PSA: Malta 7990s are NOT suitable for mining! - page 3.

Miner99er

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: dogie on April 30, 2013, 01:39:33 PM

Quote from: Miner99er on April 30, 2013, 10:15:53 AM

When Mining SHA256, Memory clocks are reduced and the GPU cores are Ran like a bat out of hell...

When Mining Scrypt, the Clocks on both the CPU and memory are ran at a ratio of 0.57 to 1.

Either way, you're not pulling the max power draw the card is capable of.

Taco time stated 170w per 7970 while mining on unbinned Tahiti chips.

So 340 for this card, and add 15w for the crossbridge, 365w.

Close but under the limit.

...why are you trying to guess numbers when I have actual power consumption? 400 a card with minimum memory clocks and voltages, slightly undervolted cores. Thats on SHA256

Because you don't have a Malta 7990.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: Miner99er on April 30, 2013, 10:15:53 AM

When Mining SHA256, Memory clocks are reduced and the GPU cores are Ran like a bat out of hell...

When Mining Scrypt, the Clocks on both the CPU and memory are ran at a ratio of 0.57 to 1.

Either way, you're not pulling the max power draw the card is capable of.

Taco time stated 170w per 7970 while mining on unbinned Tahiti chips.

So 340 for this card, and add 15w for the crossbridge, 365w.

Close but under the limit.

...why are you trying to guess numbers when I have actual power consumption? 400 a card with minimum memory clocks and voltages, slightly undervolted cores. Thats on SHA256

Miner99er

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

When Mining SHA256, Memory clocks are reduced and the GPU cores are Ran like a bat out of hell...

When Mining Scrypt, the Clocks on both the CPU and memory are ran at a ratio of 0.57 to 1.

Either way, you're not pulling the max power draw the card is capable of.

Taco time stated 170w per 7970 while mining on unbinned Tahiti chips.

So 340 for this card, and add 15w for the crossbridge, 365w.

Close but under the limit.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: 2Kool4Skewl on April 30, 2013, 02:15:48 AM

I'd also be interested in seeing what these ref 7990s can hash. But, I think they'll be oc limited by the power connectors on the cards and the heat. The board itself will conduct/retain heat between the two chips. At least with two 7970 cards you can physically separate the dies.

I can't get above 1100 24/7 stable without going above stock voltage on my PC boards. Doubt the Maltas will be any better. = 1250-1300 a board.

2Kool4Skewl

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

I'd also be interested in seeing what these ref 7990s can hash. But, I think they'll be oc limited by the power connectors on the cards and the heat. The board itself will conduct/retain heat between the two chips. At least with two 7970 cards you can physically separate the dies.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dogie on April 29, 2013, 02:43:42 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 09:39:07 PM

Actually, it does work that way. Reference 'virial theorum'. I need say no more. The hot air of which you spoke, ROSE UP. It did not impart it's energy to the earth or the water, but even were that the case, in turn those reservoirs over time would release their excess energy, as dictated by the upper stratospheric radiative balance. Heat in and out from the sphere. Still, the virial theorum rules.

Well you're right it would eventually be radiated as with all heat, but do we exactly care what happens to the heat once its been created?

Its still elec -> ke -> heat.

No, it would be elec -> 1/2 ke + 1/2 pe

And then you have arguably some secondary effect (or not) on the entire planet's radiative balance at the top of the stratosphere, that having moved up and having a slightly larger surface area for those effects.

The point remains, you can't just redefine work and claim all is entropy. The definition of thermodynamic work is as it is. Deal with it.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 09:39:07 PM

Actually, it does work that way. Reference 'virial theorum'. I need say no more. The hot air of which you spoke, ROSE UP. It did not impart it's energy to the earth or the water, but even were that the case, in turn those reservoirs over time would release their excess energy, as dictated by the upper stratospheric radiative balance. Heat in and out from the sphere. Still, the virial theorum rules.

Well you're right it would eventually be radiated as with all heat, but do we exactly care what happens to the heat once its been created?

Its still elec -> ke -> heat.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 05:53:08 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 05:32:39 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 02:43:20 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 12:34:20 AM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 01:43:29 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 26, 2013, 07:31:41 PM

By that logic there is no "work", only "heat". And that's simply not true. The useful work performed here is in moving heat from one place to another through convection. This is not complicated.

Next we'll be arguing that there's no useful work in the entire universe, only heat....

In the use of a fan, electrical energy is converted to work which is very quickly and consistently turned to heat. Why do you think a fan makes a room hotter? Because it is converted electricity to heat. -anyway, this is fans.

