Topic: {BFL} Here's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK at your Monarch! - page 4. (Read 46654 times)

Unlike other units say from Spondoolies Tech that seem stable as bedrock and have unbelievable support and far cheaper.

Obviously the people buying these Monarchs are doing it either as 'paid' publicity for BFL as they have done so in the past or strictly for the novelty or challenge to get them working optimally. Seems like a waste of money and effort to publicize BFL at this stage given the FTC will basically denude them of every stolen bitcoin. And whatever is undiscovered will certainly be visible to the FBI or IRS if it does surface eventually. What is also interesting is the steadfast support of 3 major players, Josh Zerlan, SLok and Bruce Peterson in the scam who have proven they astro turf the BFL record whenever and wherever possible. This thread is just one more iteration of that campaign especially when those 3 make an appearance.

FYI, Joshassfucked (and his alternate accounts) is the only person on this forum I have on ignore. Lots of anger and precious little content coming from him.

If you are curious about how much work is really being done: mine one monarch with CGminer on one pool account for a week and the other with BFGminer on a different pool account. Then swap accounts, run for another week and compare the outcomes.

The short answer is you got a product with mediocre quality at best, no customer support, and alpha software supporting it (not the fault of the developers, BFL is responsible for providing SDKs and developer support). I would be amazed if a single monarch is functional after 6 months of mining. 

Hope things work out.

I knew you were nuts, but I didn't know you were that crazy! BTW, I don't mine just for profit, it's also a hobby. If I didn't like tweaking these things I wouldn't have bought them in the first place. I just would've kept mining happily and easily with my Ant S3s.

Just take a look: (CLICK) Do you think BCP19 is a native Finnish speaker/writer?

...

So here's the science part for you guys. I only ran short tests because I know by now how the stats even out in the long run.

There's no difference whatsoever in the heat and power consumption between Linux/cgminer 4.6.1 and Windows 8.1/64bit and the custom BFGminer 4.2.0 when I swap the usb cables between the two PCs. I suspect there would be a difference in the power draw if I power cycled the units first. It would seem that if I boot them up when cold and with a powerful PSU the 700 GH unit gets too excited and overheats. When I power cycle it when warm, the power consumption and hashrate aren't so big. The 700 Gh unit takes 525 Watts right now and that's fine for me. When I booted it up for the first time after I got it from the post office it drew 570W from the wall.

Two Monarchs on Windows:



550 GH on Linux/cg4.6.1:



700 GH on Linux/cg4.6.1:



So the bottom line is that cgminer indicates way way more hashrate compared to bfgminer with the same power consumption. I don't get why the avg short time / long time hashrate stats seem to be backwards between the two monarchs on BFGminer.

I would have to run a long test to see what difference the pools see in the hashrate between cg/bfg. Could cgminer really be doing way more work with the same power consumption?

Well it sure ain't for profit! Mwhahahahaha. Tbh, I don't believe a word you say, your just another bfl employee still towing the line. Probably bcp19 talking to himself if you ask me

It sounds awesome that the unit adjusts to more power being available. With the Corsair TX850 the "550 GH" unit even has less HW errors AND more hashrate. And the downside is more heat and worse efficiency so user control over the max hashrate / clock speed would be a must have.

But what if I were to put an artificial load on the PSU when the Monarch boots up. Then the Monarch would sense the voltage droop / power loss and would adjust itself for a smaller hashrate and voltage. I still have an Ant S3 and that could work as an "artificial" load for the PSU during Monarch bootup. Just a wild thought, but it could work as a very stupid method to "underclock" the device...


Maybe I'll test both again with the custom BFG 4.2 on Windows. For science.

About .7w/GHs, so yes, about the same as S3/4, ASICMiner Prisma and KNC Neptune.

Is monarch power efficient miner compared to S3 or S4

You have a direct line to them just ask Bruce to call Nasser they talk regularly.   You were in contact with Bruce and SLok before the shutdown it would have been very easy for you to ask for that given you are a regular on the BFL forums and here making a point to draw consumer attention to BFL miners. You can't deny the special relationship you have with BFL.

Well, if they were not under receivership then we could at least ask them what was in the code, if they could open-source it, how the 4.2.0 BFG code works, etc. I doubt the receiver would know. However if they released instructions for overclocking then people would do it, blow up their miners, then come back to BFL demanding warranty work or refunds.

