ANTMINER S7 is available at bitmaintech.com with 4.86TH/s, 0.25J/GH - page 222.

bbOOmm

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: Biodom on November 07, 2015, 01:49:38 PM

Quote from: dmwardjr on November 07, 2015, 01:44:21 PM

Quote from: bbOOmm on November 07, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

This board with less chips, lower hashrate, but with greater power usage, My guess would be this was the original batch 1 that just absolutely failed expectations and resulted a re-design leading to the boards that are in the B1,B2,B3 etc .... They did say they had a very limited number of them.

I suppose that is possible with Batch 6. I was looking for them saying, "limited number of them" but I could not find it. Only time will tell when we see B7, B8, etc...

I disagree, it was B4/B5 that was limited. this one is not.
Also, boards are completely different with 135 vs 164 chips.
I believe that from now on it will be just B6 or alike.
Perhaps, this configuration is more amenable for the next gen of chips.

With btc at 388, I don't know, but if we correct to $325 and btc price/machine stays, I would be getting some.
Besides, you can safely use worse PSU's if you got them.

Ack, my bad. I forgot these were batch 6. I had B4 abd B5 on the mind with the limited.

I have no clue then. Different design, different specifications, should have a different modeling number.... Its already a nightmare to figure out what S7's are what just with all the differences between B1 thru B5, now add in B6 with a different board design and specifications - then looking the same from the exterior..... buyer beware when buying from a re-seller or buying used.

dmwardjr

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1318

Technical Analyst/Trader

Quote from: Biodom on November 07, 2015, 01:49:38 PM

I disagree, it was B4/B5 that was limited. this one is not.
Also, boards are completely different with 135 vs 164 chips.
I believe that from now on it will be just B6 or alike.
Perhaps, this configuration is more amenable for the next gen of chips.

With btc at 388, I don't know, but if we correct to $325 and btc price/machine stays, I would be getting some.
Besides, you can safely use worse PSU's if you got them.

Well, if your prediction is correct, I hope these are actually 1,042 watts instead of an additional 10% on top of that.

However, f it is another 10% on top of that, it's not a deal breaker for me.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: dmwardjr on November 07, 2015, 01:44:21 PM

Quote from: bbOOmm on November 07, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

This board with less chips, lower hashrate, but with greater power usage, My guess would be this was the original batch 1 that just absolutely failed expectations and resulted a re-design leading to the boards that are in the B1,B2,B3 etc .... They did say they had a very limited number of them.

I suppose that is possible with Batch 6. I was looking for them saying, "limited number of them" but I could not find it. Only time will tell when we see B7, B8, etc...

I disagree, it was B4/B5 that was limited. this one is not.
Also, boards are completely different with 135 vs 164 chips.
I believe that from now on it will be just B6 or alike.
Perhaps, this configuration is more amenable for the next gen of chips.

With btc at 388, I don't know, but if we correct to $325 and btc price/machine stays, I would be getting some.
Besides, you can safely use worse PSU's if you got them.

dmwardjr

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1318

Technical Analyst/Trader

Quote from: bbOOmm on November 07, 2015, 12:53:48 PM

This board with less chips, lower hashrate, but with greater power usage, My guess would be this was the original batch 1 that just absolutely failed expectations and resulted a re-design leading to the boards that are in the B1,B2,B3 etc .... They did say they had a very limited number of them.

I suppose that is possible with Batch 6. I was looking for them saying, "limited number of them" but I could not find it. Only time will tell when we see B7, B8, etc...

bbOOmm

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: chalkboard17 on November 07, 2015, 12:00:29 PM

Quote from: dmwardjr on November 07, 2015, 11:11:12 AM

Not sure if this has already been mentioned in the thread:

BITMAIN did correct the specifications on Batch 6 to say the following: "5. Chip quantity per unit: 135 x BM1385"

I still find it confusing it says:

2. Power Consumption: 1042 W + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25C ambient temp)

3. Power Efficiency: 0.25 J/GH + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25°C ambient temp)

The reason this is confusing to me is because it does not say, "+/-" but only "+"

The BM1385 chip is capable of 32.5 GHS per chip at just 0.216 Watts of power usage per GHS with 0.66V core voltage.