In electronics there is zero work as the cycle happens so fast. Apart from the tiny portion of energy required to 'start' the cycle, all the conversion is from electricity to heat.

Again, in case I was not clear.

By your logic the Saturn V "did no work".

But there is a more profound error you make, which is in asserting that a fan, in moving heat from one place to another, "does no work". That's wrong, of course it does work. In fact, that's the very definition of work in a thermodynamic sense.

I replied to this conversation because it seemed interesting, but if you continue to stand on ignorance, this will get dull quickly.

What I was trying to point out is there is a difference between temporary and permanent work. Compare lifting a weight on a ratchet and our fan.

While lifting the weight, work is done and stored in PE. When you stop putting in work, it stays and there is a clear and stored outcome of the work.

With the fan, as soon as we stop the fan, everything has returned to pre-fan conditions. The air is a fluid so regardless of how you move it, it will still settle to a [now hotter] equilibrium and your work was converted entirely to heat.

In the case of your rocket, it clearly did permanent work as maybe 5% of the energy consumed is stored as PE above the earth. The rest was consumed as heat.

Well, since you want to look at the rocket in that fashion, I also, will use your method. By way of the virial theorum, the additional heat I added to the atmosphere by way of my fan has caused the gas envelope of the planet to become hotter, and thus it has expanded - admittedly, quite slightly. We can show that of this expansion, 50% is a potential energy increase, and 50% is a kinetic energy increase.

When you look at it in more detail it doesn't work that way. The air will give up its 'additional' heat by convection and interfluid diffusivity to EVERYTHING else, to the point the 'gas envelope' is unchanged.

Actually, it does work that way. Reference 'virial theorum'. I need say no more. The hot air of which you spoke, ROSE UP. It did not impart it's energy to the earth or the water, but even were that the case, in turn those reservoirs over time would release their excess energy, as dictated by the upper stratospheric radiative balance. Heat in and out from the sphere. Still, the virial theorum rules.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 08:46:18 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 05:57:52 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 05:44:43 PM

I never asked for the pci-e 2.0 spec. I stated a fact and it remains fact that the pci-e 2.0 slot is capable of delivering 150 watts. Your ignorance must be bliss.

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75.

What you've suggested is the standard is capable of delivering 150W. So if I took any PCI-E 2.0 motherboard off the shelf, I could power a 150W graphics card from it. You can't, the standard isn't and you're wrong.

You can't say the slot can supply 150W if it can't. Why do you think the Malta 7990 is 375W? 2x150W PCI-E 8 pin connectors = 300W.

375W - 300W does not equal 150W.

Here we go again, you're forgetting TDP is not max capable power draw. The specified TDP is only what the stock heatsink is required to dissipate. What do you think happens when you overvolt and overclock? Same goes for cpus. An i5-3570k has a tdp of 77 watts but overclock it and power consumption can easily double that number.

No shit its not, but those 2 numbers happen to line up in this particular case.

computerparts

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 05:57:52 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 05:44:43 PM

I never asked for the pci-e 2.0 spec. I stated a fact and it remains fact that the pci-e 2.0 slot is capable of delivering 150 watts. Your ignorance must be bliss.

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75.

What you've suggested is the standard is capable of delivering 150W. So if I took any PCI-E 2.0 motherboard off the shelf, I could power a 150W graphics card from it. You can't, the standard isn't and you're wrong.

You can't say the slot can supply 150W if it can't. Why do you think the Malta 7990 is 375W? 2x150W PCI-E 8 pin connectors = 300W.

375W - 300W does not equal 150W.

Here we go again, you're forgetting TDP is not max capable power draw. The specified TDP is only what the stock heatsink is required to dissipate. What do you think happens when you overvolt and overclock? Same goes for cpus. An i5-3570k has a tdp of 77 watts but overclock it and power consumption can easily double that number.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 05:44:43 PM

I never asked for the pci-e 2.0 spec. I stated a fact and it remains fact that the pci-e 2.0 slot is capable of delivering 150 watts. Your ignorance must be bliss.

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75.

What you've suggested is the standard is capable of delivering 150W. So if I took any PCI-E 2.0 motherboard off the shelf, I could power a 150W graphics card from it. You can't, the standard isn't and you're wrong.

You can't say the slot can supply 150W if it can't. Why do you think the Malta 7990 is 375W? 2x150W PCI-E 8 pin connectors = 300W.

