Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mining hardware comparison"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Achilles Labs line-up: new section)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Bad Pricce Quotes ==
+
{{archive}}__TOC__
When looking up prices, check for scammers gaming the system by:
+
== Pre-orders ==
# Google the vendor(s) for ratings
 
# Check the actual page price (not just the Google shopping summary)
 
# Check the stock
 
# Checking for excessive shipping costs  (Shipping is variable, Google shopping usually lists the the *total* price for multiple vendors, check against those vendors.)
 
  
== Mega-hashes per Watt vs Mega-hashes per Joule ==
+
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.
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)
 
:::: Isn't electricity usually billed in kWh?  Would it make more sense to convert to that so all a user has to do is multiply that by their local electricity rate? --[[User:Imsaguy|Imsaguy]] 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
 
One could write down an example on how to calculate the costs. Something like that:
 
:Power that the device consumes: 200 W = 200 Watts = 0.2 kW = 0.2 Kilowatts
 
:Price per kWh: 22 Cent = 0.22 $
 
::Price per hour: 0.2 * 0.22 $ = 0.044 $
 
::Price per day: 24 * 0.044 $ = 1.056 $
 
::Price per month: 30 * 1.056 $ = 31.68 $
 
[[User:Uiaenrtd|Uiaenrtd]] ([[User talk:Uiaenrtd|talk]]) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (GMT)
 
  
== AMT Stream SDK Note ==
+
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 :) [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
 
: 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)
 
:: If version is relevant, then it should be listed per row in the measurements table versus having a blank statement at the top of the page. --[[User:Imsaguy|Imsaguy]] 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)  
 
  
== Color Coding ==
+
== Why was my hardware removed? ==
  
What is the color coding indicative of?
+
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.
: 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 ==
+
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.
  
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 "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.
: Ideally it should be MEASURED, not calculated -- [[User:Vlnv|Vlnv]] 2011-06-24
 
  
:: For non ideal scenarios:
+
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.
:: Pick the "core clock" and "Max Power Draw" for your card [http://www.gpureview.com/ here] and then estimates the Power Draw in overclocked cards [http://bakkap.free.fr/Misc/wCalc.html here] -- [[User:barreto80|barreto80]] 2011-06-30
 
:::If that is the case, then really there should be some sort of indicator showing it is a calculation/estimation versus a measurement. --[[User:Imsaguy|Imsaguy]] 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
 
  
== OS Listing ==
+
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.
  
Think extracting out an OS column would be useful? Possibly OS version or architecture as well.
+
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 personWhile 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.
: CPU architecture, OS, distro name, kernel version, like: i686, GNU/Linux, Fedora 14, 2.6.35.13-92.fc14.i686.PAE [[User:Vlnv|Vlnv]] 2011-06-24
 
  
== Cheapest card per mhash/s ? ==
+
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. [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
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? ==
+
== StickMiner section ==
 +
There should be a stickminer section. [[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  
This page could use some serious cleaning up.
+
There is this list: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=464496.0=edit Bitcoin Talk Forum] - [[User:Ezeminer|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. [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 +
::Funny I thought that was by a different user :D - [[User:Ezeminer|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 :( [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  
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.
+
== Sorting does not work for the table ==
  
: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)
+
The table has
:I'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]
 
::It says hardware comparison, not settings comparison.  This page should be where the various cards are compared with stock settings.  From there a person could link to an individual page or pages that list the details and possible scenarios for each card. --[[User:Imsaguy|Imsaguy]] 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
 
  
== Clarification of model number vs. number of cards. ==
+
class="wikitable sortable"
[[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?)
+
set, yet it isn't sortable. Pasting the table's code to the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Sandbox&action=edit WikiMedia sandbox] shows that it does allow sorting there, but not here on Bitcoin wiki. [[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 
+
: Yeah,  I noticed that earlier as well. I think the javascript that enables sorting is missing altogether. Might raise this on IRC :) [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
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 has since been fixed :) [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 
+
::: Oh, cool! I always assumed it was just me. Great to see that working! [[User:Taras|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras|talk]]) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
: 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)
 
: 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
 
 
 
::There are probably times where 2 cards in a machine aren't necessarily the same as having two machines each with one card. Should that be indicated somewhere? --[[User:Imsaguy|Imsaguy]] 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Affiliate Links ==
 
 
 
I 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 Mininin]. For shame.
 
