Unfortunately even at stock clock and voltage, I still get some crash recently when running cgminer (never had issues when running phoenix miner), so a stable miner is also critical
It's also time to look at VRM cooling. I have some very efficient heat pad came with water blocks for GTX295 years ago, they could reduce the VRM temp by at least 10 degrees. As I understand, the VRM location on 5970 card are very weak, maybe a heatsink on the back of the plate will help
Topic: How should I cool my 5970 VRMs? (Read 3369 times)
Stay stock voltage without too much overclock are important IMO
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
Good point and as you get more cards and more rigs it makes more sense to become even more conservative. That was something I learned the hard way. You can't run 38 GPUs (19x 5970) at the same clocks you can run a single card that you can baby. Well not without losing your sanity. Not only are there stability issues but there are power and heat issues to which only get harder as the farm scales. Dissipating 1KW of heat. Meh. Get a good fan. Dissipating 5KW? A little tougher.
*drools*. Yeah same. I've kept my clocks reasonable and I'm still having to troubleshoot a good amount here and there. Cards get buggy, network crashes, etc. I'd much rather be slightly conservative but have the systems run for a week or more without a hitch than reset things every day. When you have that many machines you'd think it'd be a given.
Stay stock voltage without too much overclock are important IMO
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
Good point and as you get more cards and more rigs it makes more sense to become even more conservative. That was something I learned the hard way. You can't run 38 GPUs (19x 5970) at the same clocks you can run a single card that you can baby. Well not without losing your sanity. Not only are there stability issues but there are power and heat issues to which only get harder as the farm scales. Dissipating 1KW of heat. Meh. Get a good fan. Dissipating 5KW? A little tougher.
Stay stock voltage without too much overclock are important IMO
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
With stock voltage and decent overclock, machine can run several weeks without interrupt, but if it crashes from time to time because of the stability issues caused by high temp or high frequency, then the time spent trouble shooting and fixing things will easily cost you many BTCs
Performance does not scale linearly with clock speed at all. (try 500mhz and 800mhz and you will see)
Of course it does. Unless perhaps if you are using SDK 2.6.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Of course CPU bound cache resident benchmarks do scale linearly with clockspeed. Try benchmarking Coremark, its linear from 0.1 Hz to 1 GHz.
As for your results, like I said, unless perhaps you are using SDK 2.6. In that case, you become memory bandwidth bound. Hashrate will still scale linearly with gpu clock but only if you can scale memory clock as well.
If you use SDK 2.1 or 2.4, hashrate is not bandwidth bound, in fact you typically get a small increase as you lower memory clocks down to ~150-200 MHz. Yes negative scaling. Check the link and try yourself. But the result is perfectly linear performance scaling with GPU clock.
And I tested all above in identical situation except of the core frequency.
Oops on me reversing the order of the values. Now that was foolish.
Still I guess it still hasn't sunk in that the optimal memory clock at 500Mhz isn't the same as the optimal memory clock at 870 Mhz. All you have proven if you are really bad and getting optimal performance from a 5870/5970 as you efficiency (MH per MHz) is about 10% lower than most miners get across the board.
Once again in case you ignored it from the prior post
"For the record @ 500 MHz I get 225 MH (0.450 MH/MHz) and @ 820 I get 375 MH/s (0.457 MH/MHz)."
and lastly
Quote
A 5870/5970 with optimal settings gets roughly 0.46 MH (+/- ~.04) per Mhz. That hold true from 500 Mhz to 1000 Mhz+.
Now for max efficiency you are going to need to find the sweet spot on memclock which varies based on coreclock. If you see significantly less than that at any clock your settings are non-optimal or you sample is too small (should be at least 2000 shares, 5000 would be better).
Now for max efficiency you are going to need to find the sweet spot on memclock which varies based on coreclock. If you see significantly less than that at any clock your settings are non-optimal or you sample is too small (should be at least 2000 shares, 5000 would be better).
Thank you for laying the beatdown on this poor misguided soul. It was deserved.
And I tested all above in identical situation except of the core frequency.
Oops on me reversing the order of the values. Now that WAS foolish on my part.