I'm just totally confused at the moment. Can someone chime in to help me understand if it is 1042 watts at the wall @ 600MHz or 1,146.2 watts (+10%) ??

The same instant bitmain put up b6 up, and was ignored like I usually am.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12893262
and another post regarding efficiency 2 posts down

In a way or another this last batch isn't as efficient as all previous s7. Up to (not saying it IS) 15% less efficient I'd say. And not a single word has been mentioned by them regarding this and they couldn't even put actual efficiency. They just put this "+" stuff to misguide people.

What do you expect? Really, Bitmain is the only manufacturer of mining equipment for the "Home" miner. They have the monopoly and can do whatever they please. Their mentality is - If you don't like their policies and practices, well, go find another manufacturer.

Till there is real competition, expect this crap.

My opinion is .... there is a lot of instability within the chip. That is why there are so many different versions, hashrates and clock speeds. So instead of just tossing the QC failed boards, they have been individually testing each hashboard to grade the board for the different batches therefore mitigating their production losses.

This board with less chips, lower hashrate, but with greater power usage, My guess would be this was the original batch 1 that just absolutely failed expectations and resulted a re-design leading to the boards that are in the B1,B2,B3 etc .... They did say they had a very limited number of them.

It would make sense considering their past behavior of recycling the QC fails.

chalkboard17

sr. member

Activity: 484

Merit: 251

Quote from: dmwardjr on November 07, 2015, 11:11:12 AM

Not sure if this has already been mentioned in the thread:

BITMAIN did correct the specifications on Batch 6 to say the following: "5. Chip quantity per unit: 135 x BM1385"

I still find it confusing it says:

2. Power Consumption: 1042 W + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25C ambient temp)

3. Power Efficiency: 0.25 J/GH + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25°C ambient temp)

The reason this is confusing to me is because it does not say, "+/-" but only "+"

The BM1385 chip is capable of 32.5 GHS per chip at just 0.216 Watts of power usage per GHS with 0.66V core voltage.

I'm just totally confused at the moment. Can someone chime in to help me understand if it is 1042 watts at the wall @ 600MHz or 1,146.2 watts (+10%) ??

The same instant bitmain put up b6 up, and was ignored like I usually am.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12893262
and another post regarding efficiency 2 posts down

In a way or another this last batch isn't as efficient as all previous s7. Up to (not saying it IS) 15% less efficient I'd say. And not a single word has been mentioned by them regarding this and they couldn't even put actual efficiency. They just put this "+" stuff to misguide people.

RichBC

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: dmwardjr on November 07, 2015, 11:11:12 AM

Not sure if this has already been mentioned in the thread:

BITMAIN did correct the specifications on Batch 6 to say the following: "5. Chip quantity per unit: 135 x BM1385"

I still find it confusing it says:

2. Power Consumption: 1042 W + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25C ambient temp)

3. Power Efficiency: 0.25 J/GH + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25°C ambient temp)

The reason this is confusing to me is because it does not say, "+/-" but only "+"

The BM1385 chip is capable of 32.5 GHS per chip at just 0.216 Watts of power usage per GHS with 0.66V core voltage.

I'm just totally confused at the moment. Can someone chime in to help me understand if it is 1042 watts at the wall @ 600MHz or 1,146.2 watts (+10%) ??

I have put my thoughts in the S7 "Lite" Thread

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12902245

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12911092

Still very confusing and in summary far from certain that Bitmain knows what the spec is yet.

Rich

dmwardjr

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1318

Technical Analyst/Trader

Not sure if this has already been mentioned in the thread:

BITMAIN did correct the specifications on Batch 6 to say the following: "5. Chip quantity per unit: 135 x BM1385"

I still find it confusing it says:

2. Power Consumption: 1042 W + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25C ambient temp)

3. Power Efficiency: 0.25 J/GH + 10% (at the wall, with APW3, 93% efficiency, 25°C ambient temp)

The reason this is confusing to me is because it does not say, "+/-" but only "+"

The BM1385 chip is capable of 32.5 GHS per chip at just 0.216 Watts of power usage per GHS with 0.66V core voltage.

