Pages:
Author

Topic: Information on ATI 7xxx Series Dec. 5th! (Read 15042 times)

legendary
Activity: 922
Merit: 1003
January 03, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Is that where this saying came from?:

"I am Pentium of the Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated"

It is amusing how threads can deteriorate. But this is +1 for sure!
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
Seal Cub Clubbing Club
January 03, 2012, 04:03:53 PM
Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Is that where this saying came from?:

"I am Pentium of the Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated"
sr. member
Activity: 475
Merit: 265
Ooh La La, C'est Zoom!
January 01, 2012, 01:14:40 PM
Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Is that the one where if you input "@[=g3,8d]\&fbb=-q]/hk%fg" (quote included) and press Delete, you get sucked into the internet?

No, I think that is is the one where you get a visit from the Men In Black, or maybe the Man With One Red Shoe? I can never remember.

The FDIV bug is the one that allowed banks to honestly claim there was error in their spreadsheets. I know, "honest bank" sounds odd.  Smiley

- Zed
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
January 01, 2012, 11:27:50 AM
Uhh, Zed doesn't think so. Neither does Google Spreadsheets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqP-aJPTwJFodEhkUC1ZU3JQVGp6QkpYUHZYTTNSanc


His bug is far worse than than the FDIV bug, that one was was pretty obscure. m3sSh3aD's brain bug produces far more and far greater errors and in each and every attempt at math.

He posted earlier his electricity costs £0.16 per KwH. to get to £110/month means £0.15/H. So he would be mining at barely over 1000W
Hes mining mostly on heavily overclocked and overvolted 69x0 cards.
To get 3 BTC per day, you need ~3.5GH. @1000W?

Show me a GPU mining rig that gets anywhere near 3.5MH/W.


I think you could do it with some serious underclocking and undervolting on the right hardware.   Maybe....

If I ever get bored I may try to see what is the highest MH/W possible using one of my 3x5970 rigs.  I think I could make 3.5MH/W.

Nice challenge. Hope you can find the time one day and show us if it is possible !
full member
Activity: 136
Merit: 100
January 01, 2012, 11:21:36 AM
Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Is that the one where if you input "@[=g3,8d]\&fbb=-q]/hk%fg" (quote included) and press Delete, you get sucked into the internet?
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
December 31, 2011, 08:41:15 PM
Quote
I didn't think 6970s could hit 395 MH/s out of the box, unless they (Tomshardware) did some tweaking to theirs just to make it benchmark slightly above a 5870.

Total BS in that article. Most of my 5870s can EASILY get a maximum of 440 Mhash/s when slightly overclocked to 960 MHz.

6XXX sucks compared to 5XXX. Even a 6990 sucks compared to the 5970 king ATM. A 6970 can almost never beat a 5870. 

Nobody really knows how the 7XXX will perform or behave until some months after release to allow for optimizations and OCing.



What BS is the crap coming from your mouth.

Run your card at stock then come here and eat your own BS.
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
December 31, 2011, 07:16:28 PM
If I ever get bored I may try to see what is the highest MH/W possible using one of my 3x5970 rigs.  I think I could make 3.5MH/W.
Sounds like a fun challenge.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
December 31, 2011, 06:17:46 PM
Uhh, Zed doesn't think so. Neither does Google Spreadsheets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqP-aJPTwJFodEhkUC1ZU3JQVGp6QkpYUHZYTTNSanc


His bug is far worse than than the FDIV bug, that one was was pretty obscure. m3sSh3aD's brain bug produces far more and far greater errors and in each and every attempt at math.

He posted earlier his electricity costs £0.16 per KwH. to get to £110/month means £0.15/H. So he would be mining at barely over 1000W
Hes mining mostly on heavily overclocked and overvolted 69x0 cards.
To get 3 BTC per day, you need ~3.5GH. @1000W?

Show me a GPU mining rig that gets anywhere near 3.5MH/W.



I think you could do it with some serious underclocking and undervolting on the right hardware.   Maybe....

If I ever get bored I may try to see what is the highest MH/W possible using one of my 3x5970 rigs.  I think I could make 3.5MH/W.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 31, 2011, 06:08:39 PM
Uhh, Zed doesn't think so. Neither does Google Spreadsheets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqP-aJPTwJFodEhkUC1ZU3JQVGp6QkpYUHZYTTNSanc


His bug is far worse than than the FDIV bug, that one was was pretty obscure. m3sSh3aD's brain bug produces far more and far greater errors and in each and every attempt at math.

He posted earlier his electricity costs £0.16 per KwH. to get to £110/month means £0.15/H. So he would be mining at barely over 1000W
Hes mining mostly on heavily overclocked and overvolted 69x0 cards.
To get 3 BTC per day, you need ~3.5GH. @1000W?