I guess it still hasn't sunk in that the optimal memory clock at 500Mhz isn't the same as the optimal memory clock at 870 Mhz. All you have proven if you are really bad at getting optimal performance from a 5870/5970 as your efficiency (in terms of MH/s per MHz) is about 10% lower than most miners get.
In case you ignored it from the prior post
Quote
"For the record @ 500 MHz I get 225 MH (0.450 MH/MHz) and @ 820 I get 375 MH/s (0.457 MH/MHz)."
and lastly (from prior post) this this stands:
Quote
A 5870/5970 with optimal settings gets roughly 0.46 MH (+/- ~.04) per Mhz. That hold true from 500 Mhz to 1000 Mhz+.
Now for max efficiency you are going to need to find the sweet spot on memclock which varies based on coreclock. If you see significantly less than that at any clock your settings are non-optimal or you sample is too small (should be at least 2000 shares, 5000 would be better).
Now for max efficiency you are going to need to find the sweet spot on memclock which varies based on coreclock. If you see significantly less than that at any clock your settings are non-optimal or you sample is too small (should be at least 2000 shares, 5000 would be better).
A simply test shows it does not.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Don't spread false information
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Don't spread false information
I agree YOU should not spread false information.
Your numbers are garbage so likely you have suboptimal settings and the most likely culprit is memclock.
Do those results seem plausible to you.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 397/870= 0.41 MH per Mhz
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 359/800 = 0.44 MH per Mhz
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 202/500 = 0.46 MH per Mhz
So the card is getting more efficient at higher clock (and likely higher temp)? Does that seem plausible to you?
Likely you normally run @ 870Mhz and have found a more optimizes memclock. You sloppily moved core clock without modifying memclock introducing timing delays making the card less effective the further you move it from 870 Mhz.
For the record @ 500 MHz I get 225 MH (0.450 MH/MHz) and @ 820 I get 375 MH/s (0.457 MH/MHz).
Your calculation is garbage.
202/500=0.404 not 0.46
397/870=0.45 not 0.41
These are just the multiplicative inverse of the number I gave above.
And I tested all above in identical situation except of the core frequency.
A simply test shows it does not.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Don't spread false information
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Don't spread false information
I agree YOU should not spread false information.
Your numbers are garbage so likely you have suboptimal settings and the most likely culprit is memclock.
Do those results seem plausible to you.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 397/870= 0.41 MH per Mhz
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 359/800 = 0.44 MH per Mhz
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 202/500 = 0.46 MH per Mhz
So the card is getting more efficient at higher clock (and likely higher temp)? Does that seem plausible to you?
Likely you normally run @ 870Mhz and have found a more optimizes memclock. You sloppily moved core clock without modifying memclock introducing timing delays making the card less effective the further you move it from 870 Mhz.
For the record @ 500 MHz I get 225 MH (0.450 MH/MHz) and @ 820 I get 375 MH/s (0.457 MH/MHz).
Well, no. Voltage is only one part of power usage, higher clocked cards use more current than lower clocked cards at the same voltage. That's why overclocked cards get hotter even when not overvolted.
Yes, power consumption scales linearly with clockspeed. But performance also scales linearly with clockspeed.
Higher performance at equal MH/W for the cards, means higher efficiency for the overall rig since CPU, MB, RAM, etc remain the same.
Power consumption scales quadratically with voltage. Clockspeed -and thus performance- does not. Therefore undervolting almost always gives better MH/W, but overclocking is completely sane from an efficiency POV.
I did and performance scaled linearly. Not sure why you think it wouldn't.
A 5870/5970 gets roughly 0.46 MH (+/- .04) per Mhz. That hold true from 500 Mhz to 1000 Mhz+.
Now for max efficiency you are going to need to find the sweet spot on memclock which varies based on coreclock. If you see significantly less than that at any clock your settings are non-optimal or you sample is too small (should be at least 2000 shares, 5000 would be better).
870 works great for me, 5970's stay under 70c. I've only had one pc that could run 910 and stay cool but it was only a 4 gpu rig. If they don't go over 80c I would not worry. Nice to shoot for 70c though. I think some people forget, not everyone is concerned with power consumption ratios.
Did you lose your 5970's stock fan cooler? Those Accelero Extreme coolers are terrible for mining. There not made for steady high temps.
