I think it's about 30Gh for one board if they are using 65nm, or 60Gh preboard if they are using 40nm.
And i think there must be another heat sink at the backside of the board.
Would be impressive if they were using 40 nm, but I somehow doubt it. The main reason being that it means there isn't much room to grow. As a company BFL would want to have room to lower the die size in order to make 'next-gen' ASICs that can run faster, cooler, and more efficiently. Unless they are gambling on there only being 1 generation of ASICs... |
|
|
|
|
Q1 2013 are my expectations for any ASIC product. Keep your hopes realistic so you are surprised if anything occurs before.
|
|
|
|
I have also decided to promote bASIC unit on my website. It will be more to encourage my fellow bitcoin miners here in South Africa to buy from Tom and not from that cocky bloke Josh.
Just his attitude alone had put me completely off from BFL.
+1, Tom is a stand up guy. BFL's 'investment' in Josh seems to be back firing on them. |
|
|
|
Exactly. So why is BFL trying to go down that path? Why not let the pros do it?
Because they will have some sort of control if something went wrong. Because if China decides it's the Year of the Dragon 1 month holiday, that means 1 month with no work being done. Etc. And you can see how people are screaming if there are delays in deliveries. Yea, I am sure China shuts everything down for 1 month. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
BFL offers 1000 BTC back up on power claims Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."
Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side. He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.
So there it is: Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will. I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products. Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?
is a confusing topic you said bfl was trying not to post on this forum or something - to see their own forum... is it BFL or Inaba? If the former wouldn't the BFL_Josh user be more appropriate? If the latter: why the misleading topic subject? Please clarify for those of us losing the distinction between the Inaba and BFL_Josh accounts. thanks I didn't know there was a distinction... |
|
|
|
Not too long ago Josh "Inaba" must have figured out that BFL was a losing venture, and secretly resigned. He then went to Tom and said, hey, can I work for you?
Tom said, sure. Here's your first task. Go into my forum and troll away. Make it look like you're attacking me, but in reality you're discrediting BFL and making bASIC look good.
Only thing that makes sense really.
M
+1, seriously, if I were Josh's boss I would fire him right away. All this is doing is making BFL look like a giant douche. |
|
|
|
Trolling from Inaba aside.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Doesn't seem worth the expensive.. now.. oil cooled asics... hrm might be an idea!
|
|
|
|
I don't even think they know what they are going to do with them yet.
they could turn them in to fpga mini rig thats doing 25gh but sell them not for 15k but for lower price... Just guessing...maybe they will get hundreds returnd just hang them on a pool some were ...  At their power ratings vs speed, the power will cost more than they'd make after just a couple months of people using ASICs. +1, I don't think there will be much use in the bitcoin world, but I am assuming they found some third party that uses them.. or maybe they will daisy chain them all and try to brute force wallets with high bitcoin amounts (jk) |
|
|
|
|
I will be keeping an eye on this thread ^^
|
|
|
|
LOL I think you missed the part where Cablepair said he went out of town.....
Nope, i'm aware of that. I was referring to his post that attracted inaba to the thread. (he called out *** on their 1W/Gh claim). This slingfest and negativity could have been avoided, and hopefully will stop now. I don't see an issue with calling out the 1 watt/gh claim. Esp. considering his supporting evidence shows that BFL has in the past grossly overestimated their stats. BFL numbers are based on calculations not actual devices. I will believe it when I see it given their past history. Tom has address the power issue here before, saying he would give an actual estimate when he has boards in his hand as he doesn't want to give an unreasonable number. He has stated his power draw will be competitive and I believe him given his past transparency and reliability. This is just Josh trolling plain an simple. I wish BFL would hire more competent people to handle PR as all Josh is doing his making his company look worse and as evidenced from this thread making people question (more so than Tom could ever do) if their purchase with BFL was right. |
|
|
|
blah blah blah I am a troll and try my hardest to make my shit company's rep even worse by trolling competitors...