 
 
* Second time the affiliate links had to be removed.  I will police this aggressively as I maintain a separate database with pricing that is actually accurate for this type of thing.  [[User:Kristopher|Kristopher]] 17:51, 11 July 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Mhash / $ / €  ==
 
 
 
What is this silly "Mhash / $ / €" column all about ?
 
Is it the buying price for the Hardware ?
 
Is it the price of the electricity ?
 
Both will vary WAAY TOO MUCH !
 
 
 
I can Buy a 5770 in Germany for 70 Euros, where as it will cost over 110 Euros in Turkey. Electricity on the other hand costs approx 22 €ct/kWh in Germany where as it costs only 11 €ct/kWh in Turkey.
 
 
 
Just an example for two countries where I know the numbers from the top of my head. Just want to clarifiy that the column is nonsense and everybody has to calculate it according to their own LOCAL MARKET PRICES !
 
-- [[User:Chippy|Chippy]] 00:03, 26 June 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
* It is stupid that people keep putting these calculations on the table.  Most are not correct. Stop doing it.  If you really want that info, go to my website, bitminer.info [[User:Kristopher|Kristopher]] 17:53, 11 July 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Wrong Data 7850 ==
 
 
 
I thinkt the data for the ATI 7850 single gpu is wrong.
 
Should I just change it?
 
I got an 7850 OC (overclocked) and get this data
 
 
 
[[File:7850OC.png]]
 
 
 
== Don't add traps like $/day figures  ==
 
 
 
Stuff like $/day encourages unsound reasoning by people who don't know better. It seems likely now that the difficulty is about to go up a bunch, and even if it doesn't the reward is going to halve before anything pays itself off. Likewise don't list price and performance for speculative, unreleased products that could just be scams, or may not live up to specs or be available for many months. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (GMT)
 
 
 
== ASIC section ==
 
 
 
I want the ASIC section in here. It's very interesting and informative, and we can put a note there, that this is preliminary data. darsie
 
: @darsie, I don't think it is a good idea to put ASIC data here, as the data itself is pretty much "vaporware". I would prefer to have a separate page with expected ASIC data and on this page just a link to the expected data page. Things will change dramatically once *'''real'''* ASIC's become available *'''and'''* someone was able to test it. To compare: we have also no information for "future" developments of graphic cards although their roadmaps and data is already available. [[User:Lowflyer|Lowflyer]] ([[User talk:Lowflyer|talk]]) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (GMT)
 
 
 
== GenBTC's Card Comparison Spreadsheet ==
 
 
 
Anyone else find this redundant/useless? --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (GMT)
 
 
 
Not so much as redundant, but horrifically misleading.  I have developed a spreadsheet that makes predictions of eventual profitability based on extrapolation of difficulty into the far distant future.  For example, if you're planning to buy a mining rig that won't get delivered for 6 months, you can get a reasonable prediction of the eventual payback on your investment based on the predicted evolution of difficulty.  Please update here and I'll post it if there is interest.  This is not so much targeted at GPU miners as it is at ASIC mining hardware. [[User:TominTX|TominTX]] ([[User talk:TominTX|talk]]) 20:34, 1 September 2013 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Achilles Labs line-up ==
 
 
 
I have removed the Achilles Labs line-up of miners.  This was previously also done by Jimmothy, resulting in a minor revert edit war with Vip3r.  Currently their website still displays little more than a render, little details on what's supposedly inside, and only accepts payment in Bitcoin.
 
 
 
While Vip3r claims that the units are actually shipping, no evidence thereof has been presented or even found.  The only semi-reference I have found is at: https://2ch.hk/cc/res/84695.html 
 
Supposedly that page shows Achilles Labs units in a mine, but that mine itself has none of the hallmarks of an actual mine, and more of warehousing - which may very well be empty cases.
 
 
 
Until such a time as that more information is presented or found in the wild, I recommend that the Achilles Labs line-up of products remains removed from the listing.
 
 
 
BitcoinTalk Forum discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855856
 
 
 
[[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 21:53, 2 September 2015

Archive
Cabinet.png
2010 • 201120122013 • 2014

Pre-orders

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)

StickMiner section

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

class="wikitable sortable"

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)

Yeah, I noticed that earlier as well. I think the javascript that enables sorting is missing altogether. Might raise this on IRC :) TheRealSteve (talk) 20:54, 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)