Did you lose your 5970's stock fan cooler? Those Accelero Extreme coolers are terrible for mining. There not made for steady high temps.
Performance does not scale linearly with clock speed at all. (try 500mhz and 800mhz and you will see)
Of course it does. Unless perhaps if you are using SDK 2.6.
870Mhz 397Mhash/s 870/397=2.191
800Mhz 359Mhash/s 800/359=2.222
500Mhz 202Mhash/s 500/202=2.475
In theory it can't be linear, same reason why cpu does not scale linearly with core speed.
Don't spread false information
This should be stickied for n00bs to Bitcoin mining, like me, who might attemp to apply gamers tweaks to their setup.
I haven't pulled my 5970 out of its box to run yet and this thread has already helped me out.
Sweet.
I haven't pulled my 5970 out of its box to run yet and this thread has already helped me out.
Sweet. I'd also highly advise against tons of overvolting on them. Like others said, the efficiency may increase at higher core clocks but the power use and heat increase *dramatically* with overvolting. Tried mine at 900mhz only once. Power use for two of the cards increased by over 300w on load, VRMs were in the 120s nearly constantly - I could tell as in AB you'd see the core clocks keep throttling back and forth. Sure you'd get some extra MH but the effort simply isn't worth it IMO.
Kept mine all around 800-820 range on stock volts and they stay working for the most part exceptionally well and temps are good. VRMs will still be in the 80s/90s but that's just how it works. They throttle at 125C though so it's not abnormal for them to be hotter than the cores.
Quote
maybe you dont realize what the 30Mh extra will get you....
assuming 5% growth of btc, using this calculator http://striketeam.ath.cx/btccalc/btccalc.php
usd exchange: 4.5
Month BTC USD Difficulty
1 0.63 2.835 1521061.30173
2 0.57 2.565 1676970.08516
3 0.51 2.295 1848859.51889
4 0.45 2.025 2140286.00056
5 0.4 1.8 2359665.31561
6 0.36 1.62 2601531.01046
7 0.32 1.44 3011597.33599
8 0.29 1.305 3320286.06293
9 0.26 1.17 3660615.38438
10 0.23 1.035 4237619.88434
11 0.21 0.945 4671975.92248
12 0.18 0.81 5150853.45454
Total 4.41 19.845
so after a year of burning up your 5970 for an extra 30Mh, you will make 4 btcs.....if the card lasts a year
I see you point. I'll definitely stay on stock voltage then. assuming 5% growth of btc, using this calculator http://striketeam.ath.cx/btccalc/btccalc.php
usd exchange: 4.5
Month BTC USD Difficulty
1 0.63 2.835 1521061.30173
2 0.57 2.565 1676970.08516
3 0.51 2.295 1848859.51889
4 0.45 2.025 2140286.00056
5 0.4 1.8 2359665.31561
6 0.36 1.62 2601531.01046
7 0.32 1.44 3011597.33599
8 0.29 1.305 3320286.06293
9 0.26 1.17 3660615.38438
10 0.23 1.035 4237619.88434
11 0.21 0.945 4671975.92248
12 0.18 0.81 5150853.45454
Total 4.41 19.845
so after a year of burning up your 5970 for an extra 30Mh, you will make 4 btcs.....if the card lasts a year
Quote
I can assure you that those extra 30MH/s aren't worth the amount of additional electricity you're buying to run it at those clock speeds. I can also assure you that at those clock speeds and temperatures, you'll be lucky if those cards are still working a month from now. So basically, you're destroying your cards and overpaying for electricity for no reason other than turning your room into a sauna. Turn down the clock speeds or get a water cooling setup. What you're doing now is insane.
I pay a fixed power bill, so I'm just trying to squeeze as much power out as I can.