Show me a GPU mining rig that gets anywhere near 3.5MH/W.

full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
December 31, 2011, 05:50:50 PM
Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Now THAT'S a blast from the past....
sr. member
Activity: 475
Merit: 265
Ooh La La, C'est Zoom!
December 31, 2011, 05:45:12 PM
3 coins a day @ £2 each x7 = 63x4= £252 for 28 days mining. My electric bill is 100-110 a month. THats how i do my maths. Even 2 coins a day or a drop to £1.33($2.08 ill have you know) would give me £168 still leaving a profit.

Uhh, Zed doesn't think so. Neither does Google Spreadsheets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqP-aJPTwJFodEhkUC1ZU3JQVGp6QkpYUHZYTTNSanc

Looks like closer to £58/month (28 days) at your £2.00/coin rate.

Are you using a Pentium with the FDIV bug for doing your math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Just sayin'

- Zed
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
December 30, 2011, 11:59:37 AM
There are a lot of them, some in this thread.  The early reports seemed to indicate a die shrink.  The later ones now indicate only the low end OEM garbage will be a die shrink rebadge.  I agree with you (and had stated it in the past) IF the 7850 is a VLIW4 on 28nm it will be a monster card.  Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.

If that's the case, then I'm really disappointed.  I'm quite reluctant to jump into FPGA's anytime in the near future, so I was hoping I could get some power efficient cards in the meantime.  Grrr.

I have to break it to you but those number are pure crap for a 5970.  Not just against what I have gotten but against what lots of other people have gotten.  The limit on each card varies but my slowest card is running 820Mhz/160Mhz.  3x5970 in open air rig pulls 870W at the wall (measured over 3 days using kill-a-watt).  Backing out 100W for the MB, power supply inefficiency, CPU, RAM, etc that puts each card @ roughly 250W a piece.  That is w/ cgminer 2.1.0 running on Linux w/ 11.6 drivers & 2.4 SDK.

If you aren't getting AT LEAST 700MH/s you are doing something horribly wrong.  Note: 700MH/s isn't "good" it is just barely acceptable.

My math was bad in my previous post.  340x 2 = 680, not 640.  That's what happens when you've been up all night without sleep  Grin

Most of my 5970's I have been running at 800Mhz, but stability has sucked (suckage = a stalled miner once in three days), so recently I've dropped it down to 750-ish.  I'm on pretty much the same setup as you.  Ubuntu 11.04 x64 with 11.6/2.4 drivers/SDK, though I use phoenix directly with my own scripts.  I'm sure I could get more out of the 5970s, but I simply don't have time for that.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
December 30, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
What's your source for saying that the 7870 will be CGN?  I haven't seen anything other than it will be a 28nm die shrink of the VLIW4 architecture with 1536 shaders, same as a 6970, which gets about 390mh/s.  You usually get a small bump in speed with the die shrink, so you should get at least 390 Mh/s, probably a bit more.

There are a lot of them, some in this thread.  The early reports seemed to indicate a die shrink.  The later ones now indicate only the low end OEM garbage will be a die shrink rebadge.  I agree with you (and had stated it in the past) IF the 7850 is a VLIW4 on 28nm it will be a monster card.  Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.

Quote
As for the 5970, I have quite a lot of them running in my data center.  Looking at the console output right now, my slightly overclocked (750MHz/300MHz) 5970's, using phatk2 and the usual phoenix miner optimizations are getting 340 mh/s per core or 640 mh/s total.  I haven't been able to get 375 per core without increasing voltage (and good cooling).  Thus, I doubt you're getting 750mh/s speed under 300W.  I can hook up one of my rigs to 120v with a kill-a-watt and check the next time I'm at the data center.

I have to break it to you but those number are pure crap for a 5970.  Not just against what I have gotten but against what lots of other people have gotten.  The limit on each card varies but my slowest card is running 820Mhz/160Mhz.  3x5970 in open air rig pulls 870W at the wall (measured over 3 days using kill-a-watt).  Backing out 100W for the MB, power supply inefficiency, CPU, RAM, etc that puts each card @ roughly 250W a piece.  That is w/ cgminer 2.1.0 running on Linux w/ 11.6 drivers & 2.4 SDK.

If you aren't getting AT LEAST 700MH/s you are doing something horribly wrong.  Note: 700MH/s isn't "good" it is just barely acceptable.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
December 30, 2011, 11:16:32 AM
#99
Right.  So for the 7870/50 (not 7970), you're talking 390/330-ish mh/s (my estimate) at only 120/90W or about 3.25 to 3.66 mh/W.  With a 5970 you're getting ~650 mh/s at 300W, or about  2.16 Mh/s.

