CryptoCurrency Mining with GPUs *spawn*

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by CarstenS, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. entity279

    Veteran Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Romania
    * insert friendly, non-polarizing, joke about Germany giving up nuclear plants here *
     
    Alexko and CarstenS like this.
  2. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
    You could have calculated by measured your pc at idle, and then when the gc is mining. I'm shocked at 128w only when I see de 295x2 numbers here : http://www.anandtech.com/show/7930/the-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review/17
     
  3. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,528
    Likes Received:
    862
    *Knee jerk reaction:* There's 0.2 EUR tax on a kWh in Germany, only 0.05 in Romania.

    Cheers
     
  4. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Rootax and CSI PC like this.
  5. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Almost as bad as you describe. About 53% are taxes and similar fees. About 24% for infrastructure maintenance, accounting and similar. Remaining 23% are what the providers or resellers get for their "efforts" of buying/producing electricity, their margins etc.
     
    entity279 likes this.
  6. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    Glad you identified the 128W Carsten :)

    As a reference here is a comparison by Tom's Hardware using a scope to measure power demand of several generations of AMD dual cards, interesting article:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-review-benchmark-performance,3799-14.html

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Below, possibly more important/relevant in the article looking at Power Consumption: General-Purpose Computing:
    The 7990 has a much greater power demand increase for such work and much higher than its gaming measurement, while the 295X2 is only a bit more than its gaming power demand; looks like an important consideration if using the 7990 and taking energy cost/performance as a factor for mining and level of optimisation needed.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-review-benchmark-performance,3799-15.html

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Cheers
     
    #86 CSI PC, Jun 14, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  7. DavidC

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    24
    I don't think Vega will do better than Fury. Probably similar.

    The reason is HBM. The fact that timings make a lot of difference suggests that HBM is not so good on the latency department. Probably also the reason for GTX 1080 being slower, the GDDR5x.

    If they wanted to make beast of a card, they should double up Polaris and make a 4096SP version and 512-bit wide GDDR5 bus. That would do 50MH/s out of the box if they keep the GDDR5 timings and speed similar to Polaris.

    Interestingly if Intel could provide their eDRAM modules in large enough capacity and with similar latency on AMD cards that would turn out to be the absolute fastest. Can't beat 50ns latency.

    You can, but you can't use in-memory DAG generation software like Claymore because it takes more than 2GB VRAM. The in-memory DAG generation saves lot of time in the beginning because it takes hours.
     
    Rootax likes this.
  8. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    HBM also scales with clocks*, Vega should be able to do 50%, edit:maybe 100%, thought about 700-ish clocks first better than Fury at least.


    *To be more precise, Claymore's GPU-Miner for Ethereum scales also with HBM-clocks as it does with G5(x) memories.
     
    #88 CarstenS, Jun 17, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    Rootax likes this.
  9. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
    Would be nice... Until then, solo Fury X it is.... (I'll never be a full on miner&such I just consider it a "bonus" money when I don't use my graphic card)
     
  10. entity279

    Veteran Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Romania
    60 mh/s ETH don't feel impresive to me @300W . Two o/c 1070's can already achieve that (2 OC 580s as well) or get close. So Vega has to do more, IMO
     
  11. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
    I doubt Vega will really use 300W at full load. The 300W is the theorical max imo. Plus mining only use compute stuff, not the whole gpu, so it won't consume that much anyway... My Fury X is using 180-185w when mining here... a lot less than gaming.
     
    Lightman and CarstenS like this.
  12. DavidC

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    24
    Don't forget Vega uses HBM2 and changes characteristics again. Likely for Ethereum its going to penalize it, as GDDR5x did for GDDR5. Fury is first generation HBM. If they took HBM memory to Vega-levels it would be different.
     
  13. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
    About that, has HBM2 better latency than HBM1 ? I don't find the answer on google :eek:

    I hope Kraken will have my account verified (T1+T2) by then, it's been 3 weeks... (they announce 2-4 weaks)...
     
  14. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    Does HBM gen2 change access granularity or lowers command clock but doubles transferred bits per clock?
     
  15. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
  16. sir doris

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    110
  17. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    France
    Yeah it's strange. Maybe a change aim at Polaris, not vram related ? Or, just a bs article...
     
  18. entity279

    Veteran Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Romania
    Maybe the article is actually reffering to the 4GB Rx480s & 580s ? Even they those are not the majority.. Otherwise it would have to do with the particularities of the Polaris's memory system. I can think of none compared to a 290X.

    Sounds like a news/rumor that is presented but not understood by the author of that piece. But yeah, smbd should grab claymore's miner and test it out
     
  19. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    The State of Mining: Guide to Ethereum

    http://www.techspot.com/article/1423-state-of-mining-ethereum/
     
  20. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,798
    Likes Received:
    2,056
    Location:
    Germany
    You can force the benchmark to use upcoming DAGs and see for yourselves which card loses how much performance.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...