Also, I'm hoping to get 890MHz core on 1.112v. With sub-100c VRM temps, would this be okay?maybe you dont realize what the 30Mh extra will get you....
assuming 5% growth of btc, using this calculator http://striketeam.ath.cx/btccalc/btccalc.php
usd exchange: 4.5
Month BTC USD Difficulty
1 0.63 2.835 1521061.30173
2 0.57 2.565 1676970.08516
3 0.51 2.295 1848859.51889
4 0.45 2.025 2140286.00056
5 0.4 1.8 2359665.31561
6 0.36 1.62 2601531.01046
7 0.32 1.44 3011597.33599
8 0.29 1.305 3320286.06293
9 0.26 1.17 3660615.38438
10 0.23 1.035 4237619.88434
11 0.21 0.945 4671975.92248
12 0.18 0.81 5150853.45454
Total 4.41 19.845
so after a year of burning up your 5970 for an extra 30Mh, you will make 4 btcs.....if the card lasts a year
Quote
I can assure you that those extra 30MH/s aren't worth the amount of additional electricity you're buying to run it at those clock speeds. I can also assure you that at those clock speeds and temperatures, you'll be lucky if those cards are still working a month from now. So basically, you're destroying your cards and overpaying for electricity for no reason other than turning your room into a sauna. Turn down the clock speeds or get a water cooling setup. What you're doing now is insane.
I pay a fixed power bill, so I'm just trying to squeeze as much power out as I can.
Also, I'm hoping to get 890MHz core on 1.112v. With sub-100c VRM temps, would this be okay?Performance does not scale linearly with clock speed at all. (try 500mhz and 800mhz and you will see)
Of course it does. Unless perhaps if you are using SDK 2.6.
Well, no. Voltage is only one part of power usage, higher clocked cards use more current than lower clocked cards at the same voltage. That's why overclocked cards get hotter even when not overvolted.
Yes, power consumption scales linearly with clockspeed. But performance also scales linearly with clockspeed.
Higher performance at equal MH/W for the cards, means higher efficiency for the overall rig since CPU, MB, RAM, etc remain the same.
Power consumption scales quadratically with voltage. Clockspeed -and thus performance- does not. Therefore undervolting almost always gives better MH/W, but overclocking is completely sane from an efficiency POV.
Well, no. Voltage is only one part of power usage, higher clocked cards use more current than lower clocked cards at the same voltage. That's why overclocked cards get hotter even when not overvolted.
Yes, power consumption scales linearly with clockspeed. But performance also scales linearly with clockspeed.
Higher performance at equal MH/W for the cards, means higher efficiency for the overall rig since CPU, MB, RAM, etc remain the same.
Power consumption scales quadratically with voltage. Clockspeed -and thus performance- does not. Therefore undervolting almost always gives better MH/W, but overclocking is completely sane from an efficiency POV.
Higher clocks at equal voltage == better energy efficiency.
Well, no. Voltage is only one part of power usage, higher clocked cards use more current than lower clocked cards at the same voltage. That's why overclocked cards get hotter even when not overvolted.
No, he's right, when taking the whole computer into the power efficiency picture. 10% more core frequency = 10% more power used (and generally mhash scales linearly with core speed), but the system has a baseline watts, so do some math with some assumed numbers...
100w baseline, 1000w used from video cards doing 2000 mhash. 1.8181 mhash/watt.
Increase core speed by 10% without increasing volts, system is now at...
100w baseline, 1100w used from video cards doing 2200mhash. 1.8333 mhash/watt.
Higher clocks at equal voltage == better energy efficiency.
Well, no. Voltage is only one part of power usage, higher clocked cards use more current than lower clocked cards at the same voltage. That's why overclocked cards get hotter even when not overvolted.
Alright, got down to 800Mhz Core/ 300MHz memory. I'm getting 49c and 47c on the GPU cores, so that's not a problem.
The VRMs are at 82c/81c//81c for the first core, and 74c/75c/73c on the 2nd core. Lets say I don't raise the voltage above stock, would a high clock speed damage/degrade the card?
The VRMs are at 82c/81c//81c for the first core, and 74c/75c/73c on the 2nd core. Lets say I don't raise the voltage above stock, would a high clock speed damage/degrade the card?
Nope, high core speeds won't kill a card.
Temperatures are really the only thing that'll kill a card if you overclock smart. Most overvolting for mining is minor (maybe +0.025 to 0.075 in even the most extreme cases) and won't hurt the card either, anything above is generally overkill for 24/7 and generates too much heat to remain stable at the clock speed you may have aimed at. An example is one of my 5870's is stable at 1100 core and 1.200 volts with temperatures currently around 40c core and 68c VRM since it sits outside in the winter air. It requires more volts to hit a higher clock speed than 1100, but the higher temperature renders the higher speed unstable. I see a lot of gamers use even higher volts of 1.25+, probably because the cards aren't at 100% load with the games they're playing and temperatures are lower as a consequence.
