@zefir,
@steamboat
Thank you guys! That's much anticipated.
@wrenchmonkey
Whoa. Jules Verne does mining.
By adding in pairs 2,4,6,8... they stay fully utilized. This is primarily due to the fact I push work to both banks at the same time so as to not take twice as long. Even with unbalanced banks no chips do repeat work so this is still optimal.
Hopefully this information chips per bank, for each bank, is available, so calculating the hash rate can be done properly @steamboat
Thank you guys! That's much anticipated.
@wrenchmonkey
Whoa. Jules Verne does mining.
I thought you could put only 4 chips in a K16 board and it would still work? The board kits themselves don't appear to be that expensive [based on preliminary info]
Yes. The code I'm working with now allows for partial populating. It will be best if both banks are balanced since I count chips and use the highest bank count as divisor. This keeps the work pushing code simpler. If you populate more on one bank than the other, then some range will go untested as the more empty bank will be cut short and get work pushed before done. This isn't so bad.By adding in pairs 2,4,6,8... they stay fully utilized. This is primarily due to the fact I push work to both banks at the same time so as to not take twice as long. Even with unbalanced banks no chips do repeat work so this is still optimal.
(Edit: I will add I can calculate this using specific nonce test cases if I knew the layout but since the chips are only ~300MH/s it might take a while to test ... i.e. 'seconds')