|(41 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)|
|−|Question about mega-hashes per Watt versus mega-hashes per Joule. Does anyone have an opinion? Most people know what a Watt is but I think seeing MHash/J could be confusing to some people. While perhaps being more accurate, using "/J" might go over some people's heads, especially since the edit was given with little to no explanation. [[User:Vast|Vast]] 06:45, 19 April 2011 (GMT) |+|
|−|: How about adding a note about what a Joule is somewhere people will see? - -[[User:TiagoTiago|TiagoTiago]] 21:40, 9 May 2011 (GMT) |+|
|−|:: Hmmmmm... if only there was an online encyclopedia people could look it up in... [[User:Physics|Physics]] 06:52, 13 May 2011 (GMT) | |
|−|::: In my opinion the MHash/s/W was more enlighting for non physicans, but hey, I don't really care. [[User:SmokeTooMuch|SmokeTooMuch]] 22:12, 30 May 2011 (GMT) | |
| || |
|−|Is the note about the AMD Stream SDK valid anymore? Looking down the list it seems people are doing just as well and sometimes better on the 2. 3 and 2. 4 SDK as compared to the 2.1. [[User:Tybeet|Tybeet]] 23:04, 5 May 2011 (GMT) |+|
. . , the . - bit .
|−|: It depends on the mining application and the OpenCL kernel used I think. Phoenix with phatk mines faster on SDK 2.4 than on SDK 2.1 under 32-bit Windows 7. [[User:Icaci|Icaci]] 18:27, 29 May 2011 (GMT) | |
| || |
|−|== Color Coding == |+|
| || |
|−|What is the color coding indicative of? |+|
|−|: I think it is just a way to easily group cards of each type [[User:Fnord123|Fnord123]] 15:44, 23 May 2011 (GMT) | |
| || |
|−|== Power Calculation == |+|
| || |
|−|How do people calculate power? I took the [http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/2D-Power-Draw, 2677.html idle power numbers from Tom' s Hardware], then measured incremental power w/a Kill-A-Watt when hashing on my ATI 6970 ( its the one w/1.96 Mhashes/W). [[User:Fnord123|Fnord123]] 15:42, 23 May 2011 (GMT) |+|
the , '() .
|−|: Ideally it should be MEASURED, not calculated -- [[User:Vlnv|Vlnv]] 2011-06-24 | |
| || |
|−|== OS Listing == |+|
| || |
|−|Think extracting out an OS column would be useful? Possibly OS version or architecture as well. |+|
. , , , , , , , .
|−|: CPU architecture, OS, distro name, kernel version, like: i686, GNU/Linux, Fedora 14, 184.108.40.206-92. fc14.i686.PAE [[User:Vlnv|Vlnv]] 2011-06-24 | |
| || |
|−|== Cheapest card per mhash/s ? == |+|
|−|i' ll pick ... the 5830 --[[User:Compn|Compn]] 16:51, 3 June 2011 ( GMT) |+|
|−|: Ideally I'd add the date of purchase and cost of the card benchmarked, so that MH/USD could be calculated -- [[User:Vlnv|Vlnv]] 2011-06-24 |+|
| || |
|−|== Point of reference or benchmark chart? == |+|
| || |
|−|This page could use some serious cleaning up. |+|
| || |
|−|I think it needs to be decided if this page is a point of reference or a collection of benchmarks. If it's a point of reference, there should only be one entry per hardware type ( video card model, cpu, etc.) with stock performance. Some video card entries have over six variations with different over clocking/settings. |+|
be a . , ()
| || |
Identical (or near- identical) entries aren't that useful, but other than I find it helpful to see what variations worked, even for a given card, especially with so many variables in play. [[User: Mumpsimus| Mumpsimus]] 01: 17, 15 June 2011 ( GMT) |+|
'd rather see this as a collection of benchmarks - with enough information about platform, software versions and options used. There can be another page with this "raw" date aggregated on a per card basis if needed. But - better reference to exact card benchmarked should be here. I see tons of links to some Amazon site on all cards. Does not make any sense. Should refer to manufacturer site, or to particular Webstore that that particular card was purchased, ideally high resolution photos of the particular card disassembled, so that chip datecodes and specific revisions could be read. -- [[User: Vlnv| Vlnv]] 2011-06-24] |+|
) that , I it , a . [[User:|]]01:, ()
:I a - ,
, that, of [[User:|] ]]
| || |
Clarification of model number vs. number of cards. == |+|
|−|[[User:Jthibo|Jthibo]] 18:10, 15 June 2011 (GMT) | |
| || |
|−|I've noticed that people are putting in things like 6990x2 to indicate having 2, 6990 dual-gpu cards. The problem is that this is also how AMD numbers some of their card models to indicate the number of GPUs on the card. For example, I have a 4870 X2, which is the model number of the card (the X2 indicates dual-gpu, as opposed to the regular, single GPU 4870.) I see some people have put in entries for a 4870x2, but is this 2 (4870) cards, or 1 (4870 X2) card (or even 2 (4870 X2) cards?) |+|
| || |
|−|Perhaps we should have quantity number placed in parenthesis, so 2 4870 cards would be " 4870 (x2)" , and 1 4870 X2 card would be "4870 X2"? Or some variation on that. Perhaps even another column denoting the total number of GPUs for the entry? |+|
| || |
|−|: This is a comparison of hardware, 2 * 5770, for example, is no more than useful than a single 5770, yet a card with 2 GPUs on, is useful. Multi-GPU setups should be removed, imo. --[[User: Rallan| Rallan]] 19: 22, 15 June 2011 ( GMT) |+|
, yet ., . [[User:|]]:, ()
Although this is not just a hardware comparison - software used, versions, parameters are very usuful here, but these x2 listings are confusing, and most importantly performance should be reported on a per GPU basis, i. e. divided by 2, with x2 or x4 in the notes column -- [[User: Vlnv| Vlnv]] 2011-06-24 |+|
: , . . ,
|−|== Affiliate Links == |+|
I . to [:] [User :]
removed affiliate links that were added to the card entries. It looks like someone is trying to selfishly monetize this wiki page. They were added with the [ https: //en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Mining_hardware_comparison&oldid=11398 09:43, 23 June 2011] edit by [ https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=User: Mininin&action=edit&redlink=1 Mininin] . For shame. | |
Listing of hardware that can only be pre-ordered should be discouraged. Listing of vaporware should be disallowed. In either of these cases, if you have editing capabilities, consider removing the listing. While everyone should do their due diligence before making a purchase - especially in pre-order cases - we can all help to keep things a bit more tidy by only having a comparison of actual, existing hardware that ships now or has shipped in the past.
If there is disagreement on the above, perhaps we can agree to have a separate section for pre-orders and vaporware, which could then carry an additional warning. Open for discussion :) TheRealSteve (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Why was my hardware removed?
If your hardware was removed from the mining hardware comparison list, this section will attempt to explain the possible reason why - though always check the edit summary (see "View history") for pointers.
Although there is no set policy for allowing or disallowing hardware to be listed in the hardware comparison at this time, it is generally frowned upon to list hardware that doesn't exist (yet) - which may subsequently be deleted by anybody with editing rights to this wiki.
The "innocent until proven guilty" approach does not work in this field, due to the many bad actors that will take advantage of such an approach. As a result, the approach is that any listing is treated at first as benign and discussed (here or in online forums) until an apparent consensus is reached. At that point, your listing may have been relegated to a "guilty until proven innocent" status.
The community cannot always prove a bad actor. For example, if you have renders of miners on your website/in your store, but no actual photos, you can always claim that the images you use are just stand-ins and that you can't release any actual photographs yet because the hardware is being finalized and so forth and so on. At that point, however, it is essentially non-existent hardware that should not be listed. If, on the other hand, there is actual hardware on hand, there's little reason to be using renders.
The onus is thus on you you to attempt to prove that you are not a bad actor. There's plenty of ways in which you can do so:
- If you are taking pre-orders: don't - a comparison between existing hardware and hardware that effectively doesn't exist, is no comparison at all.
- Rather than providing renders or photoshopped images, provide actual photography of your hardware. The more photos, the better.
- If you are integrating a 3rd party's chip, specify which chip. If you are integrating your own chip design, try to provide details on its design.
- If challenged in online discussion platforms to show it hashing, provide a video of the hardware mining with a verifiable (public) pool statistics page.
- If currently only accepting Bitcoin payments, consider adding other payment options - PayPal, credit card, etc. If these are not an option, or not desirable, consider adding a trusted escrow agent option.
These are options that range from simple to more involved in terms of effort, while each significantly raises the bar for still being called a bad actor.
Ultimately, you may have to have a third party review one of your miners in order to build your credibility. This could be one of your customers, or it could be a trusted member of online discussion forums, or popular hardware review websites. This does not necessarily require you to send hardware for free - making it available 'on loan' is also perfectly acceptable, as would be demonstrating in person. While certainly the option that requires the most effort (and possibly expenses), this does increase your reputation as being a good actor not just for that particular hardware, but any other hardware you may be selling, which may make this option a good step as a business going forward.
If at any point you dispute a removal, your first step should be to simply add your hardware back to the list, and the second step should be to open up dialog through this talk page, by using the "Add topic" link at the top to start a new discussion, or simply reply to an existing discussion that pertains to your case. If you provide good arguments as to why your listing should remain, it is unlikely to be removed again. TheRealSteve (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There should be a stickminer section. Geremia (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree - and I'll probably get to doing that after I'm done messing around with the ASICs stuff. - TheRealSteve (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
There is this list: Bitcoin Talk Forum - Ezeminer 9:46 1 April 2015 UTC
- I know, it's mine ;) The BitcoinTalk Forum was the best place to put that information when I posted it - slowly but surely, I think the wiki is becoming that place. I'll move it over at some point, but not any time soon. I'll probably keep the thread around in a slimmed down version. TheRealSteve (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Funny I thought that was by a different user :D - Ezeminer 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well obviously there's only one TheRealSteve, the others are TheFakeSteves! *googles name* scratch that, there's at least 7 of me :( TheRealSteve (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorting does not work for the table
The table has
set, yet it isn't sortable. Pasting the table's code to the WikiMedia sandbox shows that it does allow sorting there, but not here on Bitcoin wiki. Geremia (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- This has since been fixed :) TheRealSteve (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, cool! I always assumed it was just me. Great to see that working! Taras (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)