Alright, got down to 800Mhz Core/ 300MHz memory. I'm getting 49c and 47c on the GPU cores, so that's not a problem.
The VRMs are at 82c/81c//81c for the first core, and 74c/75c/73c on the 2nd core. Lets say I don't raise the voltage above stock, would a high clock speed damage/degrade the card?
The VRMs are at 82c/81c//81c for the first core, and 74c/75c/73c on the 2nd core. Lets say I don't raise the voltage above stock, would a high clock speed damage/degrade the card?
i think 910 is a bit high and excessive
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I'm getting 410MH/s on 910MHz.
I never run my 5970's over 820. most are at 800. Mine will still be hashing in a year!
The only reason I restarted this rig on the 4th was to upgrade cgminer to the better rpc-api
Code:
cgminer version 2.2.1 - Started: [February 4, 2012, 4:33 pm] Rig: miner9
(5s):2982.13 (avg): 2966.26 Mh/s | Q:690271 A:651964 R:6233 HW:0 E:?% U:40.52/m
TQ:? ST:722 SS:? DW:17127 NB:1600 LW:25420 GF:601 RF:655
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 59.0C 3285RPM 53% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81531 R:760 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 1: 61.5C 3285RPM 53% | 372.9/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81809 R:733 HW:0 U:5.08/m I: 7
GPU 2: 66.5C 3045RPM 50% | 372.8/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81030 R:751 HW:0 U:5.04/m I: 7
GPU 3: 63.5C 3045RPM 50% | 372.8/370.9Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81674 R:801 HW:0 U:5.08/m I: 7
GPU 4: 63.5C 3125RPM 50% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81576 R:769 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 5: 60.5C 3125RPM 50% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81537 R:802 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 6: 57.0C 2987RPM 49% | 372.8/370.7Mh/s | 99% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81292 R:836 HW:0 U:5.05/m I: 7
GPU 7: 59.0C 2987RPM 49% | 372.8/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81515 R:781 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
(5s):2982.13 (avg): 2966.26 Mh/s | Q:690271 A:651964 R:6233 HW:0 E:?% U:40.52/m
TQ:? ST:722 SS:? DW:17127 NB:1600 LW:25420 GF:601 RF:655
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 59.0C 3285RPM 53% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81531 R:760 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 1: 61.5C 3285RPM 53% | 372.9/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81809 R:733 HW:0 U:5.08/m I: 7
GPU 2: 66.5C 3045RPM 50% | 372.8/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81030 R:751 HW:0 U:5.04/m I: 7
GPU 3: 63.5C 3045RPM 50% | 372.8/370.9Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81674 R:801 HW:0 U:5.08/m I: 7
GPU 4: 63.5C 3125RPM 50% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81576 R:769 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 5: 60.5C 3125RPM 50% | 372.7/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81537 R:802 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
GPU 6: 57.0C 2987RPM 49% | 372.8/370.7Mh/s | 99% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81292 R:836 HW:0 U:5.05/m I: 7
GPU 7: 59.0C 2987RPM 49% | 372.8/370.8Mh/s | 98% | 820Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81515 R:781 HW:0 U:5.07/m I: 7
even at 810 they get 370, this one is in a warmer spot, hence the higher temps.
Code:
cgminer version 2.2.1 - Started: [February 4, 2012, 4:21 pm] Rig: miner10
(5s):2967.27 (avg): 2934.61 Mh/s | Q:684834 A:646490 R:6218 HW:0 E:?% U:40.15/m
TQ:? ST:709 SS:? DW:18067 NB:1602 LW:25981 GF:681 RF:680
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 72.5C 3081RPM 50% | 371.0/357.9Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:79198 R:707 HW:0 U:4.92/m I: 7
GPU 1: 69.0C 3081RPM 50% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:80552 R:751 HW:0 U:5.00/m I: 7
GPU 2: 73.5C 2949RPM 48% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81016 R:808 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 3: 73.0C 2947RPM 48% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81012 R:723 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 4: 72.5C 2639RPM 44% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81048 R:815 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 5: 73.0C 2639RPM 44% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81227 R:757 HW:0 U:5.04/m I: 7
GPU 6: 73.5C 2747RPM 49% | 370.8/368.0Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:80989 R:810 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 7: 68.5C 2749RPM 49% | 371.0/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81448 R:847 HW:0 U:5.06/m I: 7
. (5s):2967.27 (avg): 2934.61 Mh/s | Q:684834 A:646490 R:6218 HW:0 E:?% U:40.15/m
TQ:? ST:709 SS:? DW:18067 NB:1602 LW:25981 GF:681 RF:680
Connected to http://gpumax.com:8332 with LP as user ?
