Bitcoin Wiki - User contributions [en]

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-30T02:30:29Z

Djex:

This is for comments on djex's draft of a [http://j.mp/BTC-CAD-ex Proposed Canadian Bitcoin Market Transaction Process Using Interac e-Transfer]

'''May 29, 2011''' - I'm putting together a list of interac transfer fees each bank / credit union that supports interac e-transfers. To my current knowledge a fee is only applied for sending funds not receiving according to the interac website:

:''Sending: There may be a fee from your financial institution for sending an Interac e-Transfer, so check with your financial institution.''

:''Receiving: There is no fee for receiving an Interac e-Transfer through online banking.''

:''However, if your financial institution does not yet offer the Interac e-Transfer service, or if you don't bank online, you can still receive transfers to any Canadian bank account. You will need to register and provide your banking information in order for the money to be deposited into your bank account. The deposit usually takes 4 - 6 business days to process and a $4.00 fee will be deducted from the deposit amount.''

:''Standard text messaging charges apply. - http://www.interac.ca/consumers/faqs.php''

Please feel free to contribute your banks fee in the chart below for sending interac e-transfers. Replace the "--" with the fee amount.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Financial Institution !! e-Transfer Fee (CAD)
|-
| Auto Workers Community Credit Union || --
|-
| BMO Bank of Montreal || --
|-
| Caisse Populaire de Clare || --
|-
| CIBC || --
|-
| City Savings Financial Services || --
|-
| Conexus Credit Union Credit Union || --
|-
| Copperfin Credit Union || --
|-
| Credit Union Atlantic || --
|-
| Creston & District Credit Union || --
|-
| Eagle River Credit Union || --
|-
| Enderby & District Credit Union || --
|-
| First Calgary Financial || --
|-
| Heritage Credit Union || --
|-
| Interior Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Island Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Kingston Community Credit Union || --
|-
| Leading Edge Credit Union || --
|-
| Libro Financial Group || --
|-
| Mennonite Savings and Credit Union || --
|-
| Metro Credit Union || --
|-
| Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Lights Credit Union|| --
|-
| Northern Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| OPPA Credit Union|| --
|-
| PenFinancial Credit Union || --
|-
| President's Choice Financial || --
|-
| Prospera Credit Union|| --
|-
| RBC Royal Bank of Canada|| $1.50
|-
| Rochdale Credit Union|| --
|-
| Scotiabank|| $1.00
|-
| Sydenham Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| TCU Financial Group|| --
|-
| TD Canada Trust|| --
|-
| Teachers Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unigasco Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| United Communities Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unity Savings and Credit Union|| --
|-
| VantageOne Credit Union|| --
|-
| Westminster Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| Windsor Family Credit Union|| $2.00
|-
| Your Credit Union|| --
|}

'''May 19, 2011''' - Updated document with a possible buyer / seller rating system. I believe this system could promote faster transactions. Please have a look. -djex

* ''Bimmerhead suggested that if the buyer sends less than the total amount (say $15 out of $25), it might be a good option to let the seller cancel the whole transaction rather than automatically allow partial fulfillment.Just because the seller may have wanted an 'all or nothing' sale.'' (May 17, 2011)''
:* Added in a possible solution for this. Check the document for latest change. -djex

* Re: "If Seller never confirms payment". This is the crucial scenario, I think, because 1) the seller has no incentive (he already has his money) and 2) The faster the market clears transactions, the more people will want to use it. Buyers will get frustrated if the 'wait time' is too long. I'd give a transactions a ResponseTime field (slow, med, fast, veryfast). Once the email is sent, the seller is expected to respond within a pre-defined timeframe (24hrs, 12hrs, 2hrs, 30min). This might work for other scenarios where a response from the buyer/seller is required -PlasticLiving
:* I updated the document with a few changes regarding this. Still not 100% sure on the Response Time field. Is the buyer setting this field? -djex
::* Maybe 2 order books? A 'fast' one for the day traders (liquidity being crucial) and a 'slow' one for others? -PlasticLiving

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-29T18:56:16Z

Djex:

This is for comments on djex's draft of a [http://j.mp/BTC-CAD-ex Proposed Canadian Bitcoin Market Transaction Process Using Interac e-Transfer]

'''May 29, 2011''' - I'm putting together a list of interac transfer fees each bank / credit union that supports interac e-transfers. To my current knowledge a fee is only applied for sending funds not receiving according to the interac website:

:''Sending: There may be a fee from your financial institution for sending an Interac e-Transfer, so check with your financial institution.''

:''Receiving: There is no fee for receiving an Interac e-Transfer through online banking.''

:''However, if your financial institution does not yet offer the Interac e-Transfer service, or if you don't bank online, you can still receive transfers to any Canadian bank account. You will need to register and provide your banking information in order for the money to be deposited into your bank account. The deposit usually takes 4 - 6 business days to process and a $4.00 fee will be deducted from the deposit amount.''

:''Standard text messaging charges apply. - http://www.interac.ca/consumers/faqs.php''

Please feel free to contribute your banks fee in the chart below for sending interac e-transfers. Replace the "--" with the fee amount.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Financial Institution !! e-Transfer Fee
|-
| Auto Workers Community Credit Union || --
|-
| BMO Bank of Montreal || --
|-
| Caisse Populaire de Clare || --
|-
| CIBC || --
|-
| City Savings Financial Services || --
|-
| Conexus Credit Union Credit Union || --
|-
| Copperfin Credit Union || --
|-
| Credit Union Atlantic || --
|-
| Creston & District Credit Union || --
|-
| Eagle River Credit Union || --
|-
| Enderby & District Credit Union || --
|-
| First Calgary Financial || --
|-
| Heritage Credit Union || --
|-
| Interior Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Island Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Kingston Community Credit Union || --
|-
| Leading Edge Credit Union || --
|-
| Libro Financial Group || --
|-
| Mennonite Savings and Credit Union || --
|-
| Metro Credit Union || --
|-
| Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Lights Credit Union|| --
|-
| Northern Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| OPPA Credit Union|| --
|-
| PenFinancial Credit Union || --
|-
| President's Choice Financial || --
|-
| Prospera Credit Union|| --
|-
| RBC Royal Bank of Canada|| $1.50
|-
| Rochdale Credit Union|| --
|-
| Scotiabank|| $1.00
|-
| Sydenham Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| TCU Financial Group|| --
|-
| TD Canada Trust|| --
|-
| Teachers Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unigasco Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| United Communities Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unity Savings and Credit Union|| --
|-
| VantageOne Credit Union|| --
|-
| Westminster Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| Windsor Family Credit Union|| $2.00
|-
| Your Credit Union|| --
|}

'''May 19, 2011''' - Updated document with a possible buyer / seller rating system. I believe this system could promote faster transactions. Please have a look. -djex

