Topic: Best GPU's For Mining? - page 17. (Read 74447 times)
If the 490 costs 400, that is 20% higher than the today's 390 price. If it mines efficiently, I will buy some.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
it would be on par with the consumption if not lower, we are talking about 14nm, no way the nano will still consume less than that
but the hashrate would not be that high, perhaps in the end the same as nano, also the cost would be around $400 because itneed to match the 1070, which is mainstream level not high end
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
The memory should also be fast for the random access for the Ethereum mining.
I still think nano will be king
1024 memory bus and only one fan 26mhs out the box for 80-100 watts i cant see even the 490 beating that efficency and the 490 will cost like $599
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
So the 490 will cost the same as the nano? That is very expensive. I will buy nano when it is cheaper.
no 490 will cost 400, it need to match the 1070, so it will be cheaper, and i presume that it will consume less than the nano
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
it would be on par with the consumption if not lower, we are talking about 14nm, no way the nano will still consume less than that
but the hashrate would not be that high, perhaps in the end the same as nano, also the cost would be around $400 because itneed to match the 1070, which is mainstream level not high end
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
The memory should also be fast for the random access for the Ethereum mining.
I still think nano will be king
1024 memory bus and only one fan 26mhs out the box for 80-100 watts i cant see even the 490 beating that efficency and the 490 will cost like $599
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
So the 490 will cost the same as the nano? That is very expensive. I will buy nano when it is cheaper.
I hope this can help https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=calc
For reference - my GTX 950s are legitimate 10-11 MH miners per card, NOT overclocking them (just letting them boost themselves).
970s should be more like 40MH if they scaled lineraly with clock x CUDA cores.
On the other hand, my slightly-damaged 7850 (can't clock it much over 600Mhz or it crashes) is pulling about 8 RIGHT NOW despite the major underclock on the GPU - the MEMORY I can clock up but it doesn't see to help much past stock.
I'm going with Genoil's comments and theory about it being at least in part limitations in the TLB hardware, it's NOT just the clocks, NOT just the memory, NOT just the cores, it's something deeper.
970s should be more like 40MH if they scaled lineraly with clock x CUDA cores.
On the other hand, my slightly-damaged 7850 (can't clock it much over 600Mhz or it crashes) is pulling about 8 RIGHT NOW despite the major underclock on the GPU - the MEMORY I can clock up but it doesn't see to help much past stock.
I'm going with Genoil's comments and theory about it being at least in part limitations in the TLB hardware, it's NOT just the clocks, NOT just the memory, NOT just the cores, it's something deeper.
i'm curious at the consumption of your 950? just to have a clear look at the scaling about nvidia
right now 120w for 20MH with a 970 is possible, your is doing 10-11, at what wattage?
For reference - my GTX 950s are legitimate 10-11 MH miners per card, NOT overclocking them (just letting them boost themselves).
970s should be more like 40MH if they scaled lineraly with clock x CUDA cores.
On the other hand, my slightly-damaged 7850 (can't clock it much over 600Mhz or it crashes) is pulling about 8 RIGHT NOW despite the major underclock on the GPU - the MEMORY I can clock up but it doesn't see to help much past stock.
I'm going with Genoil's comments and theory about it being at least in part limitations in the TLB hardware, it's NOT just the clocks, NOT just the memory, NOT just the cores, it's something deeper.
970s should be more like 40MH if they scaled lineraly with clock x CUDA cores.
On the other hand, my slightly-damaged 7850 (can't clock it much over 600Mhz or it crashes) is pulling about 8 RIGHT NOW despite the major underclock on the GPU - the MEMORY I can clock up but it doesn't see to help much past stock.
I'm going with Genoil's comments and theory about it being at least in part limitations in the TLB hardware, it's NOT just the clocks, NOT just the memory, NOT just the cores, it's something deeper.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
it would be on par with the consumption if not lower, we are talking about 14nm, no way the nano will still consume less than that
but the hashrate would not be that high, perhaps in the end the same as nano, also the cost would be around $400 because itneed to match the 1070, which is mainstream level not high end
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
The memory should also be fast for the random access for the Ethereum mining.
I still think nano will be king
1024 memory bus and only one fan 26mhs out the box for 80-100 watts i cant see even the 490 beating that efficency and the 490 will cost like $599
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
The memory should also be fast for the random access for the Ethereum mining.
I still think nano will be king
1024 memory bus and only one fan 26mhs out the box for 80-100 watts i cant see even the 490 beating that efficency and the 490 will cost like $599
XMR doesn't use a lot of power and the cards don't produce a lot of heat mining XMR. That said since there's so little profit and even unprofitable at times to mine I suspect there are FPGA's mining it so you'll never be able to mine more than you could just buy if you spent your money on coins instead of GPU cards.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
The memory should also be fast for the random access for the Ethereum mining.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yes. If it has wide memory bus and more efficient than the 390, we think that is good for Ethereum mining.
