive.
It's down to you whether you explore that or not, but the dual incidence of your S5's failure to connect @6AM on consecutive days is too much of a coincidence to rule out internet failure (maybe running your node
You asked the question, and you got a legitimate answer.
August 07, 2015, 09:25:35 AM
I wanna buy one . the setup need a pro guy or it's easy ?
I want to subtract it of three parts, and put to work with S5 controllers each part separately.
it is possible to also add water cooling. Winter is not far away.
August 07, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
I've had a bit of an issue the last couple of days and I'm hoping to nip it in the bud...
By process of simple elimination, I'd say the issue is with your internet connection.
It may be that it is reset at 6am every morning (of late) for some reason, and could that also explain the issues you had with your local P2Pool node?
The only issue with the p2pool really was that it caused high pings for an online game. I don't see how an internet issue would cause the miner to become unresponsive on the local network either.
August 07, 2015, 09:09:29 AM
I wanna buy one . the setup need a pro guy or it's easy ?
August 07, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
I've had a bit of an issue the last couple of days and I'm hoping to nip it in the bud...
By process of simple elimination, I'd say the issue is with your internet connection.
It may be that it is reset at 6am every morning (of late) for some reason, and could that also explain the issues you had with your local P2Pool node?
August 07, 2015, 08:51:00 AM
I've had a bit of an issue the last couple of days and I'm hoping to nip it in the bud...
On Wednesday, I switched to p2pool on a local node and switched it into my #1 position. Hashing seemed to be going OK but on Thursday in the day, I noticed my miner was no longer reachable (no ping, my router showed that port as not connected). Checking the p2pool graph showed that the miner had stopped hashing at 6am. I had someone at home restart it and hashing continued. However, p2pool was adversely affecting my internet connection so I shut it down, allowing the miner to fall back to antpool. I checked it was hashing on the pool and thought no more of it.
This morning, I was woken by a beeping sound at 6am. Could this be a recurring problem? Has anyone heard of this before? It just seems odd that the times are the same.
A few more relevant details:
On Wednesday, I switched to p2pool on a local node and switched it into my #1 position. Hashing seemed to be going OK but on Thursday in the day, I noticed my miner was no longer reachable (no ping, my router showed that port as not connected). Checking the p2pool graph showed that the miner had stopped hashing at 6am. I had someone at home restart it and hashing continued. However, p2pool was adversely affecting my internet connection so I shut it down, allowing the miner to fall back to antpool. I checked it was hashing on the pool and thought no more of it.
This morning, I was woken by a beeping sound at 6am. Could this be a recurring problem? Has anyone heard of this before? It just seems odd that the times are the same.
A few more relevant details:
- Other than this, the miner has been hashing for over a week with no issues.
- p2pool was not running this morning so it should have just been failing to connect and falling back to antpool
- Miner did not seem especially hot this morning
- I moved the miner yesterday evening to a different room so it should not be location dependent. The new area should actually be cooler (currently running at 52 and 45).
- Not sure of the firmware version but kernel is 3.8.13 and cgminer is 4.8.0, Hardware is 3.4.3.0
So just a coincidence or something else?
August 07, 2015, 07:10:53 AM
So looking at the board layout & doing a bit of maths. It looks like they have changed the chain layout of the S5 which was.
A string of 15 Chip Pairs / board, total 30 chips. Giving 577 GH / Board @ a calculated 0.8V Core Voltage (Actual Core voltage will be a bit less than this) GH/chip 19.25
And the S5+ which has
A string of 16 Chip Triples / board, total 48 chips. Giving 858 GH / Board @ a calculated 0.75V Core Voltage. GH/chip 17.875
So they have dropped the core voltage and GH/ Chip slightly.
Rich
A string of 15 Chip Pairs / board, total 30 chips. Giving 577 GH / Board @ a calculated 0.8V Core Voltage (Actual Core voltage will be a bit less than this) GH/chip 19.25
And the S5+ which has
A string of 16 Chip Triples / board, total 48 chips. Giving 858 GH / Board @ a calculated 0.75V Core Voltage. GH/chip 17.875
So they have dropped the core voltage and GH/ Chip slightly.
Rich
August 07, 2015, 06:59:12 AM
S5+
432 chips, 7722GH/s, 3436 Wt !!!
I'm with RichBC. I'd be interested in a single 3 PCB unit running on 120V. 432 chips, 7722GH/s, 3436 Wt !!!
August 07, 2015, 05:52:28 AM
Wow that is a beast... Yes the server PSU's are perfect as they are designed to be connected in parallel and load share well. I hope they ship them with ear defenders. 
Seeing the construction makes you wonder if they will release a single unit with 3 PCB, would still be an impressive 2574GH
Rich
Seeing the construction makes you wonder if they will release a single unit with 3 PCB, would still be an impressive 2574GH
Rich
August 07, 2015, 04:49:20 AM
Good lord, definitely not targeting the hobby miner with that beast - where did you find it out about it?
Somehow our merchant adv shared this information before I found it here, on Bitcointalk...
August 07, 2015, 04:45:17 AM
Finally a new kid on "the public block".
August 07, 2015, 04:38:13 AM
Going by bitmain standards, if that thing is published, it will cost around 11 Bitcoins.
Also, powering isn't a problem, remember you can always chain server PSUs
Also, powering isn't a problem, remember you can always chain server PSUs
August 07, 2015, 04:32:55 AM
Agree, getting a PSU for that is going to be tricky (and I would not want to rely on bitmain made PSU's ...). And the fans look less than the "standard" 38mm's ... so maybe being targeted at hobby miners ... but then any peace and quiet will certainly be shattered by the PSU fans ... Oh well.
August 07, 2015, 04:28:57 AM
Good lord, definitely not targeting the hobby miner with that beast - where did you find it out about it? At 240v that thing is going to be pulling down almost 15 amps, plus even those beast 2880w IBM server PSU aren't enough to power this... Power consumption is slightly better, 0.44w/GH instead of 0.51w/GH of the S5, but I that has to be a prototype case setup - I would imagine this is going into a rack mount case of some sort - but you never know with Bitmain! It looks like they've got push and pull fans on it - and this also matches that the latest S5 firmware lists 6 fans on it's display.... I wonder what it's going to cost?
It looks like they've got push and pull fans on it - and this also matches that the latest S5 firmware lists 6 fans on it's display.... I wonder what it's going to cost? August 07, 2015, 04:18:10 AM
S5+
432 chips, 7722GH/s, 3436 Wt
Have anyone heard about it?
432 chips, 7722GH/s, 3436 Wt
Have anyone heard about it?
August 07, 2015, 02:50:55 AM
On the S5, you need the cooling air flowing across the back to cool the parts that are on the back side of the circuit board.
August 06, 2015, 06:07:21 PM
These chip are bottom heat so even if you but heatsink on top of it you will not see a big difference in temp.
Might have that the wrong way around - these are, or are at least claimed to be, flip chip type designs with most of the heat going out the top of the chip. The S5 miner design has heat sinks on the top. Maybe you were referring to board sides, though.I'm also not convinced that cooling the other side is entirely fruitless - just not necessary - as some heat is going there as well (can't disobey the laws of physics). The S5's layout does mean that if one were to put heat sinks there, they'd either have to be small, or would require spacers to get the clearance above the taller passives. My Compac's running a wee bit cooler with its shiny new heatsink on that side - but unlikely to be worth the bother on a large board vs getting better airflow.
Jump to: