The Chronos is probably the best priced, I admitted the Corsair Neutron is probably the better performer right now, but using a relatively new controller is an unknown factor. Atleast with that particular sandforce controller you know it's going to last, It's had time to prove itself. The Corsair GS, it's nothing special, it's new, but the Chronos was doing those numbers last year.
Yes I agree it's not the fastest because the Neutron beats it, but it's not 25% faster, maybe less than 5% faster. It's negligible when it's comes to know why you buying will be reliable with your data and will work without issues.

If money is not really an issue, the Corsair Neutron has the best guarantee at 5 years I believe. I might be wrong but most are 3 years. Worth checking out if their is any fine print on it. But that is nice to have if the worst happens.

Out of those 4, I would choose the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe.
It's one I usually suggest. It's a good reliable model.

Probably a good idea, glad it helped.

If I remember rightly, the molex connect can handle 5amps on the 5v and 12v line, so you looking at:
60w and 25w.
Then you have the PCIe itself, so that is another 75w.

So short answer, is no. I'm not seeing how they could do it, with just 1. But not all spartan 6's use 10watts.

If you really want to drool, just ask about their merrick 1, custom order board with 100 chips on one board, they usually do it with spartan 3's. Pretty sure you could ask for spartan 6's.

Those who did the pass-thru-bonds;

I'm not defending them, in fact with hindsight I'm sure even themselves think what they did was pretty bad decision. One could say stupid.
Hindsight is like that though, it's not kind to you when you did something that _could_ really turn around and bit you in the ass.
Pirate himself should of done these kind of bonds on GLBSE, got to ask why he did not. They got used.

They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, but the problem is it had a false bottom, pirate's already taken the cookies.
They are the ones left behind trying to explain they didn't steal the cookies.

Best to calm down, for those who lost big, do your best to make a legal case against pirate, their seems to be enough info floating around about him now.

Yes, I suppose you could, just like with any currency system or banking system where money gets pushed and pulled into an area where those banks find it hard to track where it went. It might work for a while, but given enough time, make no doubt it is traceable while your still leaving a trail behind.
You can stay quiet anom in bitcoin, but I wouldn't say you can't have you transaction traced, after all that part is very visible.

Thanks, I know where to start poking around now.

*tumble weed*

Guess over 100 views means, either my question is falling on deaf ears, is a silly question or no other big pools are doing it yet?

hmmm

I'd expect blockerupter (asicminer) to be first to start mining. BFL has a bad reputation of being over optimistic with it's first numbers they release, which applies to how long it takes them to put any product together and get it shipped. They also opted for a more complicated and harder to manufacture design process (they must of to make their numbers possible) so it's understandable that it might take longer for BFL to get it done in the time scale they set for themselves.

ASICminer and BFL both will be doing a burn in period for testing, BFL already do it with their products and ASICminer says they be doing it for testing also. So it kinda cancels out when paying customers will get their hands on it. The only theoretical advantage BFL has is that being US based, they will be a bit nearer to the majority of their market base, but past experiences showed that has not really applied yet.

This competition is good for bitcoin, it be nice to take BFL down a notch. I'd hoped it be done by Enterpoint (uk based), but they've not stepped up to that plate yet.

Good luck in filling your criteria, their is a lot of securities out their, not many that fill all of those.
I admit I have a few favourites, but they would fail at least one of those, so I won't suggest them.

Guess I just like the high risk rewards too much and I didn't even lose anything investing in pirate based bonds.

As already mentioned, using usb is just a little easier all round.

But enterpoint as a long time maker of general use FPGA's makes all kinds, they have done really big chip arrays that are PCI based.
http://enterpoint.co.uk/products/asic-development-high-performance-computing/merrick-3/

Their merrick-3 is one of their biggest spartan 6's and when it came to entering the bitcoin market, they still choose an entirely new design which was USB based. So if you want a concrete answer I'd ask Yohan at enterpoint why.

In my opinion:

I think that was a bad choice in bought equipment. Do more research first, why are you bulk buying dual chip boards when their are more than 1 quad core products in the market. These Quad-core ones are more cost effective I'll give an example of the one I know best.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78239.0

Buying a bulk order from Enterpoint, even taking into account shipping/duty costs which I'd imagine could add up abit ($500-1k) since your costs are based in US dollars, you can get the Cairnsmore1 (reporting over 800Mhash/s each) for $768 dollars when you bulk order them in the region of 50-99 of them. Just getting 50 of them would cost you less ($38.4k) and net you a higher Ghash/s (40Gh/s). The Artic silver and usb cables are unnecessary, at least with the cairnsmore1, they are already setup and provided.

With the amount of FPGA's you'll be getting you'll need a lot more PSU's or more powerful ones, you massively under-estimated how many you'll need in my opinion, since for one I'm not sure you can power them all, and even if you could your forgetting about having enough cables and spreading load appropriately . Also if you going to be getting that many FPGA's spend the extra money and get yourself a 4 x 1200+ watt modular PSU's Gold/Plat level ($300 x4), the Cairnsmore1 can use both molex and a 6pin from the PSU.
Don't forget you are going to need at least a powerful dedicated computer to handle the management of all these, not like you'd be able to run these off a simple atom processor, or a machine doing anything else, you are asking it to handle in the order of 200 spartan chips. Maybe consider 2 computers to handle this, after all you got enough PSU's.

You'd also be better off opting for some big 24 port usb hubs, the kind with big beefy 4amp power bricks, then only using them for 20/24 ports. So you'll need at least 3 of these (example: http://www.usbfever.com/index_eproduct_view.php?products_id=1661)

Don't get me started on the IPO dividend and initial price statements and of course you are selling so many shares it's as if you are selling more than your actual costs of the hardware (Approx 100k US dollars / 10k Btc). It's expensive as hell to be lent money via bitcoins since it seems the community has gotten use to these high % returns, so you don't want to be asking for more investor money than you need. If you can't find a way to front any of it yourself, it's going to cost you so much in the long run it's not worth going this route.
This makes it so you aren't even offering close to what the other mining companies are doing for a FPGA only mining operation which goes from 2.5% to 3.5% a weekly return, you have to see what a 0.7% weekly return looks like. It looks like a really raw deal for the investor, who see you really need to make a double take on your business plan and start again.

Advice to you:

Streamline what you need to be buying for your mining company, by looking into quad-core boards, pretty sure their is a US based provider as well (non-bfl). Most definitely look into re-evaluate all the other hardware you do need and don't. Don't under-estimate the importance of power stability, a good psu and powered hub matter a lot to nearly all FPGA's.

IPO offering, reduce the number of shares and it's price to approximately what you'd be paying for the hardware. Dividends should be at least 2.5%, if you can't do that you won't get any investors interested so you'd just be wasting your time even trying to go this route. Look into getting a business loan (outside of bitcoins) if you don't have the capital, it's the only reason why I think your trying to get $100k via this.

Generally speaking once one of the chips starts needing a pre-emptive erase it doesn't matter changing to another bitstream or controller.

Try both erasing with and without restarting in between a perma-flash, eventually you might luck out and it works.
But I agree with Doff's advice, a reliable usb hub does make a big difference here.

Probably a good thing, when I saw that, I was thinking... if he tries this won't end well.

I just realised. ( also yes you'll want to make sure it's got the right number of pins )
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cm1_rev_1_5_dip_sw.jpg

You'll notice at the bottom it says something to the effect off, if you want to program it, you have to have it plugged in directly to that board. So you can't plug the cable into the master board and flash program the slave one. I guess this is either not yet a feature or a hurdle that can't be done.

I ask the question of how many pools are experimenting with share difficulties of say 5, 10 or anything other than the standard 1?
My primary and backup pool have been the same for a long time. EMC and Slush

I like my primary pool and it has started allowing us to experiment with difficulty 10, which has worked out quiet well in my tests.
These tests seem to be Inaba getting ready for when ASIC come along and the network needs to prepare for them, FPGA farms also are making good use of higher difficulty shares atm.

I tried looking through various pool threads but without checking dozens of pages in every single major pools, not many are making it very public they doing it. So I'm curious what other Pools do this at the moment?

Is this the sort of USB blaster cable you have?
http://www.suntekstore.co.uk/goods.php?id=14003019&utm_source=gbuk

Just to confirm.

So naive, really you think yahoo covered them, on purpose? haha no. They were paid to indirectly by PRWeb.
Take a look again, see at the top where it says PRWeb, next to the date of the article.
That is the author, they are a syndicating press release company that has a connection to all the really big news sites.
Google it and read up on it, but essentially you pay money to submit it to PRWeb (£80/$120 I think), they don't unless you pay them change anything and submit it to sites like yahoo to be seen more publically.

It does not make them trustworthy, their actions (or sometimes inactions) are what counts. Like already stated try look into the forum area custom hardware where their is more than enough information surrounding them both good and bad points of the company.

Pirates investments could of been more contained if their was more vigilance on what securities was allowed, but hindsight is always a bitch.
Probably would of screwed just of many bitcoins out of investors, but the effect would of been to a relatively small number of people and not by association damaged the credibility of every single person who made a pass-thru-bond.

This will probably be a good thing, to make the process of making a security more difficulty, as long as it's not taken too far.
Small measures, in small steps - No need to issue a grenade when a pistol will do.