* ''Bimmerhead suggested that if the buyer sends less than the total amount (say $15 out of $25), it might be a good option to let the seller cancel the whole transaction rather than automatically allow partial fulfillment.Just because the seller may have wanted an 'all or nothing' sale.'' (May 17, 2011)''
:* Added in a possible solution for this. Check the document for latest change. -djex

* Re: "If Seller never confirms payment". This is the crucial scenario, I think, because 1) the seller has no incentive (he already has his money) and 2) The faster the market clears transactions, the more people will want to use it. Buyers will get frustrated if the 'wait time' is too long. I'd give a transactions a ResponseTime field (slow, med, fast, veryfast). Once the email is sent, the seller is expected to respond within a pre-defined timeframe (24hrs, 12hrs, 2hrs, 30min). This might work for other scenarios where a response from the buyer/seller is required -PlasticLiving
:* I updated the document with a few changes regarding this. Still not 100% sure on the Response Time field. Is the buyer setting this field? -djex
::* Maybe 2 order books? A 'fast' one for the day traders (liquidity being crucial) and a 'slow' one for others? -PlasticLiving

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-29T18:54:28Z

Djex:

This is for comments on djex's draft of a [http://j.mp/BTC-CAD-ex Proposed Canadian Bitcoin Market Transaction Process Using Interac e-Transfer]

'''May 29, 2011''' - I'm putting together a list of interac transfer fees each bank / credit union that supports interac e-transfers. To my current knowledge a fee is only applied for sending funds not receiving according to the interac website:

''Sending: There may be a fee from your financial institution for sending an Interac e-Transfer, so check with your financial institution.''

''Receiving: There is no fee for receiving an Interac e-Transfer through online banking.''

''However, if your financial institution does not yet offer the Interac e-Transfer service, or if you don't bank online, you can still receive transfers to any Canadian bank account. You will need to register and provide your banking information in order for the money to be deposited into your bank account. The deposit usually takes 4 - 6 business days to process and a $4.00 fee will be deducted from the deposit amount.''

''Standard text messaging charges apply. - http://www.interac.ca/consumers/faqs.php''

Please feel free to contribute your banks fee in the chart below for sending interac e-transfers. Replace the "--" with the fee amount.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Financial Institution !! e-Transfer Fee
|-
| Auto Workers Community Credit Union || --
|-
| BMO Bank of Montreal || --
|-
| Caisse Populaire de Clare || --
|-
| CIBC || --
|-
| City Savings Financial Services || --
|-
| Conexus Credit Union Credit Union || --
|-
| Copperfin Credit Union || --
|-
| Credit Union Atlantic || --
|-
| Creston & District Credit Union || --
|-
| Eagle River Credit Union || --
|-
| Enderby & District Credit Union || --
|-
| First Calgary Financial || --
|-
| Heritage Credit Union || --
|-
| Interior Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Island Savings Credit Union || --
|-
| Kingston Community Credit Union || --
|-
| Leading Edge Credit Union || --
|-
| Libro Financial Group || --
|-
| Mennonite Savings and Credit Union || --
|-
| Metro Credit Union || --
|-
| Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Credit Union || --
|-
| Northern Lights Credit Union|| --
|-
| Northern Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| OPPA Credit Union|| --
|-
| PenFinancial Credit Union || --
|-
| President's Choice Financial || --
|-
| Prospera Credit Union|| --
|-
| RBC Royal Bank of Canada|| $1.50
|-
| Rochdale Credit Union|| --
|-
| Scotiabank|| $1.00
|-
| Sydenham Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| TCU Financial Group|| --
|-
| TD Canada Trust|| --
|-
| Teachers Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unigasco Community Credit Union|| --
|-
| United Communities Credit Union|| --
|-
| Unity Savings and Credit Union|| --
|-
| VantageOne Credit Union|| --
|-
| Westminster Savings Credit Union|| --
|-
| Windsor Family Credit Union|| $2.00
|-
| Your Credit Union|| --
|}

'''May 19, 2011''' - Updated document with a possible buyer / seller rating system. I believe this system could promote faster transactions. Please have a look. -djex

* ''Bimmerhead suggested that if the buyer sends less than the total amount (say $15 out of $25), it might be a good option to let the seller cancel the whole transaction rather than automatically allow partial fulfillment.Just because the seller may have wanted an 'all or nothing' sale.'' (May 17, 2011)''
:* Added in a possible solution for this. Check the document for latest change. -djex

* Re: "If Seller never confirms payment". This is the crucial scenario, I think, because 1) the seller has no incentive (he already has his money) and 2) The faster the market clears transactions, the more people will want to use it. Buyers will get frustrated if the 'wait time' is too long. I'd give a transactions a ResponseTime field (slow, med, fast, veryfast). Once the email is sent, the seller is expected to respond within a pre-defined timeframe (24hrs, 12hrs, 2hrs, 30min). This might work for other scenarios where a response from the buyer/seller is required -PlasticLiving
:* I updated the document with a few changes regarding this. Still not 100% sure on the Response Time field. Is the buyer setting this field? -djex
::* Maybe 2 order books? A 'fast' one for the day traders (liquidity being crucial) and a 'slow' one for others? -PlasticLiving

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-20T00:45:36Z

Djex:

This is for comments on djex's draft of a [http://j.mp/BTC-CAD-ex Proposed Canadian Bitcoin Market Transaction Process Using Interac e-Transfer]

'''May 19, 2011''' - Updated document with a possible buyer / seller rating system. I believe this system could promote faster transactions. Please have a look. -djex

* ''Bimmerhead suggested that if the buyer sends less than the total amount (say $15 out of $25), it might be a good option to let the seller cancel the whole transaction rather than automatically allow partial fulfillment.Just because the seller may have wanted an 'all or nothing' sale.'' (May 17, 2011)''
:* Added in a possible solution for this. Check the document for latest change. -djex

* Re: "If Seller never confirms payment". This is the crucial scenario, I think, because 1) the seller has no incentive (he already has his money) and 2) The faster the market clears transactions, the more people will want to use it. Buyers will get frustrated if the 'wait time' is too long. I'd give a transactions a ResponseTime field (slow, med, fast, veryfast). Once the email is sent, the seller is expected to respond within a pre-defined timeframe (24hrs, 12hrs, 2hrs, 30min). This might work for other scenarios where a response from the buyer/seller is required -PlasticLiving
:* I updated the document with a few changes regarding this. Still not 100% sure on the Response Time field. Is the buyer setting this field? -djex
::* Maybe 2 order books? A 'fast' one for the day traders (liquidity being crucial) and a 'slow' one for others? -PlasticLiving

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-18T19:30:16Z

Djex:

This is for comments on djex's draft of a [http://j.mp/BTC-CAD-ex Proposed Canadian Bitcoin Market Transaction Process Using Interac e-Transfer]