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
490 could be good if it still has the 512 bit memory bus like the 390.
But why 390x is the same speed as the 390 in Ethereum mining?
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
it's because of the memory access, nvidia can not be pushed like amd, the bus was doing 50%
i suspect that if the 970 was not limited, it would have been piushed to 30MH, like the 390
if nothing will change i think i'm going to go with amd at this point, 490 polaris look more promising...
Yeah, been seeing the posted 1080 benchmarks - very underwhelmed, it SHOULD do better than a 960 at least!
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
I suspect the drivers need some serious optimisation, but I'm sure NVidia is already working on "in general" optimisation for Pascal in their drivers.
Just gotta hope the "in general" stuff makes them work better on Ethereum SOON.
So far, the 1080 is not the fastest to mine the Ethereum. It might need further optimisation to make it faster.
Uh, no. Release date on the GTX 1080 is late May (25th? I forget offhand) and GTX 1070 on June 10th (I HATE that delay between the 2).
From the benchmarks I've seen to date, the GTX 1070 should be a little faster than the GTX 980ti, the GTX 1080 30-40% faster than that - BUT they need some architecture changes that might not have happened for some of that to translate to Ethereum mining.
The increased clock rates should translate directly which would make them at least 40% faster.
The move to a new node appears to be most of the reason they're also a LOT lower power consumption despite their significant performance jump.
For reference, my GTX950s hash at almost the SAME rate as my GTX960s (the 960s are right about 10% faster) at essentially identical clocks, even though the 960s have a LOT more CUDA units and more memory.
Folks that use NVidia cards where they are efficient (they're not real efficient on Ethereum for some reason, possibly for similar reasons to why a Nano doesn't even come close to scaling vs lower-end AMD cards on Ethereum when factoring Stream units x clock rate) should find the new 10xx cards kick some serious numbers for relatively low power usage.
From the benchmarks I've seen to date, the GTX 1070 should be a little faster than the GTX 980ti, the GTX 1080 30-40% faster than that - BUT they need some architecture changes that might not have happened for some of that to translate to Ethereum mining.
The increased clock rates should translate directly which would make them at least 40% faster.
The move to a new node appears to be most of the reason they're also a LOT lower power consumption despite their significant performance jump.
For reference, my GTX950s hash at almost the SAME rate as my GTX960s (the 960s are right about 10% faster) at essentially identical clocks, even though the 960s have a LOT more CUDA units and more memory.
Folks that use NVidia cards where they are efficient (they're not real efficient on Ethereum for some reason, possibly for similar reasons to why a Nano doesn't even come close to scaling vs lower-end AMD cards on Ethereum when factoring Stream units x clock rate) should find the new 10xx cards kick some serious numbers for relatively low power usage.
new gpu are out, so wait before buying old one, 1080 is 2x faster than a 980 and 1070 the same 2x faster than a 970 and consume less and they cost around the same, 10% more it seems, so this is a no brain if they have the same boost in mining
That power consumption is from the gaming. It is not necessary for the mining. But it will be more efficient that last generation.
new gpu are out, so wait before buying old one, 1080 is 2x faster than a 980 and 1070 the same 2x faster than a 970 and consume less and they cost around the same, 10% more it seems, so this is a no brain if they have the same boost in mining
Any progress with the AMD R9 390 mod? The potential to save the power consumption is also big in this card.
The AMD R9 nano is the most efficient miners so far. It is even more efficient than the nVidia cards.
yes and it cost 60% more lol
Than nVidia cards? No way.
The nVidia cards that are on par with the nano regarding hash rate are even more expensive.
Anyhow, it's true though, core clock @ 1000, even with a heavy modified bios will still use up to much energy.
The holy grail setting (for me at least) is 800 core, 300 mem. Best Hash/power setting.
nvidia 970 cost around 300 now new, nano is 500, consumption is the same without your mod, or even worse for nano
i know you did get a discount for you nano, but that's not what casual miners will get, we must be realistic here
For the same consumption, I think the hashing of nano is higher. Even without mod, you just need to reduce the voltage in MSI afterburner.
True..
Dont' know what the hashrate on a 970 (Ethereum) is, but when mining with a nano (stock 1000 core) at -100mV in afterburner it will use around 4.9A (1000 watt) for 6 cards. 175-180Mh/s
I have a small feeling that a 970 isn't going to beat that...
mine does 22 mega and with six card i'm consuming exactly 1k, but the overall hashrate is not 180, like the nano, but 132, so 25-30% loss, but they cost 40% less
also i think that the g1 gaming from nvidia is much more easy to resell than the nano, acerage gamers do not like to buy expensive card
My AMD R9 nano with undervoltage and underclock, with 6, it does 160MH/s, but with 800W power consumption.
You can go even lower with my Bios mod
Thanks for your efforts. I used your Nano mod, it works perfectly. I think the power consumption of the memory part is reduced a lot.
You're welcome, i'm still working on that part. Might get it even lower and stable
Jump to: