Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 20 results by mixdio
Wow! That sucks! No one has EVER had this trouble like that with the R52 mod! No One! Not even green-horns!
Shit!This really bugs me! I feel for your loss! 4 good chips ruined by yet another Zig DOH!!! pod killer mod! Are you absolutely sure un-bridging and adding a resistive load to R42 is correct, Zig? Never mind. I strongly suspect - NOT! This clicking problem only started happening after Zig's mod was introduced!
I think that Zig's mod should be killed for now, at least until the actual cause of the clicking which most likely means something permanently serious has happened and your pod is now a paper weight, is discovered. Looks like I have my work cut out for me. Thanks Zig!
Remember, R52 (aka R139-at least he got that right) mod is proven by thousands of mods to work without harming your pod, even if you make a mistake, the worst that happens is your pod stops working until the solder connections are re-done correctly or the mod is reversed. No permanent destruction! Certainly no solder melting hot chips destruction occurs! I think this makes 4 clicking pods now....That's just too many fried pods! DANGER!
Stick with R52 mod. And again, the chances of our pods ever profitably mining SHA again are slim to none and IF the mod ever has to be reversed, it can be done easily by any qualified tech. Even greenhorns can do it in a reasonable amount of time, obviously!
Shit!This really bugs me! I feel for your loss! 4 good chips ruined by yet another Zig DOH!!! pod killer mod! Are you absolutely sure un-bridging and adding a resistive load to R42 is correct, Zig? Never mind. I strongly suspect - NOT! This clicking problem only started happening after Zig's mod was introduced!
I think that Zig's mod should be killed for now, at least until the actual cause of the clicking which most likely means something permanently serious has happened and your pod is now a paper weight, is discovered. Looks like I have my work cut out for me. Thanks Zig!
Remember, R52 (aka R139-at least he got that right) mod is proven by thousands of mods to work without harming your pod, even if you make a mistake, the worst that happens is your pod stops working until the solder connections are re-done correctly or the mod is reversed. No permanent destruction! Certainly no solder melting hot chips destruction occurs! I think this makes 4 clicking pods now....That's just too many fried pods! DANGER!
Stick with R52 mod. And again, the chances of our pods ever profitably mining SHA again are slim to none and IF the mod ever has to be reversed, it can be done easily by any qualified tech. Even greenhorns can do it in a reasonable amount of time, obviously!
My devices have been running stable for over a month with R46 = 14k7.
Zig's mod looks to be the same mod I posted back on page 22. The schematic clearly shows R46 in series with the other SET resistors, and the mod should not cause any more problems than replacing R63/R64/R66/R139.
i believe R336, R46, R212 are all 0402? also it is very hard to find 14.7k and 27.4k where i live. closest i could find is 15k and 27K. will the performance will very much?
The resistors are all 0402 (1005 metric) 1% tolerance.
I'm sure anything close will work, but again, there are a lot of variables, YMMV, etc.
If I wanted to run mine at 1150 stable, which resistor values should I use on R46 and R212? I appreciate your picture and the risk you put in finding this mod.
I think I was able to get 1100-1150 at 1.581V (7.79k) - I make absolutely no guarantees.@Mixdio:
Could you explain me which benefit i'll get when i give it a higher PLL voltage ?
Doesnt make sense for me to higher the voltage there ?
Would be nice if you can help me on that here.
Same concept as overclocking the core - increase voltage to increase stability. I tried decreasing VPLL to 0.91 V which resulted in hardware errors at 950 MHz.Could you explain me which benefit i'll get when i give it a higher PLL voltage ?
Doesnt make sense for me to higher the voltage there ?
Would be nice if you can help me on that here.
To follow up with a 12 hour test:
1.821 V at 1250 MHz (~548 kH/s) - 0 HW errors
1.734 V at 1200 MHz (~526 kH/s) - 0 HW errors
The remaining 8 devices ran at 950 MHz with only the VID1 mod. There were 3 with HW errors.
The test was run with bfgminer compiled from nwoolls' feature/gridseed-support-new branch. girnyau's cgminer fork was segfaulting with clock speeds over 1200 MHz. I needed to be able to set individual clock rates because my devices have different mods. bfgminer allows this with the set-device parameter. bfgminer also appears to report hashrates a bit higher than cgminer.
Before drawing any conclusions from the data presented by myself and others, keep in mind that there are a lot of variables and the sample size is incredibly small.
- Enable VID1: Short R336 (original VMOD)
- Increase DVDD to 1.4V: Cut R46 (0R jumper) and replace with 2.94k
- Increase VDD_PLL to 1.2V: Add 27.4k on top of R212 (27.4k || 10k = 7326R)
For reference, the default VDD_PLL is 0.8 x (R211 + R212) / R212, or 1.092V.
Not getting HW errors at 1000 MHz, but I haven't tested long term because I only got my units yesterday. I'm sure 1100+ could be achieved by increasing DVDD using the above method.