I'm just totally confused at the moment. Can someone chime in to help me understand if it is 1042 watts at the wall @ 600MHz or 1,146.2 watts (+10%) ??

hawkfish007

hero member

Activity: 895

Merit: 504

Quote from: cl4ud1u on November 07, 2015, 03:06:42 AM

One miner was giving me lots of HW errors and when i removed the fans to check the heatsinks, surprise...one missging

What can i do ? Write to Bitmain or buy heatsinks? Where from ?

Bitmain replaced 2 of my B1 hashboards, both had loose heatsinks with chip so I only had 1 working board. The exchange process was quite simple and it took less than 2 weeks.

klondike_bar

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1005

ASIC Wannabe

Quote from: cl4ud1u on November 07, 2015, 03:06:42 AM

One miner was giving me lots of HW errors and when i removed the fans to check the heatsinks, surprise...one missging

What can i do ? Write to Bitmain or buy heatsinks? Where from ?

not sure if bitmain would be fast or particularly helpful to respond. An easy DIY would be to buy a small adhesive heatsink (look on ebay/amazon for "tiny heatsink, bitcoin heatsink, rpi heatsink" or something along those lines, they stick on easily and while smaller than the original, should help somewhat.

alternatively, ignore it. accept the loss of ~80GH so long as the system appears to be getting ~98% of the nominal hashrate

notlist3d

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cl4ud1u on November 07, 2015, 03:06:42 AM

One miner was giving me lots of HW errors and when i removed the fans to check the heatsinks, surprise...one missging

What can i do ? Write to Bitmain or buy heatsinks? Where from ?

If in warranty write bitmain. If you say you opened it up without their permission they can void warranty just a FYI. So you might ask them if you can open it in a email or support ticket... if you say you did it on your own I would hate to have warranty voided.

But yes get in contact with them.

cl4ud1u

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 100

One miner was giving me lots of HW errors and when i removed the fans to check the heatsinks, surprise...one missging

What can i do ? Write to Bitmain or buy heatsinks? Where from ?

thedreamer

legendary

Activity: 1694

Merit: 1002

Go Big or Go Home.....

Quote from: -droid- on November 06, 2015, 10:52:39 PM

Quote from: thedreamer on November 06, 2015, 10:30:26 PM

Both my 4.86TH Batch 1's when downclocked to 575Mh, got 0.0001 or 0.0000% error rates at just over 4.73TH average over a 12 hour period while testing.

I also found, that by loosening up the screws on the fans front and aft (all Cool

the sound became a much less 'droning' and a smooth 'hooosh' type of sound.
Originally the sound was like a humming type , pretty loud.

And yes, like I said I would, I got rid of my S7's as I'm done with Bitmain as a business after the crap they pulled with this miner.

Ahh that's why they were all loose lol

LOL. Forgot to tell ya. Didn't think you'd mind the less noise. :-)

IMO these are actually quieter at full speed but fans at 37 or below, than the S5's with stock fans running PWM.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: -droid- on November 06, 2015, 10:52:39 PM

Quote from: thedreamer on November 06, 2015, 10:30:26 PM

Both my 4.86TH Batch 1's when downclocked to 575Mh, got 0.0001 or 0.0000% error rates at just over 4.73TH average over a 12 hour period while testing.

I also found, that by loosening up the screws on the fans front and aft (all Cool

the sound became a much less 'droning' and a smooth 'hooosh' type of sound.
Originally the sound was like a humming type , pretty loud.

And yes, like I said I would, I got rid of my S7's as I'm done with Bitmain as a business after the crap they pulled with this miner.

Ahh that's why they were all loose lol

mine are still tight, did not want to stop the hashing during first 24 hr.
I also did the trick with screws on B1, but forgot this time.