So it would be in everyone's best interest not to say. *sigh*

The hashing changing with a different power supply thing someone pointed out is interesting: It's possible that the Monarchs are doing a more advanced version of what the Singles and Jallies did when they powered up: They would do sample jobs and such adjusting the clock frequency to find a perfect match within a speed band. That's why they always reported slightly different speeds with ZCX when powered on.

Now on the 1850 chips you could not change the chip voltage, that was controlled by a pair of resistors in a bridge for each set of 8 chips and was static (upping it with a soldering deck would cause all SORTS of fun, Chilis did this and re-defined the meaning of "hot running" for 10+ more gh).

On the Monarch power control chips however, you can. That Intersil chip can do a lot of things....

So now I wonder if what happens is when you power the miner up, the software spends that minute before starting to has sweeping the chips with a range of clocks *and* voltage settings to find the best balance. It would make sense, since that's what the singles kind of did to the best of their ability.

That would also explain why units that are powered down hot then back up before they completely cool will throw those queue errors and make a slightly different high pitched sound: When hot the components like resistor bridges and RC circuits would react a bit differently and it could be choosing a more power/more noise solution as an optimal one. Perhaps the 4.2 code disables sweeps at too high a voltage/clock, or has error correction to clean up any noisy results on the fly.

*sigh*

C

Surely if the FTC hadn't stepped in and shut BFL down, the Monarch miners would all be running at 1.5 TH/s, all the customers who requested refunds would have received them, and the BFL offices would be overrun with puppies and unicorns - right, Bruce?

Since we never got a working version of CGminer, I only have second hand information that it seems to do a better job communicating with the Monarch compared to BFGminer, resulting in several people talking about speed increases.  The 1.4.2 firmware has the capability to accept underclocking commands and I helped test it.  Adjustments could be made to both voltage and frequency that would work until the unit had power cycled on it.  I know from experiance that above 530 watts at the wall that heat becomes a major issue, so it seems that your programs capability of making them run faster is a dual edged sword.

Nasser was on my skype list and I emailed him a few times and got the latest and last set of protocols, and last we spoke we discussed a way of rolling work on the device. There was never any mention of clocking commands, and the nroll-time on the device never eventuated, though this was actually months ago now. Sorry but as far as I can see all development stopped a long time ago on the mofarcher.

You would have to ask Nasser about that, I know he talked about it.

Very odd. First time ever that on default clocks that if my software runs faster people are looking for ways to slow it down. Let it be known that BFL never informed us of any messaging protocol to over or underclock the devices, so I can't see how we could even implement such a feature. If it runs slower at the same clocks that implies a software limitation.

See he still isn't answering the question. Guess he doesn't want to incriminate himself?

I wish I had an answer for you on underclocking.  Have you tried running the faster one off of BFGminer yet?  You mentioned a speedup with CGminer on your 550, I'm curious if it will run slower and cooler and if there is as big a difference in speed on the 700. 

Thank you +1

I'd rather underclock it instead of trying to desperately cool it generating tons of noise in the process, but I'll see what happens. I'm using cgminer 4.6.1 on Linux.

BTW, these units seem to get excited and run faster and hotter with a powerful PSU instead of a weaker one. My 550 GH unit runs cooler and slower (650 GH/s, 420W) when I power it off my 500W Super Flower PSU instead of the Corsair TX850W (690 GH/s, 470W).


EDIT: Swapped the Corsair TX850 to TX750 just now. Why? I don't know. And I put a fan blowing towards the power parts http://i.imgur.com/JvVzNII.jpg

GH/s went down a bit. Power draw 550W. Temp at 70.00°C after a half an hour and no thermal throttling so far. So what I got with my two Monarchs is 1.45 TH/s for 970 watts which is not bad, but I'd still underclock the faster unit for less heat and noise. Although the two combined are still more quiet than a single Antminer S3 underclocked to 420GH/340W.

Don't you get it? No one here likes you or your employer. Use your own censored forums for supporting your customers.

I am guessing the FTC will be asking you about the unit sold to Lightfoot and the units shipped to SLok.

Want to answer truthfully? Or just avoid the question like usual?