Talk:Mining hardware comparison

From Bitcoin Wiki
Revision as of 14:33, 7 February 2015 by TheRealSteve (talk | contribs) (Pre-orders: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Bad Pricce Quotes

When looking up prices, check for scammers gaming the system by:

  1. Google the vendor(s) for ratings
  2. Check the actual page price (not just the Google shopping summary)
  3. Check the stock
  4. 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

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. Vast 06:45, 19 April 2011 (GMT)

How about adding a note about what a Joule is somewhere people will see? --TiagoTiago 21:40, 9 May 2011 (GMT)
Hmmmmm... if only there was an online encyclopedia people could look it up in... 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. 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? --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 $

Uiaenrtd (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (GMT)

For what it's worth, the relatively new page on Hash per second has a small section on W/Ghash/s vs J/Ghash. TheRealSteve (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

AMT Stream SDK Note

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. 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. 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. --Imsaguy 01:00, 24 July 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 Fnord123 15:44, 23 May 2011 (GMT)

Power Calculation

How do people calculate power? I took the 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). Fnord123 15:42, 23 May 2011 (GMT)

Ideally it should be MEASURED, not calculated -- Vlnv 2011-06-24
For non ideal scenarios:
Pick the "core clock" and "Max Power Draw" for your card here and then estimates the Power Draw in overclocked cards here -- 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. --Imsaguy 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)

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, Vlnv 2011-06-24

Cheapest card per mhash/s ?

i'll pick ... the 5830 --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 -- 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.

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. Mumpsimus 01:17, 15 June 2011 (GMT)
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. -- 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. --Imsaguy 01:00, 24 July 2011 (GMT)

Clarification of model number vs. number of cards.

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. --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 -- 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? --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 09:43, 23 June 2011 edit by 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. 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 ! -- 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, 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


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. --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. Lowflyer (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (GMT)

GenBTC's Card Comparison Spreadsheet

Anyone else find this redundant/useless? --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. 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: 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:

TheRealSteve (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


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)