375W - 300W does not equal 150W.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 05:32:39 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 02:43:20 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 12:34:20 AM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 01:43:29 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 26, 2013, 07:31:41 PM

By that logic there is no "work", only "heat". And that's simply not true. The useful work performed here is in moving heat from one place to another through convection. This is not complicated.

Next we'll be arguing that there's no useful work in the entire universe, only heat....

In the use of a fan, electrical energy is converted to work which is very quickly and consistently turned to heat. Why do you think a fan makes a room hotter? Because it is converted electricity to heat. -anyway, this is fans.

In electronics there is zero work as the cycle happens so fast. Apart from the tiny portion of energy required to 'start' the cycle, all the conversion is from electricity to heat.

Again, in case I was not clear.

By your logic the Saturn V "did no work".

But there is a more profound error you make, which is in asserting that a fan, in moving heat from one place to another, "does no work". That's wrong, of course it does work. In fact, that's the very definition of work in a thermodynamic sense.

I replied to this conversation because it seemed interesting, but if you continue to stand on ignorance, this will get dull quickly.

What I was trying to point out is there is a difference between temporary and permanent work. Compare lifting a weight on a ratchet and our fan.

While lifting the weight, work is done and stored in PE. When you stop putting in work, it stays and there is a clear and stored outcome of the work.

With the fan, as soon as we stop the fan, everything has returned to pre-fan conditions. The air is a fluid so regardless of how you move it, it will still settle to a [now hotter] equilibrium and your work was converted entirely to heat.

In the case of your rocket, it clearly did permanent work as maybe 5% of the energy consumed is stored as PE above the earth. The rest was consumed as heat.

Well, since you want to look at the rocket in that fashion, I also, will use your method. By way of the virial theorum, the additional heat I added to the atmosphere by way of my fan has caused the gas envelope of the planet to become hotter, and thus it has expanded - admittedly, quite slightly. We can show that of this expansion, 50% is a potential energy increase, and 50% is a kinetic energy increase.

When you look at it in more detail it doesn't work that way. The air will give up its 'additional' heat by convection and interfluid diffusivity to EVERYTHING else, to the point the 'gas envelope' is unchanged.

computerparts

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 03:21:10 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 03:06:18 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 10:15:50 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:33:28 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:31:09 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:10:28 PM

Quote from: Dyaheon on April 27, 2013, 07:44:42 PM

With regards to power throttling, there's a powertune +20% option. I believe that should let you mine without trouble, as it allows for 375W*1.2 = 450W. Furmark is indeed not a good benchmark, it is considered a 'power virus'. Even if power is a problem, slight undervolting should take care of that.

Temperatures and cooling may be a problem, but it's a matter of ambient temps and airflow. If you have an open air rig with extenders and plenty of space for the cards, I'm sure you'll be fine.

The question is more about whether it's a good idea to buy a $1000 card for mining now, instead of getting multiple 5xxx/79xx cards or an ASIC. Or just buying coins directly. The time of GPUs might be coming to an end.

The limit is the cooling system and power DELIVERY in this case [same as you'd have on a high end SINGLE 7970 with a little more beef]. It doesn't matter if you tell the card its allowed more than designed as in this case its hard limited by the power delivery system. 75W PCIE and 2x150W PCIE 8 pins = 375W. Can't 'force' more due to the onboard hardware without seriously seriously risking card death.

...

Still not caught on that power consumption is equal or very near to heat output?

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75. About the power consumption yes you're right. I was thinking of something entirely different. Are you sitting there constantly refreshing the screen? I cannot fathom how you can reply so fast unless you have nothing better to do.

blah blah blah

Try looking for a more updated revision next time. Why in the world do you think some motherboards have molex connectors near the pci-e slots? The slot is capable of delivering 150w. There are even bios settings on some boards that allow you to change from 75w to 150w. It would be impossible to overclock some cards without having that extra power from the slot.

You asked for the PCI-E 2.0 specification, I gave it you. If you want to argue they made the specification wrong then go argue with them - your insolence is incredible.

I never asked for the pci-e 2.0 spec. I stated a fact and it remains fact that the pci-e 2.0 slot is capable of delivering 150 watts. Your ignorance must be bliss.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dogie on April 28, 2013, 02:43:20 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 12:34:20 AM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 01:43:29 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 26, 2013, 07:31:41 PM

By that logic there is no "work", only "heat". And that's simply not true. The useful work performed here is in moving heat from one place to another through convection. This is not complicated.

Next we'll be arguing that there's no useful work in the entire universe, only heat....