- Increase DVDD to 1.4V: Cut R46 (0R jumper) and replace with 2.94k
- Increase VDD_PLL to 1.2V: Add 27.4k on top of R212 (27.4k || 10k = 7326R)
For reference, the default VDD_PLL is 0.8 x (R211 + R212) / R212, or 1.092V.
Not getting HW errors at 1000 MHz, but I haven't tested long term because I only got my units yesterday. I'm sure 1100+ could be achieved by increasing DVDD using the above method.
It's currently stable (no HW errors, short term) at 1250 MHz (529 kH/s) at 1821 mV, with R46 being 14.7k.
Here are my R46 values and measured DVDD:
| Resistance (R) | Voltage (mV) |
| 4.32k | 1450 |
| 5.90k | 1509 |
| 7.79k | 1581 |
| 12.1k | 1734 |
| 14.7k | 1821 |
I think I'll stop there before I damage anything
Edit: here is a microscope shot of the mods
Blue: R336
Green: R46
Purple: R212
http://i.imgur.com/ryfJsjJ.jpg
Re: Alright, who knows Gridseed circuit boards better than anyone else?
Those are ferrite beads FB23 & FB24, not capacitors.
Ferrite beads are ideally zero resistance for DC - if nothing else appears damaged, you could try replacing them with a piece of wire.
Clean the board with a stiff brush and 99% isopropyl alcohol.
Ferrite beads are ideally zero resistance for DC - if nothing else appears damaged, you could try replacing them with a piece of wire.
Clean the board with a stiff brush and 99% isopropyl alcohol.
Nope, you need to change resistors only. Replace R52 with 100k, and place 120k to C32. In parallel it is 54.54kOhm, and VDD will be 1.97V.
If you would like to use only one resistor there is a 54.9kOhm in E96 series, but VDD will be more than 1.97V maybe 2V.
If you would like to use only one resistor there is a 54.9kOhm in E96 series, but VDD will be more than 1.97V maybe 2V.
Wow, 2V DVDD is impressive - thanks for taking the risk
I have achieved 1401mV DVDD and 1204mV VDD_PLL (measured) with this approach:
- Enable VID1: Short R336 (original VMOD)
- Increase DVDD to 1.4V: Cut R46 (0R jumper) and replace with 2.94k
- Increase VDD_PLL to 1.2V: Add 27.4k on top of R212 (27.4k || 10k = 7326R)
For reference, the default VDD_PLL is 0.8 x (R211 + R212) / R212, or 1.092V.
Not getting HW errors at 1000 MHz, but I haven't tested long term because I only got my units yesterday. I'm sure 1100+ could be achieved by increasing DVDD using the above method.
I finally received an email reply in response to my board assembly refund request:
Quote from: Istvan Miklos <t13hydra@gmail.com>
Hi, still waiting for so.e miners to arrive as the funds would be paid by me. Hopefully in the next 2 weeks, maximum. I do hope knc keeps their promises.
Regards
Regards
Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)
****WARNING to all Labcoin Shareholders****
People there are no traces going to the chips on these circuit boards. There are no decoupling capacitors near the chips and there does not appear to be a ground plane on the board. Ask any of the DIY asic developers here on the forum and they will confirm that these things are absolutely necessary to create a working miner.
I was a big believer in Labcoin but i am completely out now. This is a disappointing end to what could have been a promising venture.
I welcome a realistic explanation from Labcoin but at this point I am seriously warning anyone to invest at their own risk.
People there are no traces going to the chips on these circuit boards. There are no decoupling capacitors near the chips and there does not appear to be a ground plane on the board. Ask any of the DIY asic developers here on the forum and they will confirm that these things are absolutely necessary to create a working miner.
I was a big believer in Labcoin but i am completely out now. This is a disappointing end to what could have been a promising venture.
I welcome a realistic explanation from Labcoin but at this point I am seriously warning anyone to invest at their own risk.
+1
No power circuitry, no vias, no ground plane. This board looks very odd.
Re: [Group Buy] AVALON ASIC CHIPs from 0.081BTC + Miner Assembly from 60EUR
mixdio;70;5.67;15Q3NZUvrTGA4M7ET9ortQAG7BFAq7384Y
I undecided on assembly until I've had a better look at the Klondike design.
Thank you for running this group buy!
I undecided on assembly until I've had a better look at the Klondike design.
Thank you for running this group buy!
The HackShardGaming pool is listed as 1% fee, but it is actually 2%.
HackShardGaming also pays bonuses if you find a block ending with repeating digits: 50, 250, or 1000 PXC for double, triple, or quads.
HackShardGaming also pays bonuses if you find a block ending with repeating digits: 50, 250, or 1000 PXC for double, triple, or quads.
obligatory post so I can PM 
+1, this system just encourages spam.
I wonder how this policy affects participation in the context of the 1% rule.