* ''Bimmerhead suggested that if the buyer sends less than the total amount (say $15 out of $25), it might be a good option to let the seller cancel the whole transaction rather than automatically allow partial fulfillment.Just because the seller may have wanted an 'all or nothing' sale.'' (May 17, 2011)''
:* Added in a possible solution for this. Check the document for latest change. -djex

* Re: "If Seller never confirms payment". This is the crucial scenario, I think, because 1) the seller has no incentive (he already has his money) and 2) The faster the market clears transactions, the more people will want to use it. Buyers will get frustrated if the 'wait time' is too long. I'd give a transactions a ResponseTime field (slow, med, fast, veryfast). Once the email is sent, the seller is expected to respond within a pre-defined timeframe (24hrs, 12hrs, 2hrs, 30min). This might work for other scenarios where a response from the buyer/seller is required -PlasticLiving
:* I updated the document with a few changes regarding this. Still not 100% sure on the Response Time field. Is the buyer setting this field? -djex

CAD-BTC-Ex-comments

2011-05-17T17:51:10Z

Djex:

Mining hardware comparison

2011-04-23T08:16:46Z

Djex: /* AMD */

Below are some statistics about the mining performance of various hardware used in a [[mining rig]].

The table shows (mostly) stock clock numbers. 10-20% performance improvement can be achieved via overclocking.

==Graphics cards==

===AMD===
To get the maximum performance use the 2.1 or 2.2 release of the ATI Stream SDK. 2.3 performance drops by 5-10%.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/J !! W !! Clock !! SP !! SDK !! Slot !! Miner !! Notes
|-
| 3XXX || || || || || || || || OpenCL Not Supported
|-
| 42XX || || || || || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || || OpenCL Not Supported (intergrated/mobile GPU)
|-
| 4350 || 6.93 || 0.346 || 20 || 575 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4550 || 7.23 || 0.289 || 25 || 600 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4650 || 31.33 || 0.653 || 48 || 650 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4670 || 36.14 || 0.613 || 59 || 750 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4670 || 40.11 || || 59 || 800 || 320 || || AGP x8 || poclbm/Ubuntu 10.10 w/ H == 0 mod [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.msg85236#msg85236 source] || -w 32 -f 0, don't use vectors
|-
| 4730 || 72.29 || 0.657 || 110 || 750 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4770 || 72.29 || 0.904 || 80 || 750 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4830 || 55.42 || 0.583 || 95 || 575 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4850 || 75.30 || 0.685 || 110 || 625 || 800 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4860 || 67.47 || 0.519 || 130 || 700 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4870 || 90.36 || 0.602 || 150 || 750 || 800 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || clmine ||
|-
| 4870 || 78 || || || || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/Vista 64bit || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg25069#msg25069 source]
|-
| 4890 || 102.41 || 0.539 || 190 || 850 || 800 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4850X2 || 150.60 || 0.602 || 250 || 625 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4870X2 || 180.72 || 0.632 || 286 || 750 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 5450 || 11.99 || 0.631 || 19 || 650 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 5550 || 40.59 || 1.041 || 39 || 550 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5570 || 59.96 || 1.538 || 39 || 650 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5570 || 64 || 1.641 || 39 || 650 || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| 5650 || 48 || 2.5-3.2 ? || 15-19 ? || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/Win7-64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26292#msg26292 source] [http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5650.23697.0.html source]
|-
| 5670 || 71.49 || 1.117 || 64 || 775 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#EEFFEE;"| 5670 || 72 || 1.64 || 44 || 850 || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm-mod (Win7-64) || Sapphire 100287VGAL card is low power
|-
| 5670 || 85 || || || 900 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -f 0 -w 128
|-

| 5750 || 116.24 || 1.352 || 86 || 700 || 720 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 5770 || 156.83 || 1.452 || 108 || 850 || 800 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5770 || 180 || 1.406 || 128[*] || 950 || 800 || 2.4RC1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 30 (*Overclocked wattage calculated [http://bakkap.free.fr/Misc/wCalc.html here] )
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF;"| 5830 || 206.64 || 1.181 || 175 || 800 || 1120 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF;"| 5830 || 241 || 1.377 || 175 || 1006 || || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-03-11 / Win7 64 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 240.77 || 1.595 || 151 || 725 || 1440 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 252 || 1.669 || 151 || 765 || || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-01-25 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 255.3 || 1.690 || 151 || 765 || || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-01-25 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 300 || 1.987 || 151 || 925 (OC) || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 250.26 || 1.657 || 151 || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || opencl client || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg29471#msg29471 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 313.65 || 1.668 || 188 || 850 || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 313 || 1.665 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 343 || 1.824 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 355 || 1.888 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 340 || 1.809 || 188 || 850 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26363#msg26363 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 360 || || || 970 || 700 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL w7-64 || -f 0 -v -w 128 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6144.msg91959#msg91959 source]
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 530 || 1.803 || 294 || 725 || 3200 || 2.4.595.10 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm/201103.beta3/Windows || -v -w128 -f60
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 535.06 || 1.820 || 294 || 725 || 3200 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 560 || 1.905 || 294 || 725 || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 565 || 1.922 || 294 || || || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine2 ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 604 || 2.054 || 294 || || || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 645 || || || 850 || 3200 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || -f1, Debian 6, fglrx-driver 10.9.3
|-
| 6490M || 16.289 || 0.708 || 23 || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm-mod (Mac OS X 10.6.7) || MacBook Pro early 2011
|-
| 6850 || 171.59 || 1.351 || 127 || 775 || 960 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
| 6850 || 196 || || || 850 || 960 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 0
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 6850 || 220 || 1.236 || 178[*] || 1000 || 960 || 2.4RC1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 30 (*Overclocked wattage calculated [http://bakkap.free.fr/Misc/wCalc.html here] )
|-
| 6870 || 232.47 || 1.540 || 151 || 900 || 1120 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 6870 || 260.1 || 1.611 || 175 || 1001 || 1150 || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm-gui windows7x86 cat 11.3 || -v -w 128 -f 1
|-
| 6870 || 282.23 || 1.611 || 175 || 1047 || 1120 || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm windows cat 11.2 || -v -w 128 -f 0 mem clock 300
|-
| 6950 || 295 || || 160 (?) || 810 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6950 || 325 || || 200 (?) || 885 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6950 || 360 || || 200 (?) || 970 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6970 || 323 || 1.468 || 220 || 880 || 1536 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -w 64, SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
| 6990 || 683 || 1.97 || 346 || 830 || 3072 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || mrb's hdminer || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=5444.msg83507#msg83507 source]. SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
| 6990 || 746 || 1.82 || 410 || 880 || 3072 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || mrb's hdminer || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=5444.msg83507#msg83507 source]. SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
|FirePro V8700 || 84.8 || || || 750 || 800 || || || poclbm-mod.03.24.2011 ||
|-
|FirePro M5800 || 61.4 || || || 650 || || || || poclbm-mod.03.24.2011 || Ubuntu ||
|-
|}