In the use of a fan, electrical energy is converted to work which is very quickly and consistently turned to heat. Why do you think a fan makes a room hotter? Because it is converted electricity to heat. -anyway, this is fans.

In electronics there is zero work as the cycle happens so fast. Apart from the tiny portion of energy required to 'start' the cycle, all the conversion is from electricity to heat.

Again, in case I was not clear.

By your logic the Saturn V "did no work".

But there is a more profound error you make, which is in asserting that a fan, in moving heat from one place to another, "does no work". That's wrong, of course it does work. In fact, that's the very definition of work in a thermodynamic sense.

I replied to this conversation because it seemed interesting, but if you continue to stand on ignorance, this will get dull quickly.

What I was trying to point out is there is a difference between temporary and permanent work. Compare lifting a weight on a ratchet and our fan.

While lifting the weight, work is done and stored in PE. When you stop putting in work, it stays and there is a clear and stored outcome of the work.

With the fan, as soon as we stop the fan, everything has returned to pre-fan conditions. The air is a fluid so regardless of how you move it, it will still settle to a [now hotter] equilibrium and your work was converted entirely to heat.

In the case of your rocket, it clearly did permanent work as maybe 5% of the energy consumed is stored as PE above the earth. The rest was consumed as heat.

Well, since you want to look at the rocket in that fashion, I also, will use your method. By way of the virial theorum, the additional heat I added to the atmosphere by way of my fan has caused the gas envelope of the planet to become hotter, and thus it has expanded - admittedly, quite slightly. We can show that of this expansion, 50% is a potential energy increase, and 50% is a kinetic energy increase.

You would like, it would seem, to have dictatorial control of the definition of "work". But neither in engineering or physics is that plausible. It is quite strictly defined.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: computerparts on April 28, 2013, 03:06:18 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 10:15:50 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:33:28 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:31:09 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:10:28 PM

Quote from: Dyaheon on April 27, 2013, 07:44:42 PM

With regards to power throttling, there's a powertune +20% option. I believe that should let you mine without trouble, as it allows for 375W*1.2 = 450W. Furmark is indeed not a good benchmark, it is considered a 'power virus'. Even if power is a problem, slight undervolting should take care of that.

Temperatures and cooling may be a problem, but it's a matter of ambient temps and airflow. If you have an open air rig with extenders and plenty of space for the cards, I'm sure you'll be fine.

The question is more about whether it's a good idea to buy a $1000 card for mining now, instead of getting multiple 5xxx/79xx cards or an ASIC. Or just buying coins directly. The time of GPUs might be coming to an end.

The limit is the cooling system and power DELIVERY in this case [same as you'd have on a high end SINGLE 7970 with a little more beef]. It doesn't matter if you tell the card its allowed more than designed as in this case its hard limited by the power delivery system. 75W PCIE and 2x150W PCIE 8 pins = 375W. Can't 'force' more due to the onboard hardware without seriously seriously risking card death.

...

Still not caught on that power consumption is equal or very near to heat output?

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75. About the power consumption yes you're right. I was thinking of something entirely different. Are you sitting there constantly refreshing the screen? I cannot fathom how you can reply so fast unless you have nothing better to do.

blah blah blah

Try looking for a more updated revision next time. Why in the world do you think some motherboards have molex connectors near the pci-e slots? The slot is capable of delivering 150w. There are even bios settings on some boards that allow you to change from 75w to 150w. It would be impossible to overclock some cards without having that extra power from the slot.

You asked for the PCI-E 2.0 specification, I gave it you. If you want to argue they made the specification wrong then go argue with them - your insolence is incredible.

computerparts

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 10:15:50 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:42:24 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:33:28 PM

Quote from: computerparts on April 27, 2013, 08:31:09 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 08:10:28 PM

Quote from: Dyaheon on April 27, 2013, 07:44:42 PM

With regards to power throttling, there's a powertune +20% option. I believe that should let you mine without trouble, as it allows for 375W*1.2 = 450W. Furmark is indeed not a good benchmark, it is considered a 'power virus'. Even if power is a problem, slight undervolting should take care of that.

Temperatures and cooling may be a problem, but it's a matter of ambient temps and airflow. If you have an open air rig with extenders and plenty of space for the cards, I'm sure you'll be fine.

The question is more about whether it's a good idea to buy a $1000 card for mining now, instead of getting multiple 5xxx/79xx cards or an ASIC. Or just buying coins directly. The time of GPUs might be coming to an end.

The limit is the cooling system and power DELIVERY in this case [same as you'd have on a high end SINGLE 7970 with a little more beef]. It doesn't matter if you tell the card its allowed more than designed as in this case its hard limited by the power delivery system. 75W PCIE and 2x150W PCIE 8 pins = 375W. Can't 'force' more due to the onboard hardware without seriously seriously risking card death.

...

Still not caught on that power consumption is equal or very near to heat output?

Pci-e 2.0 is capable of delivering 150w not 75. About the power consumption yes you're right. I was thinking of something entirely different. Are you sitting there constantly refreshing the screen? I cannot fathom how you can reply so fast unless you have nothing better to do.

blah blah blah

Try looking for a more updated revision next time. Why in the world do you think some motherboards have molex connectors near the pci-e slots? The slot is capable of delivering 150w. There are even bios settings on some boards that allow you to change from 75w to 150w. It would be impossible to overclock some cards without having that extra power from the slot.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: tacotime on April 28, 2013, 01:32:23 AM

My 7970s at 901 MHz core / 1512 MHz RAM / 937 mV core pull about 170w AC (140w DC) per card while getting 630 KH/s. This is without touching the power limiter. I seriously doubt Malta will have a problem mining litecoins. The 2x 8-pins themselves can give enough power to run the card at low clocks/volts, let alone the PCI-e slot. The reference 7970 I have, by the way, runs at <60C load next a bunch of 6950s that run at 85C load. Tahiti is insanely energy efficient when it comes to scrypt.

I believe there is a difference between being FORCED to mine on low clocks and having the option to mine at low clocks. This is after all a $1k card.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 12:34:20 AM

Quote from: dogie on April 27, 2013, 01:43:29 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on April 26, 2013, 07:31:41 PM

By that logic there is no "work", only "heat". And that's simply not true. The useful work performed here is in moving heat from one place to another through convection. This is not complicated.

Next we'll be arguing that there's no useful work in the entire universe, only heat....

In the use of a fan, electrical energy is converted to work which is very quickly and consistently turned to heat. Why do you think a fan makes a room hotter? Because it is converted electricity to heat. -anyway, this is fans.

In electronics there is zero work as the cycle happens so fast. Apart from the tiny portion of energy required to 'start' the cycle, all the conversion is from electricity to heat.

Again, in case I was not clear.

By your logic the Saturn V "did no work".

But there is a more profound error you make, which is in asserting that a fan, in moving heat from one place to another, "does no work". That's wrong, of course it does work. In fact, that's the very definition of work in a thermodynamic sense.

I replied to this conversation because it seemed interesting, but if you continue to stand on ignorance, this will get dull quickly.

What I was trying to point out is there is a difference between temporary and permanent work. Compare lifting a weight on a ratchet and our fan.

While lifting the weight, work is done and stored in PE. When you stop putting in work, it stays and there is a clear and stored outcome of the work.

With the fan, as soon as we stop the fan, everything has returned to pre-fan conditions. The air is a fluid so regardless of how you move it, it will still settle to a [now hotter] equilibrium and your work was converted entirely to heat.

In the case of your rocket, it clearly did permanent work as maybe 5% of the energy consumed is stored as PE above the earth. The rest was consumed as heat.

Bitsaurus

hero member

Activity: 873

Merit: 1007

Quote from: tacotime on April 28, 2013, 01:32:23 AM

My 7970s at 901 MHz core / 1512 MHz RAM / 937 mV core pull about 170w AC (140w DC) per card while getting 630 KH/s. This is without touching the power limiter. I seriously doubt Malta will have a problem mining litecoins. The 2x 8-pins themselves can give enough power to run the card at low clocks/volts, let alone the PCI-e slot. The reference 7970 I have, by the way, runs at <60C load next a bunch of 6950s that run at 85C load. Tahiti is insanely energy efficient when it comes to scrypt.

Eh aren't you mining in Siberia though?

Those temps look good but every single one of my cards goes over 80C when doing scrypt, even when undervolting the core.

tacotime

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1005

My 7970s at 901 MHz core / 1512 MHz RAM / 937 mV core pull about 170w AC (140w DC) per card while getting 630 KH/s. This is without touching the power limiter. I seriously doubt Malta will have a problem mining litecoins. The 2x 8-pins themselves can give enough power to run the card at low clocks/volts, let alone the PCI-e slot. The reference 7970 I have, by the way, runs at <60C load next a bunch of 6950s that run at 85C load. Tahiti is insanely energy efficient when it comes to scrypt.

Topic: PSA: Malta 7990s are NOT suitable for mining! - page 3. (Read 21055 times)