-droid-

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1001

Quote from: thedreamer on November 06, 2015, 10:30:26 PM

Both my 4.86TH Batch 1's when downclocked to 575Mh, got 0.0001 or 0.0000% error rates at just over 4.73TH average over a 12 hour period while testing.

I also found, that by loosening up the screws on the fans front and aft (all Cool

the sound became a much less 'droning' and a smooth 'hooosh' type of sound.
Originally the sound was like a humming type , pretty loud.

And yes, like I said I would, I got rid of my S7's as I'm done with Bitmain as a business after the crap they pulled with this miner.

Ahh that's why they were all loose lol

thedreamer

legendary

Activity: 1694

Merit: 1002

Go Big or Go Home.....

Both my 4.86TH Batch 1's when downclocked to 575Mh, got 0.0001 or 0.0000% error rates at just over 4.73TH average over a 12 hour period while testing.

I also found, that by loosening up the screws on the fans front and aft (all Cool

the sound became a much less 'droning' and a smooth 'hooosh' type of sound.
Originally the sound was like a humming type , pretty loud.

And yes, like I said I would, I got rid of my S7's as I'm done with Bitmain as a business after the crap they pulled with this miner.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Funny thing: one batch 2 (10/16 order) has no sticker, but was setup at 575 9this one has an unbelievable 0.0001% error right now, knock on wood; another batch 2 (10/22 order) has a sticker covering another sticker (575 over 600 or 575 over 550?).
Additionally, each of these two sound differently with one with a solid noise and another with annoying "banging" similar to S5.
So, all machines seem to have their own little quirks.

sloopy

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 501

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905210.msg

I considered it heavily before this mini model. Now, yeah, may as well wait and see what else pops up.
The S7 is the dominator, but who knows, we could get lucky and see something before the end of the year that stands up and costs less.

Although, it doesn't matter, they will sell out fast.
I'm thinking more along the lines of leaving a little in the pot to see what might jump. There has been a lot of talk about the renders going around, heh, but who knows, the S7 is shipping. Gotta still give bitmain that. Albeit, it is about time to start seeing that delay payment coin.

Prelude

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1000

What's the point of making this gimped batch? Hopefully they go back to the 162 chip design for the next batch. I'll be skipping this one.

jermwerty

sr. member

Activity: 472

Merit: 250

Quote from: notlist3d on November 06, 2015, 01:44:23 PM

Quote from: Biodom on November 06, 2015, 12:57:31 PM

wicked, but I am wishing for a 15-20 min btc plunge to $325-350, followed by a swift recovery, of course.
It would allow me to get B6.
Currently ~$1599 shipped, but $1350 (at btc $325) or $1450 (at btc $350) shipped would be so much better.

Quote from: notlist3d on November 06, 2015, 12:52:25 PM

Quote from: jermwerty on November 05, 2015, 08:37:56 PM

Hmm that PSU is 87% efficient.

But S5s "burned up" if you ran them with too low of volts? Interesting.

I have my old Rosewill Lightning 1300W PSU running my 4.66TH S7, seems to be doing fine even though I only have a dedicated 20A 120V circuit. PSU outputs 12.18V under full S7 load!

The lightning 1300 should do fine. I got one long ago on a rebate deal. It's one of the nicer ones Rosewill makes, some of theirs are utter crap. But the lightning is high enough they made it good quality I would say.

Mine I cant remember date i got it but it has to have been running about a year or so I would guess.

Rosewell 1300 has 8 PCIE connectors. Are they all single headed or doubles?

It is 4 X 2's. I had to go out and check I could not remember.

It's a good PSU has been running 2 underclocked SP20's. But it's definitely not enough PCIe's for a S7.

No its actually 4x1 + 2x2, so 8 connections total but really 6 dedicated/usable in the case of the S7. I just did an extension on one of the 2x2 to make the other end reach the fan PCB.

I think the Rosewill Lightning 1300 is perfect for S7, and keeps it within the >12V requirement. I guess not all G2 1300 are above 12V?

Topic: ANTMINER S7 is available at bitmaintech.com with 4.86TH/s, 0.25J/GH - page 222. (Read 528055 times)