===Nvidia===

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/J !! W !! Clock !! SP !! Comment
|-
| 8200 mGPU || 1.2 || || || 1200 || 16 || 128 MB shared memory, "poclbm -w 128 -f 0"
|-
| 8600M GT || 4.93 || || || || 32 ||
|-
| 8600GT || 5.66 || || || 1188 || 32 ||
|-
| 8600GT OC || 7.3 || || || 1602 || 32 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.0 poclbm] -w 128 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg72833#msg72833 source]
|-
| 8800GT || 25 || 0.24 || 105 || 1300 || ||
|-
| 8800GT || 24.5 || 0.23 || 105 || 1300 || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source]
|-
| 8800GTS || 16.8 || 0.109 || 154 || || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg25069#msg25069 source] [http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page11.html source]
|-
| 8800 GTS || 18.7 || 0.124 || 150 || 1200 || || poclbm -w 64 no vectors
|-
| 9300GE || 1.57 || || || 1300 || 8 ||
|-
| 9300GS || 1.69 || || || 1400 || 8 ||
|-
| 9400GT || 3.37 || 0.067 || 50 || 1400 || 16 ||
|-
| 9400M (MacBook) || 1.90 || 0.32 || 6 || 700 || || poclbm -f 8 no vectors
|-
| 9500GT || 6.75 || 0.135 || 50 || 1400 || 32 ||
|-
| 9600GSO || 19.88 || 0.237 || 84 || 1375 || 96 ||
|-
| 9600GSO512 || 11.75 || 0.131 || 90 || 1625 || 48 ||
|-
| 9600GT || 15.66 || 0.165 || 95 || 1625 || 64 ||
|-
| 9600GT OC || 18.8 || <0.198 || >95 || 1981 || 64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.0 poclbm] -w 128 -f 10 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg74610#msg74610 source] [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg73353#msg73353 source]
|-
| 9800GT || 30.36 || 0.289 || 105 || 1800 || 112 ||
|-
| 9800GTX || 32.54 || 0.232 || 140 || 1688 || 128 ||
|-
| 9800GTX+ || 35.39 || 0.251 || 141 || 1836 || 128 ||
|-
|style="background-color:#FFEFEF"| 9800GX2 || 57.83 || 0.294 || 197 || || 2x128 ||
|-
|style="background-color:#FFEFEF"| 9800GX2 || 28 || 0.142 || 197 || || 2x128 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37620#msg37620 source]
|-
| G210 || 3.38 || 0.111 || 30.5 || 1402 || 16 ||
|-
| GT220 || 9.83 || 0.170 || 58 || 1360 || 48 ||
|-
| GT240 || 19.37 || 0.281 || 69 || 1340 || 96 ||
|-
| GT240 || 21.24 || || || || 96 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4291.0 poclbm-mod] -f 0 -v [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg73383#msg73383 source]
|-
| GTS250 || 35.39 || 0.244 || 145 || 1836 || 128 ||
|-
| GTX260 || 35.91 || 0.178 || 202 || 1242 || 192 ||
|-
| GTX260 || 44 || 0.242 || 182 || 1242 || 216 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| GTX260c216 || 40.40 || 0.236 || 171 || 1242 || 216 ||
|-
| GTX260c216 OC || 52.0 || || || 1461 || 216 || "poclbm -w 256 -f 1"
|-
| GTX275 || 50.75 || 0.232 || 219 || 1404 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX275 || 58 || || || 729/1458 || 240 || poclbm -f 0 -w 256
|-
| GTX280 || 46.84 || 0.198 || 236 || 1296 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX285 || 53.35 || 0.262 || 204 || 1476 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX295 || 89.78 || 0.311 || 289 || 1242 || 480 ||
|-
| GT 320M (MacBook Air) || 6.12 || || || 1212 || 48 ||
|-
| GT 330M (Sony Vaio Z) || 7.8 || 0.71 ( 0.3 total) || 11 (26w total) || 1045 || 48 ||
|-
| GT430 || 20.24 || 0.413 || 49 || 1400 || 96 ||
|-
| GTS450 || 45.28 || 0.427 || 106 || 1566 || 192 ||
|-
| GTX460SE || 56.39 || 0.376 || 150 || 1300 || 288 ||
|-
| GTX460 || 68.31 || 0.427 || 160 || 1350 || 336 ||
|-
| GTX460 (2 cards) || 102 || 0.319? || 320? || 1350 || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26363#msg26363 source]
|-
| GTX460 (2 cards) OC || 127 || 0.374 || 340 || 1620 || 2x 336 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2444.0 rpcminer-cuda] -gpugrid=128 -gputhreads=128 ver.20110227
|-
| GTX465 || 64.41 || 0.322 || 200 || 1215 || 352 ||
|-
| GTX470 || 81.98 || 0.381 || 215 || 1215 || 448 ||
|-
| GTX470 || 94.7 || || || 1414 || ||
|-
| GTX480 || 101.28 || 0.405 || 250 || 1401 || 480 ||
|-
| GTX560 Ti || 67.7 || 0.39 || 170 || 1700 || 384 || standard EVGA 560, no overclock
|-
| GTX560 OC || 86.7 || <0.51 || >170 || 1800 || 384 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2444.0 rpcminer-cuda] [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg72816#msg72816 source]
|-
| GTX570 || 105.83 || 0.483 || 219 || 1464 || 480 ||
|-
| GTX580 || 119.06 || 0.488 || 244 || 1544 || 512 ||
|-
| Quadro FX 580 || 5.7 || 0.14 || 40 || 1125 || 4 ||
|-
| Quadro FX 1600M || 6 || 0.12 || 50 || 625 || 32 ||rpcminer-cuda, Win
|-
| Quadro NVS 135M || 1.05 || 0.1 || 10 || 800 || 1 ||
|-
| Quadro NVS 3100M || 3.6 || 0.257 || 14 || 600 || 16 || rpcminer-cuda, Win, CUDA 3.1.1
|-
| Tesla M2050 || 79.8 || || || || || DiabloMiner
|-
|}

==CPUs==

A lot of nice data can be pulled from [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.0 this thread] to seed this section. Also from [https://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitcoin_miners this page on the old wiki].

===AMD===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! nprocs !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| 2x Opteron 6128 || 16 || 32.4 || 0.203 || 160W || 2 GHz || 0.3.19 || -4way
|-
| Athlon 64 3500+ || 1 || 1.18 || 0.018 || 65 W || 2.54 GHz || ufasoft v0.4 || overclocked (originally 2.2 GHz)
|-
| Athlon X2 3800+ || 2 || 1.73 || 0.03 || 65 W || 2.00 GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || -algo=4way
|-
| Athlon X2 4000+ || 2 || 1.9 || 0.02 || 65W || 2.1 GHz || rpc-miner ||
|-
| Athlon X2 4400+ || || 2.09 || 0.032 || 65W || 2.3GHz || 0.3.19/Win x64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source]
|-
| Athlon X2 6000+ || 2 || 2.81 || 0.02 || 125W || 3 GHz || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg22881#msg22881 source]
|-
| Athlon X2 6400+ Black Edition || 2 || 2.9 || 0.023 || 125W || 3.2 GHz || 0.3.20.2 BETA/Win 7 x64 || -4way
|-
| Athlon XP 2000+ || 2 || 0.62 || 0.009 || 70W || 1.67 GHz || 0.3.18/Ubuntu || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source] [http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=914&page=4 source]
|-
| Athlon II X2 240e || 2 || 2.71 || 0.06 || 45W || 2.81 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Athlon II X4 630 || 4 || 10.7 || 0.11 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || bitcoin-miner 0.4 ||
|-
| Phenom II X6 1055T || 6 || 15.84 || 0.13 || 125W || 2.82 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Phenom II X6 1100T || 6 || 22 || 0.176 || 125W || 3.82 GHz || bitcoin-miner || Aciid#bitcoin-dev
|-
| Phenom II X3 720 || 3 || 3.8 || 0.04 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || 0.3.1x/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| Phenom II X3 720 || 3 || 7.2 || 0.08 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || cpu-miner 0.2.1/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| Phenom II x4 955 || 4 || 11 || 0.09 || 125W || 3.2 GHz || rpcminer-4way ||
|}

===ARM===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! p/t !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| Cortex A8 || 1 || 0.125 || 0.36 || 0.35 W || 0.6 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || Nokia N900: 'cryptopp'
|-
| Cortex A8 || 1 || 0.2 || 0.57 || 0.35 W || 0.6 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || Nokia N900: 'c' algo
|-
| Tegra 250 (2xCortex-A9) || 2 || 0.57 || 1.14 || 0.5 W || 1.0 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-24) || Toshiba AC100, ubuntu, 'c' algo
|}

===Intel===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! p/t !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| Pentium III mobile ? || 1 || 0.3 || 0.014 || 21W || 1.07 GHz || 0.3.1x/Win2K || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source] [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27380 source]
|-
| Old Xeon 512k (Dual) || 2x1/2 || 2.0 || ? || ? || 3.06GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || HT disabled, algo=4way (twice as fast as the 2nd best algo)
|-
| Pentium 4 2.0A || 1 || 0.85 || || || 2.0 GHz || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft-0.4]/WinXP || -g no -t 2
|-
| Pentium Dual-Core E5400 || 2/2 || 2.27 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.7 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Celeron E330 || 2/2 || 2.2 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.5 GHz || 0.3.19/Ubuntu10.04 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37620#msg37620 source]
|-
| Core i3 M350 || 2/4 || 1.48 || 0.04 || 35W || 2.27 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Core i5 M450 || 2/4 || 1.8 || 0.05 || 35W || 1.2 GHz || 0.3.17/Win7-54 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26292#msg26292 source]
|-
| Core i5-650 || 2/4 || 5.1 || 0.04 ? || || 3.2 GHz || cpuminer-0.7 || -4way
|-
| Core i5 ? || 4/? || 6.5 || || || || client from svn || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37621#msg37621 source]
|-
| Core i5-2400 || 4/4 || 4.5 || 0.05 || 95W || 3.1 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-01-22) || cryptopp_asm32
|-
| Core i5-2400 || 4/4 || 14 || 0.15 || 95W || 3.1 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || sse2_64
|-
| Core i7 920 || 4/8 || 19.2 || 0.10 || 195 || 4.0 GHz (x21) || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] || -a 5
|-
| Core i7 950 || 4/8 || 5.88 || 0.039 || 150W || 3.83 GHz (x23) || bitcoin-0.3.20.2 Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 950 || 4/8 || 18.9 || 0.126 || 150W || 3.83 GHz (x23) || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] v0.4 ||
|-
| Core i7 980x || 6/12 || 19.2 || 0.15 || 130 || 4.4 GHz (x33) || cpuminer/Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 980x || 6/12 || 8.7 || || || 3.9 GHz (x27) || 0.3.17/Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 620M || 2/4 || 6.3 || 0.18 || 35 || 2.66 GHz || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] v0.4 ||
|-
| Core 2 Duo E6550 || 1/2 || 2.45 || ? || ? || 2.33 GHz || cpuminer 0.7.1 (Linux) || --algo=sse2_64
|-
| Core 2 Duo E6850 || 2/2 || 6.75 || 0.10 || 65W || 3.0 Ghz || ufasoft-0.3 ||
|-
| Core 2 Duo E7300 || 2/2 || 7.76 || 0.11 || 70W || 3.33 GHz (o/c?) || ufasoft-0.3 || miner optimized for Intel Core
|-
| Core 2 Duo E7300 || 2/2 || 2.52 || 0.04 || 65W || 2.66 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon 3060 || 1/2 || 2.03 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.4GHz || cpuminer 0.8.1 (Linux) || --algo=cryptopp_asm32
|-
| Xeon Prestonia 2.4 (dual) || 2x1/2 || 2.16 || 0.017 || 130W || 2.4 GHz || ufasoft v0.4 ||
|-
| Xeon X5355 (dual) || 2x4/4 || 10.13 || 0.16 || 120W || 2.66GHz || bitcoind || Roughly the same speed as the "c" algo in cpuminer
|-
| Xeon X5355 (dual) || 2x4/4 || 22.76 || 0.09 || 120W || 2.66GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || -O2 -march=core2, algo=sse2_64
|-
| Xeon E5440 || 4/8 || 7.3 || ? || 80W || 2.66 GHz|| Kiv's poclbm-gui || FIXME: Either wrong model # or wrong threads/speed info
|-
| Xeon E5520 || 4/8 || 6.5 || 0.08 || 80W || 2.27 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon E5530 || 4/8 || 7.14 || 0.09 || 80W || 2.4 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon E5630 (dual) || 2x4/8 || 8 || 0.1 || 80W || 2.53 GHz || 0.3.17/Win7-64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg29471#msg29471 source]
|-
| Atom N270 || 1 || 0.42 || '''0.17''' || 2.5W || 1.6 GHz || 0.3.1x/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|}

==See Also==

* [[Mining rig]]
* [[Generation Calculator]]
* [[Power Calc]]
* [[OpenCL miner]]
* [http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=745 ATI Stream vs. NVIDIA CUDA - GPGPU computing battle royale]

[[Category:Mining]]

Mining hardware comparison

2011-04-23T07:39:26Z

Djex: /* AMD */

Below are some statistics about the mining performance of various hardware used in a [[mining rig]].

The table shows (mostly) stock clock numbers. 10-20% performance improvement can be achieved via overclocking.

==Graphics cards==

===AMD===
To get the maximum performance use the 2.1 or 2.2 release of the ATI Stream SDK. 2.3 performance drops by 5-10%.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/J !! W !! Clock !! SP !! SDK !! Slot !! Miner !! Notes
|-
| 3XXX || || || || || || || || OpenCL Not Supported
|-
| 42XX || || || || || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || || OpenCL Not Supported (intergrated/mobile GPU)
|-
| 4350 || 6.93 || 0.346 || 20 || 575 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4550 || 7.23 || 0.289 || 25 || 600 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4650 || 31.33 || 0.653 || 48 || 650 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4670 || 36.14 || 0.613 || 59 || 750 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm || -w 32, don't use vectors
|-
| 4670 || 40.11 || || 59 || 800 || 320 || || AGP x4 || poclbm/Ubuntu 10.10 w/ H == 0 mod [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.msg85236#msg85236 source] || -w 32 -f 0, don't use vectors
|-
| 4730 || 72.29 || 0.657 || 110 || 750 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4770 || 72.29 || 0.904 || 80 || 750 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4830 || 55.42 || 0.583 || 95 || 575 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4850 || 75.30 || 0.685 || 110 || 625 || 800 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4860 || 67.47 || 0.519 || 130 || 700 || 640 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4870 || 90.36 || 0.602 || 150 || 750 || 800 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || clmine ||
|-
| 4870 || 78 || || || || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/Vista 64bit || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg25069#msg25069 source]
|-
| 4890 || 102.41 || 0.539 || 190 || 850 || 800 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4850X2 || 150.60 || 0.602 || 250 || 625 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 4870X2 || 180.72 || 0.632 || 286 || 750 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || ||
|-
| 5450 || 11.99 || 0.631 || 19 || 650 || 80 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 5550 || 40.59 || 1.041 || 39 || 550 || 320 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5570 || 59.96 || 1.538 || 39 || 650 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5570 || 64 || 1.641 || 39 || 650 || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| 5650 || 48 || 2.5-3.2 ? || 15-19 ? || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL/Win7-64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26292#msg26292 source] [http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5650.23697.0.html source]
|-
| 5670 || 71.49 || 1.117 || 64 || 775 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#EEFFEE;"| 5670 || 72 || 1.64 || 44 || 850 || || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || poclbm-mod (Win7-64) || Sapphire 100287VGAL card is low power
|-
| 5670 || 85 || || || 900 || 400 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -f 0 -w 128
|-

| 5750 || 116.24 || 1.352 || 86 || 700 || 720 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 5770 || 156.83 || 1.452 || 108 || 850 || 800 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFEF;"| 5770 || 180 || 1.406 || 128[*] || 950 || 800 || 2.4RC1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 30 (*Overclocked wattage calculated [http://bakkap.free.fr/Misc/wCalc.html here] )
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF;"| 5830 || 206.64 || 1.181 || 175 || 800 || 1120 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF;"| 5830 || 241 || 1.377 || 175 || 1006 || || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-03-11 / Win7 64 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 240.77 || 1.595 || 151 || 725 || 1440 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 252 || 1.669 || 151 || 765 || || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-01-25 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 255.3 || 1.690 || 151 || 765 || || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm 2011-01-25 ||
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 300 || 1.987 || 151 || 925 (OC) || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 5850 || 250.26 || 1.657 || 151 || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || opencl client || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg29471#msg29471 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 313.65 || 1.668 || 188 || 850 || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 313 || 1.665 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 343 || 1.824 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 355 || 1.888 || 188 || 900? || 1600 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm/Linux ||
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 340 || 1.809 || 188 || 850 || 1600 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26363#msg26363 source]
|-
|style="background:#EFFFEF;"| 5870 || 360 || || || 970 || 700 || || PCI-E 2.0 x16 || m0mchil's OpenCL w7-64 || -f 0 -v -w 128 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6144.msg91959#msg91959 source]
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 530 || 1.803 || 294 || 725 || 3200 || 2.4.595.10 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm/201103.beta3/Windows || -v -w128 -f60
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 535.06 || 1.820 || 294 || 725 || 3200 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 560 || 1.905 || 294 || 725 || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || Diablo ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 565 || 1.922 || 294 || || || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine2 ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 604 || 2.054 || 294 || || || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
|style="background:#FFEFEF;"| 5970 || 645 || || || 850 || 3200 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || -f1, Debian 6, fglrx-driver 10.9.3
|-
| 6490M || 16.289 || 0.708 || 23 || || || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm-mod (Mac OS X 10.6.7) || MacBook Pro early 2011
|-
| 6850 || 171.59 || 1.351 || 127 || 775 || 960 || 2.1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || clmine ||
|-
| 6850 || 196 || || || 850 || 960 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 0
|-
|style="background:#EFEFFF;"| 6850 || 220 || 1.236 || 178[*] || 1000 || 960 || 2.4RC1 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -v -w 128 -f 30 (*Overclocked wattage calculated [http://bakkap.free.fr/Misc/wCalc.html here] )
|-
| 6870 || 232.47 || 1.540 || 151 || 900 || 1120 || || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || ||
|-
| 6870 || 260.1 || 1.611 || 175 || 1001 || 1150 || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm-gui windows7x86 cat 11.3 || -v -w 128 -f 1
|-
| 6870 || 282.23 || 1.611 || 175 || 1047 || 1120 || 2.2 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm windows cat 11.2 || -v -w 128 -f 0 mem clock 300
|-
| 6950 || 295 || || 160 (?) || 810 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6950 || 325 || || 200 (?) || 885 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6950 || 360 || || 200 (?) || 970 || 1536 || 2.4.595.0 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || m0mchil/poclbm 03-07-11 || unlocked shaders, default mem 1250
|-
| 6970 || 323 || 1.468 || 220 || 880 || 1536 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || poclbm || -w 64, SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
| 6990 || 683 || 1.97 || 346 || 830 || 3072 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || mrb's hdminer || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=5444.msg83507#msg83507 source]. SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
| 6990 || 746 || 1.82 || 410 || 880 || 3072 || 2.3 || PCI-E 2.1 x16 || mrb's hdminer || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=5444.msg83507#msg83507 source]. SDK 2.1 not supported on 69xx.
|-
|FirePro V8700 || 84.8 || || || 750 || 800 || || || poclbm-mod.03.24.2011 ||
|-
|FirePro M5800 || 61.4 || || || 650 || || || || poclbm-mod.03.24.2011 || Ubuntu ||
|-
|}

===Nvidia===

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/J !! W !! Clock !! SP !! Comment
|-
| 8200 mGPU || 1.2 || || || 1200 || 16 || 128 MB shared memory, "poclbm -w 128 -f 0"
|-
| 8600M GT || 4.93 || || || || 32 ||
|-
| 8600GT || 5.66 || || || 1188 || 32 ||
|-
| 8600GT OC || 7.3 || || || 1602 || 32 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.0 poclbm] -w 128 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg72833#msg72833 source]
|-
| 8800GT || 25 || 0.24 || 105 || 1300 || ||
|-
| 8800GT || 24.5 || 0.23 || 105 || 1300 || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source]
|-
| 8800GTS || 16.8 || 0.109 || 154 || || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg25069#msg25069 source] [http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page11.html source]
|-
| 8800 GTS || 18.7 || 0.124 || 150 || 1200 || || poclbm -w 64 no vectors
|-
| 9300GE || 1.57 || || || 1300 || 8 ||
|-
| 9300GS || 1.69 || || || 1400 || 8 ||
|-
| 9400GT || 3.37 || 0.067 || 50 || 1400 || 16 ||
|-
| 9400M (MacBook) || 1.90 || 0.32 || 6 || 700 || || poclbm -f 8 no vectors
|-
| 9500GT || 6.75 || 0.135 || 50 || 1400 || 32 ||
|-
| 9600GSO || 19.88 || 0.237 || 84 || 1375 || 96 ||
|-
| 9600GSO512 || 11.75 || 0.131 || 90 || 1625 || 48 ||
|-
| 9600GT || 15.66 || 0.165 || 95 || 1625 || 64 ||
|-
| 9600GT OC || 18.8 || <0.198 || >95 || 1981 || 64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.0 poclbm] -w 128 -f 10 [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg74610#msg74610 source] [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg73353#msg73353 source]
|-
| 9800GT || 30.36 || 0.289 || 105 || 1800 || 112 ||
|-
| 9800GTX || 32.54 || 0.232 || 140 || 1688 || 128 ||
|-
| 9800GTX+ || 35.39 || 0.251 || 141 || 1836 || 128 ||
|-
|style="background-color:#FFEFEF"| 9800GX2 || 57.83 || 0.294 || 197 || || 2x128 ||
|-
|style="background-color:#FFEFEF"| 9800GX2 || 28 || 0.142 || 197 || || 2x128 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37620#msg37620 source]
|-
| G210 || 3.38 || 0.111 || 30.5 || 1402 || 16 ||
|-
| GT220 || 9.83 || 0.170 || 58 || 1360 || 48 ||
|-
| GT240 || 19.37 || 0.281 || 69 || 1340 || 96 ||
|-
| GT240 || 21.24 || || || || 96 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4291.0 poclbm-mod] -f 0 -v [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg73383#msg73383 source]
|-
| GTS250 || 35.39 || 0.244 || 145 || 1836 || 128 ||
|-
| GTX260 || 35.91 || 0.178 || 202 || 1242 || 192 ||
|-
| GTX260 || 44 || 0.242 || 182 || 1242 || 216 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| GTX260c216 || 40.40 || 0.236 || 171 || 1242 || 216 ||
|-
| GTX260c216 OC || 52.0 || || || 1461 || 216 || "poclbm -w 256 -f 1"
|-
| GTX275 || 50.75 || 0.232 || 219 || 1404 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX275 || 58 || || || 729/1458 || 240 || poclbm -f 0 -w 256
|-
| GTX280 || 46.84 || 0.198 || 236 || 1296 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX285 || 53.35 || 0.262 || 204 || 1476 || 240 ||
|-
| GTX295 || 89.78 || 0.311 || 289 || 1242 || 480 ||
|-
| GT 320M (MacBook Air) || 6.12 || || || 1212 || 48 ||
|-
| GT 330M (Sony Vaio Z) || 7.8 || 0.71 ( 0.3 total) || 11 (26w total) || 1045 || 48 ||
|-
| GT430 || 20.24 || 0.413 || 49 || 1400 || 96 ||
|-
| GTS450 || 45.28 || 0.427 || 106 || 1566 || 192 ||
|-
| GTX460SE || 56.39 || 0.376 || 150 || 1300 || 288 ||
|-
| GTX460 || 68.31 || 0.427 || 160 || 1350 || 336 ||
|-
| GTX460 (2 cards) || 102 || 0.319? || 320? || 1350 || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26363#msg26363 source]
|-
| GTX460 (2 cards) OC || 127 || 0.374 || 340 || 1620 || 2x 336 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2444.0 rpcminer-cuda] -gpugrid=128 -gputhreads=128 ver.20110227
|-
| GTX465 || 64.41 || 0.322 || 200 || 1215 || 352 ||
|-
| GTX470 || 81.98 || 0.381 || 215 || 1215 || 448 ||
|-
| GTX470 || 94.7 || || || 1414 || ||
|-
| GTX480 || 101.28 || 0.405 || 250 || 1401 || 480 ||
|-
| GTX560 Ti || 67.7 || 0.39 || 170 || 1700 || 384 || standard EVGA 560, no overclock
|-
| GTX560 OC || 86.7 || <0.51 || >170 || 1800 || 384 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2444.0 rpcminer-cuda] [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4967.msg72816#msg72816 source]
|-
| GTX570 || 105.83 || 0.483 || 219 || 1464 || 480 ||
|-
| GTX580 || 119.06 || 0.488 || 244 || 1544 || 512 ||
|-
| Quadro FX 580 || 5.7 || 0.14 || 40 || 1125 || 4 ||
|-
| Quadro FX 1600M || 6 || 0.12 || 50 || 625 || 32 ||rpcminer-cuda, Win
|-
| Quadro NVS 135M || 1.05 || 0.1 || 10 || 800 || 1 ||
|-
| Quadro NVS 3100M || 3.6 || 0.257 || 14 || 600 || 16 || rpcminer-cuda, Win, CUDA 3.1.1
|-
| Tesla M2050 || 79.8 || || || || || DiabloMiner
|-
|}

==CPUs==

A lot of nice data can be pulled from [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.0 this thread] to seed this section. Also from [https://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitcoin_miners this page on the old wiki].