Where do you get the idea you are going to get 390 MH/s from a 7870?  The latest reports/rumors is that the 78xx will be CGN like 79xx series.  The 7870 has 62% of the shaders of a 7970.  Somehow it will get 90% of the performance w/ 62% of the shaders?

414 * 0.62 = 250 MH/s on 120W = 2.1MH/W.

Also a 5970 get closer to 750MH/s at 250W.

What's your source for saying that the 7870 will be CGN?  I haven't seen anything other than it will be a 28nm die shrink of the VLIW4 architecture with 1536 shaders, same as a 6970, which gets about 390mh/s.  You usually get a small bump in speed with the die shrink, so you should get at least 390 Mh/s, probably a bit more.

As for the 5970, I have quite a lot of them running in my data center.  Looking at the console output right now, my slightly overclocked (750MHz/300MHz) 5970's, using phatk2 and the usual phoenix miner optimizations are getting 340 mh/s per core or 640 mh/s total.  I haven't been able to get 375 per core without increasing voltage (and good cooling).  Thus, I doubt you're getting 750mh/s speed under 300W.  I can hook up one of my rigs to 120v with a kill-a-watt and check the next time I'm at the data center.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
December 30, 2011, 10:34:02 AM
#98
This is going to be an interesting year.  Because I get very cheap power and the FPGA scene is still a bit murky, I'm not planning to make a big FPGA investment for a while.  

To me, the 7870/50 seem to be the most enticing as a stop-gap before we all move to FPGA/ASICs.  Granted, the prices will be high at first and supply probably constrained, but with a 120/90W TDP respectively, they could pay for themselves pretty quickly.

The nominal wattage is less important than MH/W.  Based on the 7970 that looks to be inferior to 5870 & 5970.

Right.  So for the 7870/50 (not 7970), you're talking 390/330-ish mh/s (my estimate) at only 120/90W or about 3.25 to 3.66 mh/W.  With a 5970 you're getting ~650 mh/s at 300W, or about  2.16 Mh/s.

Where do you get the idea you are going to get 390 MH/s from a 7870?  The latest reports/rumors is that the 78xx will be CGN like 79xx series.  The 7870 has 62% of the shaders of a 7970.  Somehow it will get 90% of the performance w/ 62% of the shaders?

414 * 0.62 = 250 MH/s on 120W = 2.1MH/W.

Also a 5970 get closer to 750MH/s at 250W.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
December 30, 2011, 10:27:06 AM
#97
This is going to be an interesting year.  Because I get very cheap power and the FPGA scene is still a bit murky, I'm not planning to make a big FPGA investment for a while. 

To me, the 7870/50 seem to be the most enticing as a stop-gap before we all move to FPGA/ASICs.  Granted, the prices will be high at first and supply probably constrained, but with a 120/90W TDP respectively, they could pay for themselves pretty quickly.

The nominal wattage is less important than MH/W.  Based on the 7970 that looks to be inferior to 5870 & 5970.

Right.  So for the 7870/50 (not 7970), you're talking 390/330-ish mh/s (my estimate) at only 120/90W or about 3.25 to 3.66 mh/W.  With a 5970 you're getting ~650 mh/s at 300W, or about  2.16 Mh/s.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
December 30, 2011, 10:19:18 AM
#96
This is going to be an interesting year.  Because I get very cheap power and the FPGA scene is still a bit murky, I'm not planning to make a big FPGA investment for a while. 

To me, the 7870/50 seem to be the most enticing as a stop-gap before we all move to FPGA/ASICs.  Granted, the prices will be high at first and supply probably constrained, but with a 120/90W TDP respectively, they could pay for themselves pretty quickly.

The nominal wattage is less important than MH/W.  Based on the 7970 that looks to be inferior to 5870 & 5970.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
December 30, 2011, 08:12:14 AM
#95
This is going to be an interesting year.  Because I get very cheap power and the FPGA scene is still a bit murky, I'm not planning to make a big FPGA investment for a while. 

To me, the 7870/50 seem to be the most enticing as a stop-gap before we all move to FPGA/ASICs.  Granted, the prices will be high at first and supply probably constrained, but with a 120/90W TDP respectively, they could pay for themselves pretty quickly.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 30, 2011, 04:30:27 AM
#94
Total BS in that article. Most of my 5870s can EASILY get a maximum of 440 Mhash/s when slightly overclocked to 960 MHz.

THG didnt overclock any of those card in that mining test. They got 375MH which is exactly what Im getting from my 5870 at stock speed. 375.3 to be exact.  That I can overclock mine to 1 GHz is irrelevant, THG could also overclock their 7970 to >1.1 GHz. Hashrate scales perfectly with clock.
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
Pages:
Jump to: