Topic: Record hashrate for a 5850? (me, showing off) - page 3. (Read 15271 times)

I cant get over 1000mhz one 1 5850 , but I've got 3 of them at 915hmhz...

I can't change the voltage of any of them

new record?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

another question for the clockers out there, im using trixx and it maxes out at 1000mhz, the app doesnt seem let me go any higher. however at my reccomendation a friend bought the same 5850 cards as i have, at first he too could only clock to 1000mhz but then it suddenly allowed him to go higher (currently 1032)  does anyone know how i can make trixx take more mhz for me too, he tells me he didnt do anything at all to make it happen and i need it, i know itll give me more and i cant let him beat me, i just cant!

EDIT

for some reason a restart brought mine into working too, if i push it further it will go all the way to 1050mhz (428MH/s) but not stable enough and i fear for the vrm temps as the monitors ive found dont seem to work. i think modding some cooling for the vrms is the answer if i want more out of it so thats this weekends task, but as always it has to be applied fast as i hate downtime, currently running 1015mhz getting 415MH/s

how did you get that techpowerup gputool to display the data from your card, when i run it im told my clocks are at 14mhz and no temp info, want to get the vrm temps up, i grow concerned at my 1.243v overclock, it seems stable enough but id rather be sure

I wasn't aware that switching SDKs was difficult.  On Linux you are able to install both simultaneously and switching between them can be as easy as changing the destination of a symbolic link.  It's about as difficult as changing a kernel.  I'd quite like to find a way of switching between drivers easily on Linux but at the moment I can't find a way of doing it without a reboot!  If it's difficult/dangerous/unpredictable then don't worry.  I think the improvement will only be 2-3 MH/s or so.

Actually, thinking about the figures, it's quite possible that Catalyst 11.4 works better with SDK 2.4 and Catalyst 11.6 works better with SDK 2.1.  This could explain the 12.8 MH/s difference.  If I'm right about this you may actually lose 3-4 MH/s or so with SDK 2.1.  I might test this later but I'm currently running testing the stability of my cards.

Yea I'm not sure what it is to be honest, some hoodoo magic or something.  Certainly nothing I've done aside from overclock.  It's SDK 2.4; I'll see if I can try SDK 2.1 but I'm weary of the issues of switching SDKs.  I'll keep you updated as I try different things.

Woah! I thought you were already using his latest kernel!  I can't recall whether or not this was SDK 2.1 or SDK 2.4 but I'm guessing the former (I'm fairly sure it would be the faster of the two here).

I guess this would be 428.3 MH/s at 1GHz.  Surely I wouldn't gain 12.8 MH/s just from going from Catalyst 11.6 to Catalyst 11.4.  Do you think that with Catalyst 11.6 you would sink all the way to 415.5 MH/s? surely not.  I guess there's something else going on here allowing you such high hash rates but can't think what it would be.  If you have any ideas as to what I'm missing then the 0.4 BTC I offered is still available.  Hopefully Catalyst 11.7 will perform better than 11.6 and I very much look forward to that.

For now I'll focus on making my cards stable at high clock rates.  At stock volts I seem to be ok at 980 MHz (406.9 MH/s) and 1030 MHz (428.0 MH/s) on my two cards.  Temperature seems to make a big difference so I'm glad I've got good after-market coolers.  I had some fun putting the fans to maximum and opening the door and window to see how far my cards would go.  My good card held it's own for 10 minutes at 1045 MHz (stock voltage).  When I increased it to 1050 MHz it crashed instantly (42*C).  My card is definitely not stable at these higher clock rates.

Guess it's not maximal  

Tried diapolo's modified kernel as you mentioned and I was able to push it a bit more through phoenix miner


432.5





I may try some other driver versions but seems like this is a good mix so far

I think this is looking pretty much maximal but could be wrong.  As you're using Windows perhaps you could try the Catalyst 11.7 preview if you haven't already.

Do you mean this graph?
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4292.msg148234#msg148234

I experience similar changes to my hashing rate as I vary the RAM.  The card type and core clock speeds are also important factors.  For the 1GHz 5850 I found 350-360 MHz to be optimal (worksize 256).

Yea, it was pretty much around that.  I may try some alternate kernels to see if I can't milk a bit more from it but I think it's pretty much topped out.

Cool.  Thanks for this.  I assume the 429.7 MH/s figure is for 1010MHz and that your 1000MHz figure is therefore more like 425.6 MH/s.  Even so this is a huge improvement on my 415.5 MH/s so well done indeed.

I'm fairly certain than Catalyst 11.4 is the magic ticket here but as a Linux user I'm relying on Catalyst 11.6 to overclock my cards past 900 MHz.  More power to Windows users!

I anyone knows how to clock past the BIOS limits in Linux while using Catalyst 11.4 then let me know for some BTC (and no, WINE/DOS/Windows/Bios Flash do not count).

Well teukon,

I grew a pair and tried the magic 1000 core and I was successful.  But it wasn't enough to satiate my curiousity so I tried a wee bit more and here are my results.





While 1000 was stable at 1.149v, I had to up to 1.162v to hit 1010MHz on the core.  The VRMs were a bit scary though, nearing 115c.  This was only for a few minutes too; probably won't feel comfortable until I get that new thermal stuff in.


429.7  

I always have highest speeds with 300 or 302 MHz ram, but yes the worksize and ram speed are related.  Someone actually made a graph if you search for the original thread that said "Lowering ram speed increases hashing rate" or similar, go all the way to the last post and work backwards to find the graph.

Yes, increasing voltage can hurt power consumption in a big way.  There's certainly room for improvement in software though.  A 1055 core should be able to manage more than 430 MH/s with a little tweaking.

I'm impressed with the cooling though.  65*C on a 5850 1055/[email protected] is very good.

No worries.  I hope you manage to get a little more out of that card with tips mentioned on this thread.

I'm currently trying to improve further.  I believe it's possible to get quite a bit more because Tx2000 is able to get a staggering 413 MH/s at only 970 MHz!  Granted, this is on Windows, and I have a suspicion that he's using Catalyst 11.7, but if he's not then there's surely some trick he's using for the extra 12 MH/s.

My good card has been running at 1025 MHz for over 12 hours now and is perfectly fine.  I think being kept very cool is good for it's stability (at these clocks 60*C is far too high).  I'm getting impatient so time to go to 1030 MHz.

I got my 5850 Toxic 1Gb to 418Mhash @ 1055 Core, 375 Mem and 1.25V.
That was on XP though and after I changed to W7 the diriver started to crash at 1025 Core..

Note that at that voltage it's less efficient than a 5870 but I just wanted to test how high it could go :3 (Temps were never above 65C though, Vapor-x <3)

I had momentarily forgotten about changing the worksize, thanks for the reminder! Changed to 256, and now hashing at 405 MH/s, will do some more tweaking later today.

With help from Diapolo I've modified the latest phatk kernel to work with SDK 2.1 and the result is another 2.1 MH/s for the 1GHz 5850s.  Now I'm able to achieve 415.4 (+/- 0.1) MH/s.  See http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25860 for details.

Aggression tells the miner how much work you want to do per OpenCL instruction.  The formula is nonces = 2^(16 + AGGRESSION).

So AGGRESION=14 will be about 1'000'000'000 nonces per OpenCL instruction (which I believe takes about 2.5 seconds at 1GHz core on a 5850 - hence the rather slow rate updates).  AGGRESSION 15 will be twice as much work per OpenCL instruction and your rate will change once every 5 seconds or so.  I chose AGGRESSION=16 because 2^32 is a nice round number and I get about 0.2 MH/s compared to AGGRESSION=14.  For a dedicated rig I don't think increasing the AGGRESSION to 16 is going to hurt (might even help) stability but for a miner you want to use for other tasks it is completely ridiculous and 11 or below is more suitable.

I use AGGRESSION to reduce jitter (reported hash rate variance).