===AMD===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! nprocs !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| 2x Opteron 6128 || 16 || 32.4 || 0.203 || 160W || 2 GHz || 0.3.19 || -4way
|-
| Athlon 64 3500+ || 1 || 1.18 || 0.018 || 65 W || 2.54 GHz || ufasoft v0.4 || overclocked (originally 2.2 GHz)
|-
| Athlon X2 3800+ || 2 || 1.73 || 0.03 || 65 W || 2.00 GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || -algo=4way
|-
| Athlon X2 4000+ || 2 || 1.9 || 0.02 || 65W || 2.1 GHz || rpc-miner ||
|-
| Athlon X2 4400+ || || 2.09 || 0.032 || 65W || 2.3GHz || 0.3.19/Win x64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source]
|-
| Athlon X2 6000+ || 2 || 2.81 || 0.02 || 125W || 3 GHz || || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg22881#msg22881 source]
|-
| Athlon X2 6400+ Black Edition || 2 || 2.9 || 0.023 || 125W || 3.2 GHz || 0.3.20.2 BETA/Win 7 x64 || -4way
|-
| Athlon XP 2000+ || 2 || 0.62 || 0.009 || 70W || 1.67 GHz || 0.3.18/Ubuntu || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37592#msg37592 source] [http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=914&page=4 source]
|-
| Athlon II X2 240e || 2 || 2.71 || 0.06 || 45W || 2.81 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Athlon II X4 630 || 4 || 10.7 || 0.11 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || bitcoin-miner 0.4 ||
|-
| Phenom II X6 1055T || 6 || 15.84 || 0.13 || 125W || 2.82 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Phenom II X6 1100T || 6 || 22 || 0.176 || 125W || 3.82 GHz || bitcoin-miner || Aciid#bitcoin-dev
|-
| Phenom II X3 720 || 3 || 3.8 || 0.04 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || 0.3.1x/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| Phenom II X3 720 || 3 || 7.2 || 0.08 || 95W || 2.8 GHz || cpu-miner 0.2.1/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|-
| Phenom II x4 955 || 4 || 11 || 0.09 || 125W || 3.2 GHz || rpcminer-4way ||
|}

===ARM===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! p/t !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| Cortex A8 || 1 || 0.125 || 0.36 || 0.35 W || 0.6 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || Nokia N900: 'cryptopp'
|-
| Cortex A8 || 1 || 0.2 || 0.57 || 0.35 W || 0.6 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || Nokia N900: 'c' algo
|-
| Tegra 250 (2xCortex-A9) || 2 || 0.57 || 1.14 || 0.5 W || 1.0 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-24) || Toshiba AC100, ubuntu, 'c' algo
|}

===Intel===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Model !! p/t !! Mhash/s !! Mhash/W !! ACP [W] !! Clock !! Version !! Comment
|-
| Pentium III mobile ? || 1 || 0.3 || 0.014 || 21W || 1.07 GHz || 0.3.1x/Win2K || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source] [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27380 source]
|-
| Old Xeon 512k (Dual) || 2x1/2 || 2.0 || ? || ? || 3.06GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || HT disabled, algo=4way (twice as fast as the 2nd best algo)
|-
| Pentium 4 2.0A || 1 || 0.85 || || || 2.0 GHz || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft-0.4]/WinXP || -g no -t 2
|-
| Pentium Dual-Core E5400 || 2/2 || 2.27 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.7 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Celeron E330 || 2/2 || 2.2 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.5 GHz || 0.3.19/Ubuntu10.04 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37620#msg37620 source]
|-
| Core i3 M350 || 2/4 || 1.48 || 0.04 || 35W || 2.27 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Core i5 M450 || 2/4 || 1.8 || 0.05 || 35W || 1.2 GHz || 0.3.17/Win7-54 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg26292#msg26292 source]
|-
| Core i5-650 || 2/4 || 5.1 || 0.04 ? || || 3.2 GHz || cpuminer-0.7 || -4way
|-
| Core i5 ? || 4/? || 6.5 || || || || client from svn || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg37621#msg37621 source]
|-
| Core i5-2400 || 4/4 || 4.5 || 0.05 || 95W || 3.1 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-01-22) || cryptopp_asm32
|-
| Core i5-2400 || 4/4 || 14 || 0.15 || 95W || 3.1 GHz || cpuminer git (2011-03-26) || sse2_64
|-
| Core i7 920 || 4/8 || 19.2 || 0.10 || 195 || 4.0 GHz (x21) || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] || -a 5
|-
| Core i7 950 || 4/8 || 5.88 || 0.039 || 150W || 3.83 GHz (x23) || bitcoin-0.3.20.2 Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 950 || 4/8 || 18.9 || 0.126 || 150W || 3.83 GHz (x23) || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] v0.4 ||
|-
| Core i7 980x || 6/12 || 19.2 || 0.15 || 130 || 4.4 GHz (x33) || cpuminer/Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 980x || 6/12 || 8.7 || || || 3.9 GHz (x27) || 0.3.17/Win7-64 ||
|-
| Core i7 620M || 2/4 || 6.3 || 0.18 || 35 || 2.66 GHz || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.0 ufasoft] v0.4 ||
|-
| Core 2 Duo E6550 || 1/2 || 2.45 || ? || ? || 2.33 GHz || cpuminer 0.7.1 (Linux) || --algo=sse2_64
|-
| Core 2 Duo E6850 || 2/2 || 6.75 || 0.10 || 65W || 3.0 Ghz || ufasoft-0.3 ||
|-
| Core 2 Duo E7300 || 2/2 || 7.76 || 0.11 || 70W || 3.33 GHz (o/c?) || ufasoft-0.3 || miner optimized for Intel Core
|-
| Core 2 Duo E7300 || 2/2 || 2.52 || 0.04 || 65W || 2.66 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon 3060 || 1/2 || 2.03 || 0.03 || 65W || 2.4GHz || cpuminer 0.8.1 (Linux) || --algo=cryptopp_asm32
|-
| Xeon Prestonia 2.4 (dual) || 2x1/2 || 2.16 || 0.017 || 130W || 2.4 GHz || ufasoft v0.4 ||
|-
| Xeon X5355 (dual) || 2x4/4 || 10.13 || 0.16 || 120W || 2.66GHz || bitcoind || Roughly the same speed as the "c" algo in cpuminer
|-
| Xeon X5355 (dual) || 2x4/4 || 22.76 || 0.09 || 120W || 2.66GHz || cpuminer (v0.8.1-1-g69529c3) || -O2 -march=core2, algo=sse2_64
|-
| Xeon E5440 || 4/8 || 7.3 || ? || 80W || 2.66 GHz|| Kiv's poclbm-gui || FIXME: Either wrong model # or wrong threads/speed info
|-
| Xeon E5520 || 4/8 || 6.5 || 0.08 || 80W || 2.27 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon E5530 || 4/8 || 7.14 || 0.09 || 80W || 2.4 GHz || bitcoind || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg19426#msg19426 source]
|-
| Xeon E5630 (dual) || 2x4/8 || 8 || 0.1 || 80W || 2.53 GHz || 0.3.17/Win7-64 || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg29471#msg29471 source]
|-
| Atom N270 || 1 || 0.42 || '''0.17''' || 2.5W || 1.6 GHz || 0.3.1x/WinXP || [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1628.msg24699#msg24699 source]
|}

==See Also==

* [[Mining rig]]
* [[Generation Calculator]]
* [[Power Calc]]
* [[OpenCL miner]]
* [http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=745 ATI Stream vs. NVIDIA CUDA - GPGPU computing battle royale]

[[Category:Mining]]