User Tools

Site Tools


bitcoin:miners

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
bitcoin:miners [2010/12/13 16:13]
donpdonp
bitcoin:miners [2016/06/25 11:25] (current)
Line 253: Line 253:
 16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: how about you collect investment from other community      achristi~  16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: how about you collect investment from other community      achristi~ 
                     members, then distribute the chips pro-rata?                          members, then distribute the chips pro-rata?     
-16:07 < Kiba> he's a 37 years old fart                                                  altamic   +16:07 < Kiba> he's a 37 years old fart                                               
 16:07 < ArtForz> Phoebus: yup       16:07 < ArtForz> Phoebus: yup      
-16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: that way you get more volume, lower cost. and as a side    arcatan   +16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: that way you get more volume, lower cost. and as a side   
                     benefit... you don't end up with >50% of the network                      benefit... you don't end up with >50% of the network 
                                                                    
 </code> </code>
 +
 += new ati card= 
 +<code>
 +16:23 < fabianhjr> ArtForz: Are the new 6000 GPUs worth it?                     
 +16:24 < ArtForz> not really                                                         
 +16:24 < ArtForz> and 69xx will probably suck even worse     
 +16:26 < ArtForz> I got a 6870, not worth it                                           
 +16:27 < ArtForz> 235Mh/s, 150W, doesnt have much OC headroom                         
 +16:28 < ArtForz> and you need sdk 2.2 for it  
 +16:28 < ArtForz> = say goodbye to decent multiGPU performance
 +</code>
 +
 += nvidia telsa =
 +<code>
 +13:54 < ArtForz> DP: tesla C2050 = 257.6 GFLOPs, HD6970 = 337.9GFLOPs, HD5970 =        
 +                 464GFLOPs                                                             
 +13:55 < ArtForz> and the 5970 can do another 1856GFLOPs SP on the XYZW units in       
 +                 parallel to DP on the T unit   
 +</code>
 +
 += artforz summary =
 +<code>
 +09:11 < ArtForz> 16.5Ghash here
 +09:13 < ArtForz> 5 HD5770, 24 HD5970, 1 HD6870, 1 HD6970, for a total of 55 GPUs
 +09:13 < Sultan_> you lot have 5 computers?
 +09:13 < ArtForz> 9 
 +09:15 < ArtForz> with a total power draw of ~9kW 
 +</code>
 +
 += network hash rate =
 +<code>
 +< donpdonp> is it possible to estimate the gigahash rate of the entire network?
 +< ArtForz> estnextdiff 17571.2
 +< ArtForz> so thats 17571.2 * 2**32 / 600 hps or... 125.78 ghash
 +< donpdonp> whats the  / 600 hps for? 
 +< ArtForz> 600 seconds nominal per block
 +(one block generated every 10 minutes)
 +</code>
 +
 += PS3 =
 +<code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 +< ArtForz> rooted PS3 should have peak ~24.5Mhps 
 +< ArtForz> = all 7 SPEs + PPE   
 +</code>
 +
 += artforz bank account =
 +<code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 +< newsham> also are you keeping a large stock of btc or liquidating most
 +< ArtForz> I kept about 15%
 +< ArtForz> ~40kBTC currently
 +< ArtForz> I'll probably keep on selling 80% of daily production or so 
 +< molecular> who is buying all these? people speculating? I don't understand where the demand stems from?
 +< ArtForz> I'd guess so
 +</code>
 +
 += cartel / majority =
 +<code>
 +15-Jan-2011
 +< ArtForz> once a mienr (or a bucnh of collaborating miners) get > 50%, they can claim all generation and block transactions from getting into the chain
 +< molecular> on the other hand: if all the gamers start mining (some hype might happen), artforz's asics dont look so good any more
 +< molecular> ArtForz: is that your plan? take over btc and therefor kill it? can't be, right?
 +< ArtForz> I prefer to add hashrate slowly to stay at 15-25% of total network 
 +< ArtForz> it simply doesnt make much economic sense to grow beyond 33% or so  
 +< ArtForz> you're effectively competing against yourself 
 +< davex__> artforz: why does that matter?  it would be like having a monopoly on all gold mines.
 +< ArtForz> except you dont      
 +< ArtForz> lets say rest of network is 100Gh/s, you add 10, you're 9.1% of total, you add 50, you're 33.3% of total  
 +< newsham> what artforz is not counting on is that once he has large monopoly, he will be able to extract nice transaction fees if he so desires :)
 +< ArtForz> so ~ 3.5x payout for 5x the hardware 
 +< davex__> artforz: yeah true...  i guess it's also not reasonable to assume when you get to 50% everyone else will just give up, also.
 +< ArtForz> yep  
 +< ArtForz> and a mining cartel is really really obvious
 +< davex__> because you get lots of simultaneous solutions submitted?
 +< ArtForz> that and nobody else suddenly gets blocks
 +</code>
 +
 += ATI Driver rev =
 +<code>
 +18-jan-2011
 +ArtForz> for 5xxx, anythong >= 10.10 seems to work well
 +sipa> but it's not like the stream sdk where you shouldn't use the latest version
 +ArtForz> nah 
 +ArtForz> I run 4*5970 on 10.12 no problem
 +ArtForz> seems to be even a bit faster than 10.10 
 +ArtForz> btw, the multiGPU slowdown and CPU hogging is limited to OpenCL in sdk 2.2/2.3, CAL works fine
 +</code>
 +
 +<code>
 +15-feb-2011
 +<ArtForz> I mean, 6970 is pretty exactly as fast as 5870 for me
 +<retsilex> ArtForz: 6950 .. would you recommend it?  instead of 5870
 +<ArtForz> well... for 3D, yes, for mining.. no
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: 6xxx is useless for mining
 +<ArtForz> you need sdk2.3 for 69xx, which has broken OpenCL multigpu support
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: you're stuck with sdk 2.2 or 2.3, which is shit
 +<ArtForz> so unless you have a CAL miner, 69xx sucks ...
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: 6970 should be 15% faster than 5870
 +<Diablo-D3> but its not
 +<Diablo-D3> because the sdk fucks you over
 +<retsilex> ArtForz: your desktop uses which sdk, which drier version? and what linux?
 +<ArtForz> debian sid, 2.6.32, fglrx 10.9, sdk 2.1
 +
 +<foucist> ArtForz: i heard you were the guy to ask about the reason for the drop in stream processors between 5970 and the cards that come after :P
 +<ArtForz> foucist: pretyt simple really, 5xxx had pretty bad shader ALU use % in games on average
 +<ArtForz> so 6xxx got more fixed-function ahdrware, beefed up frontends, better mem controller, ... but shader ALU * MHz went down
 +</code>
 +
 +
bitcoin/miners.1292285637.txt.gz ยท Last modified: 2016/06/25 11:25 (external edit)