Tom has already stated he will provide an estimate when he gets the boards. Since he wants to give a realistic number not a far-fetched (1 watt/gh) or broad (2-10 watt/gh) estimate. Yet here you are, bitching about transparency when you represent the company that is the LEAST transparent of all. Why are you so concerned about this Josh? Why do you feel the need to trying to force your competitor into giving numbers that aren't based on reality? Have you received a hint at what the actual performance of your (BFL) devices are and feel threatened? Unlike BFL, Tom seems to prefer to give realistic specs that are reliable (see MMQ vs BFL single past history) and can be trusted. |
|
|
|
|
Yamazaki 25 Years Old (actually maybe not.. what its $1000 usd?? xD)
Though some Japanese Whiskey would be nice if the price is reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
lol Inaba spreading FUD while Tom is out of town, real professional. I find it interesting that Tom uses past examples (ie facts) to explain why not to trust BFL's initial estimate then comes in here demanding simulation values. Notice how only BFL gives the claim of 1 gh/watt when even Avalon which actually has respectable engineers gives a much broader and realistic estimate of 2-10 watts/ghash. Tom also probably has the same high quality engineers (after all, the designed a better system than BFL would with the MMQ) who aren't so naive to say something is 1 gh/watt +/- 20%.
Stop wasting your time here Inaba and making BFL look worse than it already is; you should be spending time repairing the shit reputation that your company has gained from tactics that you are putting on display here (among the plethora of other shady half-truths your company makes).
|
|
|
|
|
Seems legit. Fear-mongering to sell a service.
|
|
|
|
I do not want to talk about the obvious and fundamental. You just lost all credibility. This conversation does not make sense. Not at this level.
It is obvious that you can do ASIC 100x faster than FPGA and can do FPGA 100x faster than ASIC. Not the point. The conversation is about the real possibility of the implementation of ASIC several times faster than the current leading FPGA chips (like Artix-7, Kintex-7,Virtex-7,Spartan-6), having a small budget. Do you know a company that did it? I not found any example.
Yes! The table you quoted was showing multiple ASIC implementations from multiple companies that significantly outperformed FPGAs. You rejected that argument, thinking one cannot replicate a small ~300MHz logic unit (20k gates) many times across the die area, but I pointed out to you this is possible by giving the example of a CPU with 10+ million gates running at 500MHz. Then you buried your head into the sand saying "Do not compare CPU with ASIC". A CPU is an ASIC. Maybe a better example to convince you would be to talk a GPU, where shaders occupy most of the die area and are precisely that: a small logic unit replicated many times across the die area. Perhaps another way to show it to you is as is. In your table: - The FPGA in [16] has a die size of 317 mm^2. Most of the space is occupied by slices, but let's be really conservative and say only half the die area is occupied by slices, or 150 mm^2. So they did 1Gbps by utilizing about 30 mm^2 of the die area (150 mm^2 * 2120 slices / 10752 total slices on the chip.)
- On the other hand the ASIC in [21] which I managed to track down was a reference to http://www.cast-inc.com/ip-cores/encryption/sha-256/cast_sha256.pdf is a SHA-256 core doing 2Gbps by utilizing only 0.25 mm^2 (PDF says exactly 250040 um^2).
So, obviously the chip doing twice the work in 1/120th the die space provides a building block that can be utilized to make a full-size chip that significantly outperforms FPGAs. Don't say again that "FPGAs progressed faster than ASICs", this is not true I have already pointed out that they both top out at 28nm today, so the comparison of FPGAs vs. ASICs made at the time your table was composed is still valid today. Also I already showed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95762.0 that manufacturing at 65nm costs only $500k which is clearly within reach of BFL's financial resources. If BFL had 65 nm process they would be talking about it since that would probably be smaller than any competitors, its this secrecy that makes me think they are starting with the largest die size. The other reason to start with largest die size is because you then have ways to continue selling asics in the future. For example, a year after their first asic sells, they can they say cell 65 or 90 nm.. then after that go even smaller. This would give their business longevity and room to grow, while maximizing profits. |
|
|
|
|
What the heck is going on in here?
|
|
|
|
|
great, i'll have to throw away some money later
|
|
|
|
Well regarding breaking down, it is good BFL has offered lifetime warranty, but as it has been discussed in another thread, a lifetime warranty means for the lifetime of a company, if the company closes, then the warranty disappears.
BFL is a fairly new company with no history so no-one knows how they will fare in the future.
This brings me to my point, if the Singles are still making money while BFL company closes down, then having a LITTLE SC Single going faulty would mean $649 loss vs $1299 loss if the SC Single went faulty.
Also: 2 x LITTLE SC Singles would have 2 power bricks, 2 enclosures, 2 circuit boards with all the power phase circuitry and chips that handle communications, so naturally 2 x LITTLE SC Singles should cost a bit more than 1 SC Single, but they actually end up costing $1 less.
The point here is not the $1, but the fact that the pricing is not fairly proportionate.
Are you so entitled that you feel you can dictate the proposed specs and price of BFL equipment? This entire thread is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