Value:
GPU 0: 72.5C 3081RPM 50% | 371.0/357.9Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:79198 R:707 HW:0 U:4.92/m I: 7
GPU 1: 69.0C 3081RPM 50% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:80552 R:751 HW:0 U:5.00/m I: 7
GPU 2: 73.5C 2949RPM 48% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81016 R:808 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 3: 73.0C 2947RPM 48% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81012 R:723 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 4: 72.5C 2639RPM 44% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81048 R:815 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 5: 73.0C 2639RPM 44% | 370.9/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81227 R:757 HW:0 U:5.04/m I: 7
GPU 6: 73.5C 2747RPM 49% | 370.8/368.0Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:80989 R:810 HW:0 U:5.03/m I: 7
GPU 7: 68.5C 2749RPM 49% | 371.0/368.1Mh/s | 99% | 810Mhz 300Mhz 1.05V A:81448 R:847 HW:0 U:5.06/m I: 7
I can assure you that those extra 30MH/s aren't worth the amount of additional electricity you're buying to run it at those clock speeds.
Higher clocks at equal voltage == better energy efficiency.
@OP: how are you cooling the VRMs? With those small sticky alu fins?
I dont know what the 5970 ref cooler looks like exactly, I know its different, but with a 5870 I had great success using the original baseplate to cool VRMs and ram while using an accelero to keep the GPU cool. The supplied sinks were just not good enough for the VRMs.
Mind you, I did have to dremel the baseplate to clear the accelero heatpipes, but if that doesnt scare you, have a look at the stock cooler and see if it has a baseplate you can use for that purpose. This might be useless advice if the 5970 has a single plate cooling GPUs and VRMs..
If that doesnt work, its time to undervolt the cards and lower your clocks.
i think 910 is a bit high and excessive
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I'm getting 410MH/s on 910MHz.
I can assure you that those extra 30MH/s aren't worth the amount of additional electricity you're buying to run it at those clock speeds. I can also assure you that at those clock speeds and temperatures, you'll be lucky if those cards are still working a month from now. So basically, you're destroying your cards and overpaying for electricity for no reason other than turning your room into a sauna. Turn down the clock speeds or get a water cooling setup. What you're doing now is insane.
What kind of core temps are we looking at?
i think 910 is a bit high and excessive
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I'm getting 410MH/s on 910MHz.
i think 910 is a bit high and excessive
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
I can get 380 mhash per core at 825
What are vrm temps at stock voltage and core?
I'm running my 5970 with an Accelero Extreme triple fan cooler, but the VRM temps are VERY high! I've read that this is a common 5970 bottleneck, and I'm trying to lower the temps. I'm now running the card at 1.111v, 910MHz Core/300MHz Memory, and getting 113c,117c,and 115c on the VRMs.
Here's what I've done so far:
I have an 80mm 60 CFM fan blowing air onto the first set of VRMs, and a Scythe fan(40 or so CFM) directing air in the direction. I have a 92mm blue gelid fan blowing onto the other set of VRMs. Finally, I have a Cooler Master fan blowing into the side of the GPU. Any other fan positions I should try? Should I maybe buy some 100+ CFM fans?
Here's what I've done so far:
I have an 80mm 60 CFM fan blowing air onto the first set of VRMs, and a Scythe fan(40 or so CFM) directing air in the direction. I have a 92mm blue gelid fan blowing onto the other set of VRMs. Finally, I have a Cooler Master fan blowing into the side of the GPU. Any other fan positions I should try? Should I maybe buy some 100+ CFM fans?
Jump to: